Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

Adriane,

Thanks for your response - I do appreciate it.
As I said above, brookter, "ceperint" is future perfect here, not past perfect subjunctive. There is no reason for it to be past perfect subjunctive, but there is a reason for it to be future perfect (completed in the future at the time to which "peribunt" refers). [Only ancient grammarians such as Priscian or Probus etc refer to the future perfect as subjunctive; we today say indicative for the future perfect.]
I confess I'm getting confused again. I certainly hadn't picked up that you'd ruled out the perfect subjunctive, only that you maintained there was a discernible difference between the two.

My fault, I'm sure, as is no doubt the fact that I don't understand why you're saying there is no reason for it to be future perfect. I thought that the perfect subjunctive is used in a subordinate subjunctive clause when the main clause is present or future to represent completed action relative to the main verb.

"All those who may have already picked up the sword will die by the sword" does not appear to me to be an impossible sentence (in English, I mean - whether it is valid in Latin is the reason I posted in the first place!)

I'm not saying that this is the more likely explanation - from your response, it clearly isn't - but you appear to be ruling it out as valid Latin and I'm not sure I understand why.

Regards

David

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

Two things.

First I want to clarify my example with English. My point is that I wouldn't be a liar (I was saying it rhetorically) if I stated "By tomorrow morning I will have finished my paper". The point of my example was to point out the fact that the distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood breaks down significantly once we are speaking of yet-to-happen events (which are all hypothetical). If we used a past or present tense the distinction is significant: "He might have gone to the store" is semantically very different from "He went to the store." The former is a hypothetical, based upon either ignorance or some conditions which may be specified. The latter is a statement of fact. It is stated as a certainty. The indicative does not work this way when we extend it to the future. "By tomorrow I will have finished my paper" is not a statement of fact. It describes an intention dependent upon conditions. The subjunctive can be used to express the exact same sentiment.

Secondly, I do not understand why the statement can't be understood as a perfect subjunctive. You refer to it as past perfect subjunctive, which I don't understand. It doesn't refer to past events. Time is relative in oblique moods, right? Or am I confusing Latin with Greek? My understanding is that a perfect subjunctive describes an action which occurs before the apodosis. The fact that it is perfect merely means the action is already done when we come to the apodosis. A future perfect indicative would give the same idea, the only difference being that the time element of the verb is now absolute (future, but completed), not relative.

Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.
All who will have taken the sword, will die by the sword.

Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.
All those who might have taken the sword, will die by the sword.

I perceive no difference in meaning. Am I missing something? Both sound overly cumbersome in English. We would prefer the present indicative in English: "All who take the sword, will die by the sword." This again would give the exact same meaning. All three versions are understood as being conditional. The future perfect doesn't give the impression of certainty. There may be a certain rule for conditional sentences that we can apply to determine that the tense must be ____, but as far as comprehension goes there is no difference in my opinion.

I guess it comes down to how technical you want to get. But breaking conditional sentences into categories such as "future more vivid" "future less vivid" etc. seems to be a more recent, and unnatural device. It's deeply ingrained in Latin pedagogy, and as a device to build analytical thinking skills it may be helpful, but Latin isn't a programming language like C++. The meaning of a conditional sentence is mostly understood by context.

Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by Imber Ranae »

brookter wrote:I confess I'm getting confused again. I certainly hadn't picked up that you'd ruled out the perfect subjunctive, only that you maintained there was a discernible difference between the two.
I quite agree with Adrianus: the first translation you gave is simply invalid. It must be future perfect here. You'll notice his second example has the apodosis in the subjunctive as well, pereāmus, which makes it a less-vivid conditional and completely valid.
brookter wrote:My fault, I'm sure, as is no doubt the fact that I don't understand why you're saying there is no reason for it to be future perfect. I thought that the perfect subjunctive is used in a subordinate subjunctive clause when the main clause is present or future to represent completed action relative to the main verb.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You must have misunderstood something.

The subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses of indirect discourse, and in that case the future perfect indicative (as well as the perfect indicative) of direct discourse is replaced by the perfect subjunctive of indirect discourse. Sometimes the indicative is used instead, however, either for emphasis or to suggest that the subordinate clause is not part of the actual thought/words/intentions of the person behind the indirect discourse. In such a case there is the possibility of some ambiguity since the future perfect indicative and perfect subjunctive are identical except the first person singular (at least without macrons), but it's not very significant.

Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
brookter wrote:"All those who may have already picked up the sword will die by the sword" does not appear to me to be an impossible sentence (in English, I mean - whether it is valid in Latin is the reason I posted in the first place!)
It can be expressed in Latin as well, but not in the way you did it. If you add fortasse to the future perfect protasis it will be more or less equivalent to the English (although I confess the English sounds a bit nonsensical to me).


ETA: One could take qui ceperimus as a relative clause of characteristic, I suppose, but I've never seen it so used with an inclusively defined antecedent like omnes before. Seems unlikely.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

Hi Imber,
Imber Ranae wrote:
I quite agree with Adrianus: the first translation you gave is simply invalid. It must be future perfect here. You'll notice his second example has the apodosis in the subjunctive as well, pereāmus, which makes it a less-vivid conditional and completely valid.
brookter wrote:My fault, I'm sure, as is no doubt the fact that I don't understand why you're saying there is no reason for it to be future perfect. I thought that the perfect subjunctive is used in a subordinate subjunctive clause when the main clause is present or future to represent completed action relative to the main verb.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You must have misunderstood something.
I took it from my notes on 'Lingva Latina: A College Companion" (Jeanne Marie Neumann), Chapter XXXII, page 231. I've just checked the original and it says, verbatim:

"The perfect subjunctive represents completed action in a subjunctive subordinate clause when the main verb is present or future."

It contrasts this with the use of the present subjunctive for incompleted actions.

However, Neumann doesn't give any examples here for the perfect subjunctive, she merely makes the statement. I've since looked at the explanation of how the present subjunctive is used in these circumstances and the examples all involve the use of ut.

I'd assumed (clearly wrongly), that an element of uncertainty in a subordinate clause attracted the subjunctive but it would appear that the term 'subjunctive subordinate clause' is used more restrictively than that.
brookter wrote:"All those who may have already picked up the sword will die by the sword" does not appear to me to be an impossible sentence (in English, I mean - whether it is valid in Latin is the reason I posted in the first place!)
It can be expressed in Latin as well, but not in the way you did it. If you add fortasse to the future perfect protasis it will be more or less equivalent to the English (although I confess the English sounds a bit nonsensical to me).
It's only nonsensical because I'm trying to fit it into English which roughly follows what I thought the Latin did: "There may be those who have already picked up the sword: they will all die" would be a less outlandish way of expressing the same idea... I do realise that this is an edge case, and will happily use the FPS in future...

[As an aside, wouldn't the use of 'fortasse' miss out the 'already having picked up' (completion) idea?]

Again, let me reiterate, I asked the question because I didn't know, and I'm really grateful for the time people have taken to give their explanations. Many thanks

David

Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by Imber Ranae »

brookter wrote:Hi Imber,

I took it from my notes on 'Lingva Latina: A College Companion" (Jeanne Marie Neumann), Chapter XXXII, page 231. I've just checked the original and it says, verbatim:

"The perfect subjunctive represents completed action in a subjunctive subordinate clause when the main verb is present or future."

It contrasts this with the use of the present subjunctive for incompleted actions.

However, Neumann doesn't give any examples here for the perfect subjunctive, she merely makes the statement. I've since looked at the explanation of how the present subjunctive is used in these circumstances and the examples all involve the use of ut.
I'd have to see for myself to be sure, but it looks like you're taking a rule for a very specific instance and extrapolating it so as to make it apply as a general rule. You have to be careful to heed the context whenever a general statement like this is made in a grammar. Perhaps it's just poorly written. Anyway, the use of ut in the examples leads me to believe she is referring specifically to consecutive (result) clauses. These must always take the subjunctive regardless, and the different tenses show relative time. The same is true for purpose clauses except that the idea of intention, which is by definition unfulfilled, necessarily makes the verb incomplete, so only the present and imperfect subjunctive are permitted (according to the sequence of tenses).
brookter wrote:I'd assumed (clearly wrongly), that an element of uncertainty in a subordinate clause attracted the subjunctive but it would appear that the term 'subjunctive subordinate clause' is used more restrictively than that.
This is not always the case with the subjunctive in Latin. Indirect questions are no more uncertain than direct questions, for example, despite only one regularly taking the subjunctive.
brookter wrote:It's only nonsensical because I'm trying to fit it into English which roughly follows what I thought the Latin did: "There may be those who have already picked up the sword: they will all die" would be a less outlandish way of expressing the same idea... I do realise that this is an edge case, and will happily use the FPS in future...
I understand what you're saying, but my feeling is that if it's nonsensical in English it's probably nonsensical in Latin. Your new sentence seems a bit different to me. I think you could use a perfect subjunctive in a relative clause of characteristic, but you'd have to drop the omnes.
brookter wrote:[As an aside, wouldn't the use of 'fortasse' miss out the 'already having picked up' (completion) idea?]
No. fortasse is an adverb meaning "perhaps". The "already having picked up" idea is still contained in the future perfect.
Again, let me reiterate, I asked the question because I didn't know, and I'm really grateful for the time people have taken to give their explanations. Many thanks
I understand you're just asking for clarification and are willing to be corrected. Apologies if I sound imperious; that's not my intention.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

