Textkit Logo

Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:28 pm

Hi.

About Gildersleeve & Lodge
Abridged Sentences
Oratio Obliqua
section 659. Unreal Conditions in Oratio Obliqua

(section number might be different among versions that are around)
sample 3.

Nisi eo ipso tempore nuntii de Caesaris victoria essent allati existimabant plerique futurum fuisse ut (oppidum) amitteretur,
Caes., B.C.,3-101-3
Had not the news of caesar's victory been brought at that very time, most persons thought the city would have been lost. (in Oratio Recta : nisi nuntii allati essent, oppidum amissum esset.)

I'm confused about the relation of tenses between allti essent and existimabant and futurum fuisse.

It looks like allati essent is determining the tense of existimabant.
But then it seems fit rather in the form futurum esse than futurum fuisse.

So I guess existimabant futurum fuisse might have been first composed, and then the tense of allati essent was adjusted to make the sentence "the sentence of Unreal Condition".


I'm sorry, I'm pretty confused.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Qimmik » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:58 pm

deleted
Last edited by Qimmik on Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:25 am

Hi again, Qimmik. :D
Thank you for answering my question


you wrote :
allati essent is pluperfect -- the protasis of a past unreal condition (in indirect speech/oratio obliqua). This remains the same as in direct speech.
.......
.......
In direct speech, this would be Nisi nuntii allati essent, futurum fuisset ut amitteretur.


Yes, that explanation is helpful.
But what is confusing me seems to be elsewhere.


I know about the construction of Unreal Condition, as I have read the sections that treat it these days (597 and those several sections that are linked from there),
though the construction of Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua is very difficult for me to understand.




I'm still confused, but if I explain my problem,

I feel the time of (futurum) fuisse is earlier than that of existimabant, in the tense relation,
But qui existimabant seem to be imagining about the future, from the impression of Nisi nuntii allati essent, existimabant plerique.
So I feel it has to be (futurum) esse, not (futurum) fuisse.

But I also think that existimabant might not be connected with the nisi clause in respect of the tense,
and that qui existimabant might be imagining the whole Nisi nuntii essent allati, futurum fuisset ut oppidum amitteretur,
if I force it into an ut sentence : existimabant ut futurum fuisset ut oppidum amitteretur nisi nuntii essent allati.
Then I can accept the (futurum) fuisse.
------
But to me the sentence also seems as if what is conditioned by the nisi essent allati was not the oppidum amissum esse,
but rather, by the nisi clause, why they existimabant so and so was explained, or conditioned,
Then I feel existimabant and the nisi clause is related in tense.
Then existimabant should, as I feel, take esse, not fuisse, since qui existimabant are imagining about the future, not about the past.
------
In understanding every given samples of the Unreal Conditions of Oratio Obliqua, this ambiguity puzzles me and keeps me in suspense.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:59 pm

Regulam tertiâ in clausulâ in grammaticâ de A&G nota.
Note the rule in 3 in A&G §589b.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+589 wrote:[*] b. In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:—
1. The Protasis always remains unchanged in tense.
2. The Apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the Participle in -ūrus with fuisse .
3. If the verb of the Apodosis is passive or has no supine stem, the periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut (with the Imperfect Subjunctive) must be used.
4. An Indicative in the Apodosis becomes a Perfect Infinitive.


Et hoc nota:
A&G §471c wrote:"The Imperfect sometimes denotes an action as begun (Inception Imperfect)...si licetum esset veniebant (Verr. v. 120), they were coming if it had been allowed (they were on the point of coming, and would have done so if, etc.)"

"If the news had not come [/been brought], most were ready to believe 'it is about to happen that the city will fall'"
"If the news had not come [/been brought], most were ready to believe that it was about to happen that the city would fall"

NOT this / NON est hoc: "Most were ready to believe this: 'it was about to happen that the city would fall if news of Caesar's victory had not come [/been brought].'"
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Qimmik » Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:16 pm

deleted
Last edited by Qimmik on Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:24 pm

Hi, Adrianus. :D

You asnswered about existimabant, that impf. ind., rather than futurm fuisse.
You understand that what is conditioned by the nisi nuntii essent allati seems to be existimabant plerique, not futurum fuisset ut oppidum amitteretur.

In Gildersleeve & Lodge,
Conditional Sentences,
3. Unreal Conditional Sentences,
section 597
Remark 2.
it is explained about the case where impf. ind. is used in the apodosis of Unreal Conditional Sentences.

