Sī sē audiant, domum omnēs inde abitūrōs. If they followed the speaker's advice, they would all go home from there.
I know this is a mixed conditional. My grammars say they occasionally pop up, but I can't seem to find anything more about them.
Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:01 pm
Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
Last edited by wilhelmjohnson on Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
I don't think it's helpful to think of this as a "mixed" condition, although that is how some grammarians might analyze it. It's a combination of a present protasis, where there is no implication that the verb is contrafactual, and a future apodosis.
In direct speech, the speaker would have said:
Si me auditis, domum omnes hinc abibitis.
Both verbs would indicative. The verb in the protasis would be present because the speaker is speaking right now: "if you hear me", and the verb in the apodosis would be future because the event will occur after the speaker has finished speaking: "you will all go home from here."
In indirect speech, the verb in the protasis is present subjunctive (it could be imperfect subjunctive in a narration of past events, after a historical verb of speaking, but present subjunctive is more "vivid"), and the verb in the apodosis is future infinitive, the subject, [eos] omnes, being in the accusative.
Does this help?
Addendum: I corrected abibis to plural abibitis.
In direct speech, the speaker would have said:
Si me auditis, domum omnes hinc abibitis.
Both verbs would indicative. The verb in the protasis would be present because the speaker is speaking right now: "if you hear me", and the verb in the apodosis would be future because the event will occur after the speaker has finished speaking: "you will all go home from here."
In indirect speech, the verb in the protasis is present subjunctive (it could be imperfect subjunctive in a narration of past events, after a historical verb of speaking, but present subjunctive is more "vivid"), and the verb in the apodosis is future infinitive, the subject, [eos] omnes, being in the accusative.
Does this help?
Addendum: I corrected abibis to plural abibitis.
Last edited by Qimmik on Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:07 am
Re: Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
I will add a point or two since I found conditions in indirect discourse to be quite confusing when I started reading.
Firstly, a mixed condition usually refers to a conditional proposition in which the tenses of the protasis and the apodosis are different. If you look over your table of conditions, you'll see that in 'pure' conditions the tenses are the same in both. An example of a mixed condition (and Wheelockian brevity) might be "Si haec dixit, errabat." "If he (ever) said that, he was wrong (when he said it)." A mixed counterfactual: "Si morbidus non fuisset, viveret." "If he had not been (become) sick, he would be alive (now)."
Secondly, in the case you offer we are missing an introductory word, almost certainly dicit, and are therefore technically at any rate in primary sequence. Due to the future infintive, this was originally either a future less vivid (subjunctive in both clauses) or future more vivid (indicative) condition. There is no way to tell in indirect discourse since, as A&G state, "1. the protasis, being a subordinate clause, is always the subjunctive; 2. the apodosis, if not hortatory or optative, is always in some form of the infinitive; 3. the present subjunctive in the apodosis of less vivid conditions becomes the future infinitive. Thus there is no distinction between more or less vivid conditions in the Indirect Discourse." So, the speaker said either "Si me audietis, domum abibitis," "You will go home;" or "Si me audiatis, domum abeatis," "You would go home." The first is future more vivid, the latter less vivid.
Here's the full rundown from Allen & Greenough on what happens to conditions in what you are probably more used to referring to as oratio obliqua:
http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenoug ... r-589.html
Firstly, a mixed condition usually refers to a conditional proposition in which the tenses of the protasis and the apodosis are different. If you look over your table of conditions, you'll see that in 'pure' conditions the tenses are the same in both. An example of a mixed condition (and Wheelockian brevity) might be "Si haec dixit, errabat." "If he (ever) said that, he was wrong (when he said it)." A mixed counterfactual: "Si morbidus non fuisset, viveret." "If he had not been (become) sick, he would be alive (now)."
Secondly, in the case you offer we are missing an introductory word, almost certainly dicit, and are therefore technically at any rate in primary sequence. Due to the future infintive, this was originally either a future less vivid (subjunctive in both clauses) or future more vivid (indicative) condition. There is no way to tell in indirect discourse since, as A&G state, "1. the protasis, being a subordinate clause, is always the subjunctive; 2. the apodosis, if not hortatory or optative, is always in some form of the infinitive; 3. the present subjunctive in the apodosis of less vivid conditions becomes the future infinitive. Thus there is no distinction between more or less vivid conditions in the Indirect Discourse." So, the speaker said either "Si me audietis, domum abibitis," "You will go home;" or "Si me audiatis, domum abeatis," "You would go home." The first is future more vivid, the latter less vivid.
Here's the full rundown from Allen & Greenough on what happens to conditions in what you are probably more used to referring to as oratio obliqua:
http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenoug ... r-589.html
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
A few additional points:
It's difficult to imagine that this sentence would be a future "less vivid" condition in direct speech--it's nearly a command. "If you should hear me, you would all go straight home" doesn't seem right. "If you hear/are listening to me, you will go straight home" seems more likely.
As for the sequence of tenses, it's not uncommon to see the present subjunctive after a historical verb in subordinate clauses in indirect speech. Allen & Greenough 585b:
In any event, the verb in the protasis in direct speech would be present indicative. If this were purely a "future more vivid" conditional, the verb in the protasis in direct speech would be future perfect indicative--because the audience's departure would occur after the speaker finished speaking--and in indirect speech, that would translate into pluperfect or perfect subjunctive (A&G 484c). But in direct speech, the speaker would use a present indicative verb to refer to his own act of speaking and the audience's act of hearing in the present, while the speaker is speaking. Consequently a present subjunctive, not a pluperfect or perfect subjunctive, is used in indirect speech to represent the present indicative in direct speech. (Alternatively, an imperfect subjunctive could have been used to represent the present indicative, but here the writer has chosen to use the present subjunctive, as described in A&G 585b, above.)
You might call this a "mixed condition" because in direct speech the tense of the protasis verb would be present indicative and the tense of the apodosis would be future indicative, but I think it's better to avoid that terminology, which doesn't really add anything to the analysis. The tenses of the protasis and the apodosis in direct speech are simply the tenses dictated by the occurrences of the acts represented by the verbs: present in the case of the protasis and future in the case of the apodosis.
It's difficult to imagine that this sentence would be a future "less vivid" condition in direct speech--it's nearly a command. "If you should hear me, you would all go straight home" doesn't seem right. "If you hear/are listening to me, you will go straight home" seems more likely.
As for the sequence of tenses, it's not uncommon to see the present subjunctive after a historical verb in subordinate clauses in indirect speech. Allen & Greenough 585b:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001b. The Present and Perfect Subjunctive are often used in dependent clauses of the Indirect Discourse even when the verb of saying etc. is in a secondary tense:—
dīcēbant ... totidem Nerviōs (pollicērī) “quī longissimē absint” (B. G. 2.4) , they said that the Nervii, who live farthest off, promised as many.
[*] Note.--This construction comes from the tendency of language to refer all time in narration to the time of the speaker ( repraesentātiō ). In the course of a long pas sage in the Indirect Discourse the tenses of the subjunctive often vary, sometimes following the sequence, and sometimes affected by repraesentātiō. Examples may be seen in B. G. 1.13, 7.20, etc.
Certain constructions are never affected by repraesentātiō. Such are the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive with cum temporal, antequam , and priusquam .
In any event, the verb in the protasis in direct speech would be present indicative. If this were purely a "future more vivid" conditional, the verb in the protasis in direct speech would be future perfect indicative--because the audience's departure would occur after the speaker finished speaking--and in indirect speech, that would translate into pluperfect or perfect subjunctive (A&G 484c). But in direct speech, the speaker would use a present indicative verb to refer to his own act of speaking and the audience's act of hearing in the present, while the speaker is speaking. Consequently a present subjunctive, not a pluperfect or perfect subjunctive, is used in indirect speech to represent the present indicative in direct speech. (Alternatively, an imperfect subjunctive could have been used to represent the present indicative, but here the writer has chosen to use the present subjunctive, as described in A&G 585b, above.)
You might call this a "mixed condition" because in direct speech the tense of the protasis verb would be present indicative and the tense of the apodosis would be future indicative, but I think it's better to avoid that terminology, which doesn't really add anything to the analysis. The tenses of the protasis and the apodosis in direct speech are simply the tenses dictated by the occurrences of the acts represented by the verbs: present in the case of the protasis and future in the case of the apodosis.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:01 pm
Re: Si se audiant - Roma Aeterna XLV lines 41–42
I would like to thank both of you for your thoughtful responses. They were most helpful.