A blunder in the official answer key?

[furrykef]

Chapter 34, Practice & Review #16: "If those four soldiers had followed us, we would not have dared to put the weapons on the ship."

The answer key gives:
"Sī illī quattuor mīlitēs nōs secūtī essent, arma in nāve pōnere nōn ausī sumus."

Wait a sec. "Ausī sumus"? Since the condition uses the imperfect subjunctive, surely the conclusion should as well, making it "ausī essēmus"? I can't think of any way the indicative makes sense here.

This must be a pretty big blunder if even I can spot it...

Now I'm beginning to wonder about the quality of the other English -> Latin sentences in the answer key...

[modus.irrealis]

You're right that it should be "ausi essemus", but technically this is the pluperfect subjunctive (of sequor and audeo).

[furrykef]

Ah, right. The verb "esse" itself is in the imperfect subjunctive, which threw me off; of course when combined with the participle, it is the pluperfect.

[furrykef]

Here's another one that I'm wondering about, though it isn't as obviously wrong as the previous one.

Q: Since his hope is becoming very small, let him confess that he commanded those two men not to do it.
A: Cum spēs (eius) fit minima, fateātur sē illīs duōbus (virīs) imperāvisse nē id facerent.

Should that be "fīat minima"? I was under the impression that "cum" is followed by the subjunctive when it means "since", or indeed in any sense but the temporal sense of "when" or "while". This appears to be a "circumstantial clause", which should take the subjunctive, right?

[modus.irrealis]

Yes, I believe you're right: in Classical Latin when "cum" means "since" it always takes the subjunctive.

[furrykef]

I think I found another:

Q: Cicero, who was the greatest Roman orator, was a consul who would obey the senate.
A: Cicerō, quī fuit maximus ōrātor Rōmānus, fuit cōnsul quī senātuī pāreat.

The 'pāreat' at the end seems to disobey the rules for sequence of tenses. Since 'fuit' is past tense, one would employ the imperfect subjunctive (pārēret), right?

[furrykef]

Yet another, this one from chapter 39, P&R 16:

Q: We urged the consul to save the state and preserve our dignity by attacking these injustices.
A: Hortatī sumus cōnsulī ut hīs inuriīs oppugnandīs cīvitātem servāret et dignitātem nostram cōnservāret.

But in chapter 36, the book said that "hortor" takes the accusative, not the dative, so it should be cōnsulem, not cōnsulī. I tried to verify with Cassell's that "cōnsulī" is wrong, but it didn't seem to make it perfectly clear. Lewis & Short does seem to agree that the dative is not possible.

[furrykef]

And yet another, in chapter 40, P&R 16:

Q: You do recognize how great the danger is, do you not?
A: Nōnne recognōvistī (recognōvistis) quantum esse perīculum?

Surely it should be "quantum sit", since it's an indirect question?

[modus.irrealis]

I agree with you. You do use accusative + infinitive if it's a rhetorical question but here, I'd say the whole question is rhetorical, while "how great is the danger" is a genuine question, although maybe there's some kind of attraction going on here.

[furrykef]

What about the other two posts I made before that one?

[modus.irrealis]

You're right in both cases as far as I can see.