In Unreal Conditions, after a negative Protasis, the Apodosis is sometimes expressed by the Impf. Indic., when the action is represented as interrupted (see section 233)


sample :
Labebar longius, nisi me retenuissem. (see section 254, remark 3)
(I was about to slide down further, if I had not retained myself)

And 254 explains about the Indic. mood.
Remark 1. says,

The Latin language expresses possibility and power, obligation and necessity, and abstract relations generally, as facts ; whereas, our translation often impliesthe failure to realise.

examples of translation : it is possible (but doesn't occur), I can (but do not), you should have (but did not), it had to be (but it didn't go so)

samples :
Possum persequi ... (I can persequor, but do not)
Longum est persequi ... (it will be too long if I persequor, so I do not)
Ad mortem te duci oportebat (you ought to have ..., but it didn' go so)
Volumnia debuit ... (Volumnia ought to have ..., but she didn't)
Vivum illinc exire non oportuerat (he should'nt have escaped alive, but he actually escaped)

Remark 3. says,

The Indic. is sometimes used in the leading clause (the Apodosis) of conditional sentences, thereby implying the certainty of the result, had it not been for the interruption......
With the Impf. the action is often really begun :


samples :
Labebar longius, nisi me retinuissem (I was letting myself go on too far, had I not checked myself.
Omnino supervacua eratdoctrina, si natura sufficeret (the Protasis can be positive in the post-Augustan writers) (training were wholly superfluous, did the Nature suffice.)
Preaclare viceramus, nisi Lepidus recepisset ... (We had gained a brilliant victory, had not Lepidus received ....)

Though it is not written in Gildersleeve & Lodge, the use of Indicative gives an impression of confidently judging something, compared with the weaker confidence expressed by the Subj..

And section 233, in which what you are saying is written,

[quote]The Imperfect is used of attempted and interrupted, intended and expected actions (Imperfect of Endeavor). It is a tense of disappointment and (with the negative) of Resistence to Pressure. [/quot]
examples of translation : was going to ..., was about to ..., was almost ...ed, attempted to ... (the result is unsaid), was expected to .. (but was not actually ...), would not (resistently)

samples :
Curiam relinquebat (he was for leaving the ...)
Lex abrogabatur (the law was about to be abolished)
ostendebatur quomodo ... (an attempt was made to show how ...)
Aditum non dabat (he would not grant access)

Though different from the Subj. which expresses the speaker's imagination as an imagination, this use of the Impf. Indic. resembles it in expressing the speaker's imagination almost as a fact.
So this Impf. Indic. could be called another Subj..






By the way, I would like to ask you about Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua.
Gildersleeve & Lodge gives these patterns.

A.Dico (dixi), te,

..... I've written too long, (having much time and idle energy since it is Sunday today), I ask you tomorrow about this.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Qimmik » Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:29 pm

Adrianus has pointed to the right section of Allen & Greenough to explain the construction existimabant plerique futurum fuisse uti [oppidum] amitteretur. This is simply an idiomatic way of putting a past unreal condition into indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) with a passive verb, and the tenses of the individual verb forms shouldn't be analyzed individually. I have to admit I was unaware of this construction and I can't recall having encountered it many times (maybe I read past it without analyzing it).

However, as the translation in Allen & Greenough indicates, existimabant is not an indicative apodosis of an unreal condition. The translation is: "most people thought that unless at that time reports of Caesar's victory had been brought, the town would have been lost." Not "unless . . . the reports had been brought, most people were ready to believe that the town would have been lost." The condition in direct speech is nisi nuntii allati essent, opidum amissum esset.

It's true that the imperfect can have an inceptive or conative meaning (Allen and Greenough 471c, Gildersleeve and Lodge 233), but with a verb such as existimo, the imperfect generally just "denotes an action or a state as continued or repeated in past time". Allen & Greenough 470:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+470&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

The examples in Allen & Greenough with censebat and putabatur illustrate this.

Gildersleeve and Lodge 231.

Adrianus wrote:

"If the news had not come [/been brought], most were ready to believe 'it is about to happen that the city will fall'"
"If the news had not come [/been brought], most were ready to believe that it was about to happen that the city would fall"


Adrianus's translations may have been attempting to give effect to what I wrote in my misleading post, which I deleted. But they unnecessarily complicate the original passage from the Bellum Civile. Once again, the construction existimabant plerique futurum fuisse uti [oppidum] amitteretur is simply an idiomatic way of putting a past unreal condition into indirect discourse with a passive verb, and the tenses of the individual verb forms futurum fuisse shouldn't be analyzed individually.

I apologize for my previous erroneous and misleading post.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:39 pm

Qimmik wrote:Adrianus's translations may have been attempting to give effect to what I wrote in my misleading post, which I deleted.
I can tell you I was attempting to translate from the Latin, Qimmik, and not give effect to what you wrote. I can't check what you did write because you deleted it. That affects the following replies, but that's a small thing.
Verum dico, e latinis verbis verti non ex eis quae tu scripsisti et delevisti. Epistulis ablatis, responsa sequentia confunduntur—parvum autem est at obruit tuam sententiam.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:30 am

Hi Qimmik and Adrianus.

Qimmik write :
This is simply an idiomatic way of putting a past unreal condition into indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) with a passive verb, and the tenses of the individual verb forms shouldn't be analyzed individually


I see. Just an idiomatic way of rendition. OK.


Qimmik wrote :
Adrianus's translations may have been attempting to give effect to what I wrote in my misleading post, which I deleted.......I apologize for my previous erroneous and misleading post.


