Dingbats wrote:Thanks! Is this way always the best way, or do both work? Like, say, "I was seen so I might not go home" (makes no sense), would that be translated as Visus sum ne domum irem and not Visus sum ne domum eam, or can you use both?
Both constructions occur, but if the main clause is in the perfect the subordinate clause usually goes into the imperfect tense (for same time or future action). The other construction, perfect main clause with present subordinate, occurs sometimes when the perfect is thought of as being in close relation to the present (translated by "have/has ____").
This second construction is sometimes just the result of using the verb esse
with participial nouns/adjectives, as with natus est ut...
"he was born so that..., he is a son so that..."; madefacti sunt ut
"they were made wet so that..., they are wet so that..."; nota est ut...
"she became known so that..., she is famous so that...". If such a thing occurs in the main clause then we may consider the main clause to be in the present, and the following subordinate clause in the present subjunctive can then be considered to be in accordance with the normal sequence of tenses. This of course does not apply to all or even most sentences with perfect main clause and present subordinate clause
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae