Aspect not time

[Lumen_et_umbra]

Do subjunctive forms in Latin only indicate the aspect of the apodosis with regard to the protasis, as Greek verbs?

[Emma_85]

All your long words confuse me... eventhough I know what they mean <br />Hope this helps:<br />In Latin they do have aspects but not like that have in Greek. So past in translated past and present is translated as present (except when it's historic present, and so on...).<br />Well, you probably you knew that anyway...

[Lumen_et_umbra]

What is the Historic Present again? Is the Historic Present analogous to the odd convention in English of speaking in the present tense in an essay on a given book, when the propensity is to speak in the aorist?

[Emma_85]

Historic present is when someone is telling a story in the past and then maybe in an important battle he will suddenly switch to present, because it then makes the reader feel more like they were there.

[Moerus]

In Latin each verb expresses time and aspect at the same time. In the subjonctive (or conjonctive) mostly the relation with the main verb is expressed and so they also express time, but in relation to the main verb.<br />I give an exemple: when you want to express that the verb in the subjonctive occurs at the same time as the mail verb you will use the subjonctive imperfect, when the main verb is past, but a subjonctive praesens when the main verb is present or in the future! At the same time the present or imperfect will have the aspect of duration. The action of the subjonctive will still GO ON, when the action of the main verb happens. So it has a duration in it, and therefore it expresses the simultanity with the main verb. In the subjonctive aspect and time are in relation with eadh other!

[Lumen_et_umbra]

Was that an irritated and angry reply or just a forceful one? <br /><br />Anyway, were you trying to say that a main clause with Historical Present has the imperferct or pluperfect subjunctive in the dependent clause?

[Moerus]

Was that an irritated and angry reply or just a forceful one? <br /><br />Anyway, were you trying to say that a main clause with Historical Present has the imperferct or pluperfect subjunctive in the dependent clause?

<br /><br />I'm not irritated or angry at all! I'm internationally known for my kindness! LOL! No, in fact I wrote a part of the reply, then did something else, and finally continued the next part. And I had difficulties to find the right English verbs, next time I will anser in Latin, I think, that's easier. <br /><br />I was not talking about the historical present at all, in fact in my anser the historical present must be treated as an imperfect and, so if he is followed by a subjonctive, yes it must be an imperfect or plqpf. However I was talking about a main verb in the present c. q. imperfect and a dependent clause with a subjonctive like cum + subjonctive. <br /><br />Did I sound that angry? Per omnes deos!<br /><br />Very friendly greetings, <br />Moerus

[bingley]

Moerus, I think L_et_U was talking to Emma, not you. ;D

[benissimus]

I think he was just frightened by Moerus' enthusiastic use of exclamation marks.

[Moerus]

Great isn't it, I love them, my exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!