No, you didn't take the sentence as "if the news had not come, most were ready to believe...". It was I who introduced that reading. You from the first time were saying "if the news had not come" was the condition for "futurum fuisse ut amitteretur", not for "existimabant". So I think you didn't have to delete that post.




To Adrianus,
Do you think the sentence

Nisi eo ipso tempore nuntii de Caesaris victoria essent allati existimabant plerique futurum fuisse ut (oppidum) amitteretur,


can be taken both ways, if you don't consider the context of Caesar, B.C. ?
I mean,
reading 1. nisi essent allati, existimabant .... (if the news had not come, most were ready to believe...)
and reading 2. existimabant futurum fuisset ut .... nisi essent allati. (most were thinking that had not the news arrived at that very time the city would have been lost.)





Well, I still have a little doubt in the explanation of Gildersleeve & Lodge.

In G&L,
Conditional Sentences
3. Unreal Conditional Sentences (section 597 in my version)
Remark 4.

these patterns of rendering Unreal Conditiional Sentences into Oratio Obliqua are shown.

A. Dico (dixit), te, si id crederes, erraturum esse.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, erraturum fuisse.
A. Dico (dixi), te, si id crederes, fore ut decipereris.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, futurum fuisse ut decipereris.


What puzzles me is A (both active A and passive A).
As I feel, erraturum fuisse seems better than erraturum esse, as a rendition from errares.
By using fuisse, I think, the nuance of Unreal Imagination could be expressed.
If you use esse rather than fuisse, I think the time of erraturum esse becomes later than the time of crederes, which is not good as a rendition from si crederes, errares.
The same can be said about fore ut decipereris.
I'm not sure I could express my thinking very well, though.




I'm not in a hurry.
So you can give me answers sometime later in this week.
Why I say this is because replies can often become too long for detailed explanation, that takes us too much energy and time.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:06 pm

Junya wrote:To Adrianus,
Do you think the sentence
Nisi eo ipso tempore nuntii de Caesaris victoria essent allati existimabant plerique futurum fuisse ut (oppidum) amitteretur,

can be taken both ways, if you don't consider the context of Caesar, B.C. ?
I mean,
reading 1. nisi essent allati, existimabant .... (if the news had not come, most were ready to believe...)
and reading 2. existimabant futurum fuisset ut .... nisi essent allati. (most were thinking that had not the news arrived at that very time the city would have been lost.)

Qimmik was right to point out that "existimabant is not an indicative apodosis of an unreal condition". So it must be "most people thought..." + indirect speech [protasis + apodosis] and not protasis + apodosis [ "most people thought..." + indirect speech]. I translated the way I did because I saw "most people" as most people in the town thinking "at that very moment" about what was about to happen and not people generally thinking about what would have happened if the news hadn't arrived [I thought that sounded odd]. Only "most people thought..." + indirect speech [protasis + apodosis] fits the A&G explanation for "futurum fuisse", however.
De clausularum ordine et explicatione in illâ grammaticâ de A&G, rectè dicit Qimmik. Aptus hic ordo solus: "existimabant" cum oratione obliquâ quae protasin et apodosin continet. Ego aliter verti quod ut populum oppidi finxi pro "plerique" adjectivo et in viam falsam erravi.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:07 pm

Junya wrote:What puzzles me is A (both active A and passive A).
As I feel, erraturum fuisse seems better than erraturum esse, as a rendition from errares.
By using fuisse, I think, the nuance of Unreal Imagination could be expressed.
If you use esse rather than fuisse, I think the time of erraturum esse becomes later than the time of crederes, which is not good as a rendition from si crederes, errares.
The same can be said about fore ut decipereris.

The point, I think, is that "futurum fuisse" is later than "futurum esse" [or "fore"]. You say that "erraturum esse" in the apodosis sounds later than the imperfect subjunctive in the protasis but I think you just have to live with that as a subjective annoyance until the annoyance fades away in time, hopefully. Usage trumps theory in language, I reckon.
Ante autem "futurum esse" [vel fore] venit "futurum fuisse", per quod tempus distinguitur. Alienum tibi est protasin verbum imperfecti temporis habere cum verbo in apodosi futuri temporis infinitivo modo,—at tibi ineptia peculiaris est quae posteriùs evanescat. Significantior consuetudo linguae quam theoria, puto.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:47 am

Thank you Qimmik and Adrianus.
My problem is gone now.


Adrianus wrote :
Qimmik was right to point out that "existimabant is not an indicative apodosis of an unreal condition". So it must be "most people thought..." + indirect speech [protasis + apodosis] and ..........Only "most people thought..." + indirect speech [protasis + apodosis] fits the A&G explanation for "futurum fuisse",


Yes, now I totally agree with Qimmik.




Adrianus, about that doubt which Oratio Obliqua rendition is right, te erraturum esse or te erraturum fuisse, as rendered from errares in Unreal Conditional Sentence (the grammar book says te erraturum esse is right), you advise me just to live with that as a subjective annoyance, just to understand that the usage has trumped theory.
OK, I accept it as a usage.
But one more question.
You say subjective.
Did you once feel that subjective annoyance about this matter, or not at all from the first look of this construction ?
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:22 pm

Junya wrote:Did you once feel that subjective annoyance about this matter, or not at all from the first look of this construction ?

Tot mihi sunt aliena qui facundè latinè non loquar; dein regulam loquendi ostensam in quâ grammaticâ non arguo.
So many things are strange to me because I'm not fluent that I'm quite accepting if something is presented as the right way to say something in a grammar.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:44 am

Then I will accept, too.
But I can't halp thinking where I cannot understand.


About these patterns of rendering Unreal Conditiional Sentences into Oratio Obliqua,

A. Dico (dixit), te, si id crederes, erraturum esse.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, erraturum fuisse.
A. Dico (dixi), te, si id crederes, fore ut decipereris.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, futurum fuisse ut decipereris.


What do you think the Fut. Participle is used for ?
Is it used to give a Subjunctive-like function to the Inf. (a subjective vision of present or future, or past, all represented to the mind as a kind of future), and not to be understood as meaning Indic. Fut. (a factual future) ?

(Iust to remember,
A. dico te is crederes erraturum esse. is O.O. of si crederes, errares, and this Impf. Subj. are meaning a Present Unreal Condition and a Present Unreal Result.)

Also, I have a problem in judging which the Inf. is coupled with in tense relation, with the main verb (dico), or with the conditional clause (si crederes).
It's very ambiguous.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Interaxus » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:16 am

Junya,

Turns out your comment is very perceptive indeed.

But did you also perceive the short sentence directly following your quote from Gildersleeve & Lodge on page 386, section 597, Remark 4:

“A is very rare; A, [A in italics in the book = the second A in your post, Junya] (is) theoretical.

In Anne Mahoney’s ‘Essential Latin Grammar’ (a revision of Bennett’s New Latin Grammar) it says in parag 321, under the heading ‘The Apodosis’: “The Imperf Subj of the Direct Discourse becomes the Fut Infinitive. But this construction is rare.”

Woodcock, in ‘A New Latin Syntax’ (1959, reprint 2005), is totally dismissive. He puts the whole issue down to a munk’s typo while copying Caesar. On pages 236-7 he writes:
“As it is logically impossible for –urum esse to represent any idea which has not reference to the future (i.e. which is not still capable of fulfilment at the time of speaking), it is clear that the following passage ought be emended: Caes. B.G. 5,29. … “

He then describes in some detail the inconsistencies in the B.G. passage, ending up by noting: “The transposition of letters from ‘sese’ to ‘esse’ is a common type of palaegraphical error.” Nihil novi sub sole! :D

Since the occurrence of this particular(ly) heinous construction is so extremely rare, it seems unlikely to have kept friend Adrianus or any other keen Latinist awake at night.

Vale!
Int
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Qimmik » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:12 pm

"The Imperf Subj of the Direct Discourse becomes the Fut Infinitive. But this construction is rare."

If I ever learned this rule (it would have been cir. 1960-1), I had completely forgotten it, and I can't recall ever having stumbled over it in reading (though I've probably read more Latin poetry than prose in the intervening years, and this sort of thing just doesn't show up in Latin poetry). This exercise has been a good opportunity to review some grammar.

Thanks for your clarification, Interaxus. But I hope you'll forgive me if I couldn't resist finding some slight amusement in "a munk’s typo".
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:46 pm

Hi Interaxus and Qimmik. :)
Interaxus and Qimmik say one would almost never encounter this syntactical difficulty in reading actual texts,
so I feel I am advised to leave off thinking about this matter as it is only a trifling matter,
and now I hesitate to post further questions about this problem.
Is it ok if I asked you further on ?






One or two days ago I posted:

Well, I still have a little doubt in the explanation of Gildersleeve & Lodge.

In G&L,
Conditional Sentences
3. Unreal Conditional Sentences (section 597 in my version)
Remark 4.

these patterns of rendering Unreal Conditiional Sentences into Oratio Obliqua are shown.


A. Dico (dixit), te, si id crederes, erraturum esse.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, erraturum fuisse.
A. Dico (dixi), te, si id crederes, fore ut decipereris.
B. Dico (dixi), te, si id credidisses, futurum fuisse ut decipereris.


What puzzles me is A (both active A and passive A).
As I feel, erraturum fuisse seems better than erraturum esse, as a rendition from errares.
By using fuisse, I think, the nuance of Unreal Imagination could be expressed.
If you use esse rather than fuisse, I think the time of erraturum esse becomes later than the time of crederes, which is not good as a rendition from si crederes, errares.
The same can be said about fore ut decipereris.
I'm not sure I could express my thinking very well, though.


