Possible translation

[Feles in silva]

From M+F Unit Two drill:

Si taedam nautae dederit, portam videbo.

The "dederit" could be either future perfect or perfect subjunctive.

I opted for perfect subjunctive which would translate to:

1) If he had given the torch to the sailor, I will see the gate.

This sounds more logical than with the future perfect:

2) If he will have given the torch to the sailor, I will see the gate.

Does 1) make more sense in this context?

[Deses]

I guess, I'd go for Future Perfect, because that would be a rather standard factual condition, future more vivid.

[benissimus]

2.) when the protasis contains a future perfect and the apodosis a future, as:

if... will have..., (then...) will....

it is normally translated into English with the protasis in the present and the apodosis in the future. Therefore, your sentence translated as a future more vivid would be "If he gives (lit. 'will have given') the torch to the sailor, I will see the gate". You seem to have confused 'logical' with 'euphonic': the second option makes perfect sense, it just wasn''t great English. Logic really has very little to do with what tenses we use in conditionals in Latin or in English, though when it comes to future more vivid, I think the future perfect makes great sense, since normally one future action must happen before the result can happen, and the future perfect happens just before the future to reflect this.

1.) from the other end, perfect subjunctive would not make much sense here, which should be apparent to you because none of the conditionals you have learnt may contain the combination of tenses 'future indicative' and 'perfect subjunctive'. Conditionals usually have both parts in the same tense (except with future and future perfect, and mixed conditionals) and I don't believe I know of an instance where the two verbs of the conditional would differ in mood.

[Deses]

I don't believe I know of an instance where the two verbs of the conditional would differ in mood.

How about general conditions?

si hoc dicas, creditur.

si quid diceret credebatur.

(AG 514)

There may be other instances, in mixed conditions, perhaps.

[benissimus]

I would think of those as mixed conditionals, though perhaps my terminology is off.

[Feles in silva]

Unit Two has been challenging in this regard (conditional sentences). I'll have to dedicate more time to it.

[Feles in silva]

Gloriam enim optaverint.

I think there are 2 possibilities here, future perfect or perfect subjunctive. Possible translations are:

1. Of course they will have desired glory.
2. Of course they would have desired glory.

My questions are (a) are these are correct and (b) if the tenses are translated correctly do they both seem reasonable?

[bellum paxque]

Gloriam enim optaverint.

I think there are 2 possibilities here, future perfect or perfect subjunctive. Possible translations are:

1. Of course they will have desired glory.
2. Of course they would have desired glory.

My questions are (a) are these are correct and (b) if the tenses are
translated correctly do they both seem reasonable?

As I understand it, 1. is the only correct option. You are right to notice the ambiguity of form, but it is rare to see an independent use of the perfect subjunctive. Besides, 2. is demonstrably incorrect since "would have..." is rendered by the pluperfect subjunctive.

Consider the past contrary to fact condition:
si te amavissem, me amavisses. - If I had loved you, you would have loved me.

Thus, "for they would have desired glory" is simply the apodosis of a past contrary to fact condition used elliptically. It is best rendered as gloriam enim optavissent.

Si falsus sum, oro ut me corrigas.

David