Interaxus, yes,
in Woodcock, New Latin Syntax, p.235, the table of patterns of rendering O.R. into O.O.,
3. Present Unreal
O.R.
Si hoc diceret, erraret.
O.O.
Censeo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum fuisse.
Censebam, si hoc diceret, errraturum fuisse.

Woodcock says it should be -urum fuisse, not -urum esse.
That's what I thought right for the rendering of Present Unreal sentence into O.O...
Then should I consider Gildersleeve&Lodge is wrong as to the way of rendering Present Unreal sentences into O.O. (it says -urum esse is right) ?



About Gildersleeve&Lodge's O.O..
errares can mean both "you would be in error (now)" and "you would (in the future) be in error".
I guess si crederes, errares as O.R. of Dico te si crederes erraturum esse was meaning "you would (in the near future) be in error" originally, not "you would be in error (now)".
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:01 am

Junya wrote:About Gildersleeve&Lodge's O.O..
errares can mean both "you would be in error (now)" and "you would (in the future) be in error".
I guess si crederes, errares as O.R. of Dico te si crederes erraturum esse was meaning "you would (in the near future) be in error" originally, not "you would be in error (now)".

Si id credas, erres = [Hypothetically speaking] if you were to believe that, you would be wrong
Si id crederes, errares = [You don't but] if you believed that [now or even potentially], you would be wrong [—you cannot now believe that because you don't actually believe that now—in that false scenario suggested by a past subjunctive tense applied to a condition that has passed, according anyway to A&G §517n.1, // in illâ circumstantiâ non jam possible quam indicat subjunctivi modi usus praeterito tempore quod decessa est occasio eveniendi, secundum A&G §517n.1]

Dico te, si id crederes, erraturum esse.
I maintain that, if you believed that [at this present moment] you would be wrong [in that false scenario suggested by a past subjunctive tense in connection with a condition that has passed, because at this present moment you don't believe it]

Dico te, si id credidisses, erraturum fuisse.
I maintain that, if you had believed that [in the past] you would have been wrong [in that false scenario suggested by a past subjunctive tense in connection with a condition that has passed, because at that moment you didn't believe it]

Junya wrote:What do you think the Fut. Participle is used for ?
Is it used to give a Subjunctive-like function to the Inf. (a subjective vision of present or future, or past, all represented to the mind as a kind of future), and not to be understood as meaning Indic. Fut. (a factual future) ?
I suppose so. That sounds reasonable to me (or bits of that). A potential dimension of what might have been but isn't or wasn't at the time since false, and not what might be at some future point.
Justum quod dicis vel justae partes eius. Materiae spatium quod includit actiones impossibiles vel falsas solas in eo tempore justo spatii describendi.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:20 pm

:D

Adrianus wrote :
Dico te, si id crederes, erraturum esse.
I maintain that, if you believed that [at this present moment] you would be wrong [in that false scenario suggested by a past subjunctive tense in connection with a condition that has passed, because at this present moment you don't believe it]


Thank you, that explains very clearly to me.
I was a little uncertain about why they used Impf. Subj. for expressing a Present Unreal Condition and Result.
(I had partially understood it by literally translating it into Japanese. The Japanese language also uses a lot of past tenses, Impf., Pf., Plupf., Futpf., in expressing Unreal Conditional sentences. I also use this translation technique in understanding strange-looking Aor. and Pf. and the like past tenses in Greek.)
By your explanation of that, now I feel I can understand that erraturum esse, futurum esse.
Can I understand the Impf. Subj. Apodosis is expressing a kind of parallel world ?

But I still feel erraturum fuisse would fit better as the O.O. of Present Unreal result errares,
since fuisse would be able to express the Unreal imagined result better than esse,
according to your explanation, you would be wrong [in that false scenario suggested by a past subjunctive tense in connection with a condition that has passed, because at this present moment you don't believe it].
Past tense by itselfm even in Indic. mood, can express an Unreal Imagination (as I understand from that translation technique I mentioned above. I think Gildersleeve and Lodge also has sections for such uses.).






Finally, about the understanding of Fut. pt. -urum, there is further problem to me. If you are not annoyed by my persistency and allowed me, I will ask it.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby adrianus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:05 am

Junya wrote:Finally, about the understanding of Fut. pt. -urum, there is further problem to me. If you are not annoyed by my persistency and allowed me, I will ask it.

Surely everyone is interested in hearing about the problem.
Nonnè omnis vult audire quid sit quod te consternet?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Qimmik » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:52 pm

I think you need to keep in mind the fact that the "rules" are simply generalizations extracted by scholars (to a large extent very diligent German scholars in the mid-19th century to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude) by considering as many examples as possible in the body of texts surviving from the classical period, which have not always been transmitted in perfect condition. There are apparently very few examples of unreal conditions in indirect discourse (o.o.). So we should be cautious about accepting the rules as stated by the authorities. We simply have to live with a certain amount of uncertainty on this point. Woodcock writes with confidence, of course, but given the small body of evidence, we can't be entirely sure he's right, especially when he resorts to claims that the text is corrupt in order to fit it within his preconceived ideas about the syntax of these clauses. I would suggest not lingering too long over an obscure point like this, and, instead, trying to understand each instance of an unreal condition in indirect discourse on its own terms when--and if--we encounter it.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Interaxus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:35 pm

Adrianus, Quimmik, Junja:

In the belief that using Latin actively will help me enjoy my beloved Horace & Co even more, and at the risk of lowering the level of this present debate, I'd like to run my basic understanding of the esse/fuisse dichotomy past you all, experts that you are.

Woodcock himself doesn’t translate his Direct Speech or Indirect Speech examples to English so I’ve taken the liberty of providing my own rough-and-ready English versions. I’ve also added some ‘exemplifications’ of my own. Please forgive, correct or ignore!

3. PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-fact):

“Si hoc diceret, erraret.”
(If he said that, he would be wrong)
<Eduardus Snowden “Si”, inquit, “ cives scirent, turbarentur.>
<Eduardus says/said: “If the people knew, they’d be upset.>


Censeo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I think that if he said that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Eduardus censet, si cives scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.>
<Eduardus thinks that if the people knew, they’d be upset.>


Censebam, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I thought that if he said that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Eduardus censebat, si cives scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.>
<Eduardus thought that if the people knew, they’d be upset.>


7. FUTURE IDEAL (Future Less Vivid):

”Si hoc dicat, erret.”
(If he should say that, he would be wrong)
<Si Lisa praeses fiat, mundum reddat.>
<If Lisa Simpson should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet.>

Censeo, si hoc dicat, eum erraturum ESSE.
(I think that if he should (ever) say that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Censeo, si Lisa praeses fiat, eam mundum reddituram ESSE.>
<I think that if Lisa should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet.>

Censebam, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum ESSE.
(I thought that if he should (ever) say that, he WOULD BE wrong.)
<Censebam, si Lisa praeses fiebat, eam mundum reddituram ESSE.>
<I thought that if Lisa should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet. Perhaps she will.>

8. Future Logical (Future More Vivid):

“Si hoc dicet, errabit”.
(If he says that, HE’LL BE wrong)

O.O – (No difference from no. 7.)
(Can anyone provide the two missing examples that Woodcock blandly says are ‘no different from no. 7’?)

Actually, I’d like to see more (and better) examples of these tricky constructions used in real-life/ familiar contexts. The repetitive schematic “I think/thought that if you say/said that ...” just isn’t enough.

Anybody?

Vale!
Int
Last edited by Interaxus on Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:55 pm

Hi Qimmik :)
Hi Interaxus :)
Hi Adrianus :)


Qimmik wrote :
I think you need to keep in mind the fact that the "rules" are simply generalizations extracted by scholars (to a large extent very diligent German scholars in the mid-19th century to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude) by considering as many examples as possible in the body of texts surviving from the classical period


That's what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how grammars are made. It was a mystery I have wondered about as much as I wondered how dictionaries are made.


Qimmik wrote :
I would suggest not lingering too long over an obscure point like this, and


It sounds like I might be held in contempt by you if I post further questions and my thinking.
Ok.
But I wish you can understand that this is the process of me (not a mature Latinist at all) understanding Latin grammar.
And I even have got flashes of new ideas, exchanging several posts here.




Interaxus wrote :
3. PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-fact):

“Si hoc diceret, erraret.”
(If he said that, he would be wrong)
<Si Eduardus domum rediret, insanus esset.>
<If Edward Snowden returned home, he’d be mad.>

Censeo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I think that if he'd said that, he WOULD HAVE BEEN wrong)
<Censeo, si Eduardus domum rediret, eum insanum futurum FUISSE.
<I think that if Edward had returned home, HE’D HAVE BEEN mad.>


This Cenceo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum fuisse is Present Unreal Condition & Result, according to Woodcock,
but looking at your translation, which is different from Woodcock's intention, I am recalled to that question

"In O.O. of Unreal Conditional Sentence, to which the tense of the Inf. is related, to the verb of the conditonal clause, or to the main verb of the sentence ?"

I asked that above, but nobody's answered to it yet.


By the way, Interaxus,
don't you think remembering a lot of actual usages of Unreal Conditional Sentence in one's own language may help deeply understanding the construction of Latin Unreal Conditional Sentence ?
I've got an idea, that by remembering the parallel examples of each Latin grammar (or Greek, or any language's) in one's own language, one might be lead to a grasp of grammar itself, or, grammar in general, that may (if roughly) rule every language in the world.
I think so as I often notice a similarity or even identity between the grammar of Latin and that of Japanese, when I try literally translating Latin into Japanese.





Adrianus, I ask you again.
Can I ask further about the reason why Fut. pt. -urum is used, after Qimmik advised me to leave off this thinking ?
Now I'm hesitating.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Interaxus » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:37 am

Junja,

I've edited my original post. Hope it's better now.

Vale!
Int
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:32 am

Think of examples in your own language of Oratio Obliqua, or Unreal Conditional Sentence, or any grammatical structure listed in Latin grammar, then you'll notice some similarity in the use of, for example, tenses between your language and Latin.
So, while just reading Latin grammar book often gives us complicated understanding and leaves us vague, this method can perhaps give us a more deeper, from-the-inside understanding of Latin grammar.


Let me remember Japanese examples of Unreal Conditional Sentences.

1. Present Unreal Condition :
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashii.
If I literally translate it,
If you died, I am sad.

One can also say,
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashii darou.
Literal translation :
If you died, I would be sad. (or, it can be translated "I will be sad".)

But, Japanese don't say, (though the one who hears it will understand it, while feeling it is of a little strange structure.)
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashikatta,
(literal trans. : If you died, I was sad.)
neither can we say,
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashikatta darou,
(literal trans. : If you died, I would have been sad.= I would be going to be sad.)



English speaking people, too, may get some insight by literally translating Latin into English without modifying it with the normative grammar, and then by testing if the translation can be sufficiently understood without modification, or even can be spoken by somebody if he spoke without caring about the normative grammar.



Using Pf. for the Protasis,
moshi anataga shindeshimattara, watashiha kanashii.
(literal trans. a little off the normative grammar : if you have died, I am sad.)

moshi anataga shindeshimattara, watashiha kanashii darou.
(literal trans. : if you have died, I would be sad, or I will be sad.)




2. Past Unreal Conditional :

moshi anataga anotoki hutawo aketeitara, watashiha hutawo shimeteita.
(literal trans. without obeying to the normative English grammar : If you had opened the lid at that time, I had shut the lid then.)

One can also say :
moshi anataga anotoki hutawo aketeitara, watashiha hutawo shimeteita darou.
(literal trans. : If you had opened the lid at that time, I would have shut the lid then.)




This post is just for a kind of trial.
If anybody got interested, I will add further.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:35 pm

I tried composing Japanese version of Unreal Conditional sentences,
and I thought I found these things.

1.
In Oratio Obliqua of Unreal Conditional,
the Inf. seems to be related to the main
verb of the sentence in tense,
rather than to the si clause.
Because, when I was translating the
O.O. of Japanese Unreal Conditional into Latin,
I noticed that I always decide the tense of
the Inf. in accordance with the main verb.
("In O.O. of Unreal Conditional Sentence,
to which the tense of the Inf. is related,
to the verb of the conditonal clause, or to the main verb of the sentence ?"
I have thrown this question twice above.)

2.
In composing Japanese versions, I found
the tenses can be, when appearing variously
in one sentence, decided by an
arbitrary point of view of the speaker,
in Japanese.
And I thought this could be the case also in the real spoken Latin.

3.
I think there were many variations
in the tenses of Protasis and Apodosis of
Unreal Conditional of Latin,
and that the extant texts which grammarians gathered
may be showing only a part of them.


Pease give me your opinion about these thinking.




Here are my compositions
that have led the above thinking.

2.
Past Unreal Conditional

Possible way of speaking, version 1
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteita.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itteita (had gone).

Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habueras, ieras in Americam.

Latin translation (nearer to the instruction of grammar) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses,
ieras (confidence expressed with Indic.) in Americam.

Latin translation (more nearer to the instruction of grammar) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isses in Americam.


Possible way of speaking, version 2
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itta.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itta (have gone :
I'm not sure why
we can use Pf. here, but maybe the point of view is
including the whole past, Plupf. past and Pf. past.
And using Pf. makes the assertational
effect stronger than Plupf..).

Latin translation (literal) :
si tunce pecuniam habuisses, isti in Americam.


Possible way of speaking, version 3
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteitadarou.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itteitadarou (would have had gone).

Latin translation :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isses in Americam.


Possible way of speaking, version 4
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe ikutokorodatta.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) ikutokorodatta (was going to go).

Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, eras itura in Americam
(using Impf. looking at the attempted action
as kept unrealised in a span of time).

Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, fuisti itura in Americam
(using Pf. looking at the attempted action
as attempted at a pont of time).

Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, ibas in Americam
(this Impf. usage is also listed
in Gildersleeve & Lodge, 597 Remark 2).


2-2.
O.O. of Past Unreal Conditional

Possible way of speaking, version 1
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteta to omou.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money)
motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteita (had gone) to omou (I think that).

Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam
(couldn't make a literal translation
since there is no Plupf. Inf. in Latin).

Latin translation (nearer to the instruction of grammare) :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, fuisse ituram in Americam.


Possible way of speaking, version 2
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe ittetadarou to omou.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteitadarou (would have had gone)
to omou (I think that).


Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, ituram fuisse in Americam
(couldn't make a literal translation
since there is no Plupf. Inf. in Latin).
Another trans.,
Censeo potuisse te, si tunc p. h., isse in Americam.


Possible way of speaking, version 3
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteiru to omou.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteiru (have gone : uttered from a present point of view)
to omou (I think that).


Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam


Possible way of speaking, version 4
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteirudarou to omou.

moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteirudarou (would have gone : uttered from a present point of view)
to omou (I think that).


Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam
(couldn't make a literal translation
since there is no Subj. Pf. Inf. in Latin).
Maybe,
Censeo posse te, si tunc ...., isse in Americam.






....oh, I'm tired.




1. Present Unreal Conditional
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Interaxus » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:44 am

1.

Junya:

Si saeculo undevicesimo viveres, dissertationem apud universitatem Germanam scriberes. Longam barbam albam gereres.
<If you were living in the 19th century, you’d be writing your dissertation at a German university. You’d have a long white beard.>

Dico/Dixit te, si saeculo undevicesimo viveres, dissertationem apud universitatem Germanam scripturum fuisse. Longam barbam albam gesturum fuisse.
<I say/said that if you were living in the 19th century, you’d be writing your dissertation at a German university. You’d have a long white beard.>

Joking aside, si Japonice loquerer, fortasse ea quae scripsisti intellegerem.
(Dico/dixi me, si Japonice loquerer, fortasse intellecturum fuisse.)

As regards your ‘thrice-unanswered question’, I understand you to mean: “Does the tense of the Infinitive in an Unreal Conditional sentence relate to the verb of the subordinate (subjunctive) clause or to the introductory/head verb (eg dico/dixi)?”

Moreland & Fleischer (Latin, an Intensive course, p 399) give these examples:

Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)

Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)

Here the 'tense' (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause, "the tense of which is the same as it would have been in the direct statement".

2.

For anyone interested (Quimmik, Adrianus?), here’s chapter and verse on Woodcock’s objection to ‘futurum esse’ in Present Unreal Conditions and the tired munk’s ‘typo’. It’s an essay from around 1900!
[url]
https://archive.org/details/jstor-288405[/url]

3.

I’ve edited my earlier post for the third and final time. I’ve settled for:

PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-Fact):

“Si”, inquit Eduardus Snowden, “ cives haec scirent, turbarentur.”
<Edward says/said: “If the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>

Eduardus censet, si cives haec scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.
<Eduardus thinks that if the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>

Eduardus censebat, si cives haec scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.
<Eduardus thought that if the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>

Vale!
Int
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:19 pm

Thank you for replying, Interaxus ! :D
Sorry for responding this late, I was watching the Sochi Olympic women's figure skate late at night and couldn't study yesterday.


2.
The journal you introduced to us is interesting.
That'll answer my question.
I will read it later.



1.
Interaxus wrote :
As regards your ‘thrice-unanswered question’, I understand you to mean: “Does the tense of the Infinitive in an Unreal Conditional sentence relate to the verb of the subordinate (subjunctive) clause or to the introductory/head verb (eg dico/dixi)?”

Moreland & Fleischer (Latin, an Intensive course, p 399) give these examples:

Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)

Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)

Here the 'tense' (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause, "the tense of which is the same as it would have been in the direct statement".




I'm glad that that question is
now answered.
But could you explain why you understand that
"Here the 'tense' (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause,"
as I am not sure and can't understand that way ?
--
And I have a feeling
that the tense of Inf. can be
had in the speaker's mind
totally separate from the tense of the
si clause (the subordinate clause, as you call),
like being thought absolutely
as an Independent Sentence,
--
and then is combined with
an Unreal Conditional clause.
--
And I feel the O.O. sentence of Unreal Conditional sentence (like, Dico te, si -eres, -rum fuisse) is combined in a way similar
to the way a sentence
vereor ut amicus veniat
is combined,
I mean, here vereor
and ut amicus veniat
are separately conceived
as if each is an Independent Sentence.
I mean, Dico te -rum fuisse, and, si -eres, can be conceived separately.


By the way, this Moorland & Fleischer, too, seems to be different from Gildersleeve & Logde (and agreeing with E.C.Woodcock) in presenting the O.O. of Present Unreal Conditional.
G&L would write
Dicit si insidias ..... facerent, consulem eos oppressurum esse.


Using Pf. fuisse, I feel, gives to the Inf. part of an O.O sentence
an Unreal Conditional atmosphere (so, not just a literal transfiguration of Past tense form of O.R. verb into Inf. form), even when it is Independent
(here I mean, independent from a si clause.
You know, there are such
ways of making an Independent Sentence.
Like, just saying "I could do it.", implying "if such and such
condition was satisfied", but leaving it unsaid or even without thinking it.)
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: Unreal Condition in Oratio Obliqua

Postby Junya » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:56 am

Interaxus, reading that
journal article is interesting.
Thak you very much ! :D
That tells me how the scholars about
grammar study grammar,
and I can get an inside-knowledge
of this field, like how they make grammar.
It is the first time I've read such a thesis or essay.
I started learning Latin and Greek all on
my own after leaving college
(I'm a drop-out. And I majored in the Indian
Philosophy, a different area
than the Western Classical literature
or the Western History or the Western Philosophy.),
solely depending on the information I could get from the internet.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 47 guests