brookter wrote:"The perfect subjunctive represents completed action in a subjunctive subordinate clause when the main verb is present or future."

It contrasts this with the use of the present subjunctive for incompleted actions.

However, Neumann doesn't give any examples here for the perfect subjunctive, she merely makes the statement. I've since looked at the explanation of how the present subjunctive is used in these circumstances and the examples all involve the use of ut.

I'd assumed (clearly wrongly), that an element of uncertainty in a subordinate clause attracted the subjunctive but it would appear that the term 'subjunctive subordinate clause' is used more restrictively than that.
"Omnes qui ceperint gladium" is not a subjunctive clause and there is no uncertainty suggested: "All who will take up the sword". Clauses beginning "ut" (meaning "that" and not "as") will be subjunctive, of course.
Non subjunctivo modo illa clausula et sine dubitatione comprehensâ. Certè subjunctivo modo sunt clausulae per "ut" inceptae (separatìm illae quo "sicut" vult dici).

Nota quoquè

"all who might have taken up the sword will die by the sword" in English condemns many who will never actually take up a sword!
Haec pars sententiae anglicae "all who might have taken up the sword" enim multos condemnat qui gladium verò nunquàm capiant!
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.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

Yikes, TextKit seems to have gobbled up my reply - I'll write it up again and hope for better.
I disagree with Adrianus - there is every possible reason to read ceperint as a perfect subjunctive, and every possible reason to read it as future perfect. There is no way to distinguish, and I still don't understand what would be gained by distinguishing between them. Omnes peribunt! They will die. How? Gladio omnes peribunt. They will all die by the sword. Who exactly??? Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. All those who (could, would, might have, will have) grabbed a sword, will die by the sword.
For a reference, see Woodcock 155: "There was nothing to prevent the subjunctive from being used for its descriptive force alone, even when the antecedent of the relative was real and particular, and even when the action expressed by the subjunctive verb was a fact. [...] The subjunctive in these descriptive clauses is called Generic."
Two examples:
Terence Ph. 917 quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?
Cicero Br. 203 fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium, quos quidem ego audiverim
The first person forms there which Woodcock cites show unambiguously these are perf. subjunctive. Please note that this does not mean I am insisting that ceperint is definitely perfect subjunctive. It is AMBIGUOUS, and the difference does not matter.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

Yes, I get that, Laura. That's a type of subjunctive that fits, as in English:
Rectè dicis. Istud subjunctivi genus ut aptum capio, sicut etiam anglicé:

"quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?"
"By what expression will I respond to her whom I would hold in contempt?" [But not in English "By what expression will I respond to her whom I might hold in contempt?"]

"Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audiverim, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator." "Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least would have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one."
Last edited by adrianus on Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

In honor of this sneaky form, for the fabula facilis today, I decided to find a fable with a relative clause like the one in "gladio peribunt" - and I found this famous fable! :-)
Leo, Vacca, Capra, et Ovis
Societatem aliquando iunxerant leo, vacca, capra, et ovis. Cervum permagnum cum cepissent, leo praedam divisit in quattuor partes aequales. Tum ita locutus est, “Prima pars mea est, quia sum leo; secundum mihi tribuetis, quia sum fortissimus; tertiam mihi sumo propter egregium laborem meum; quartam qui tetigerit, iram meam excitabit.” Sic totam praedam solus retinuit.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

And here is the fabula facilis version - I try to stick to indicative verbs, present when possible. :-)
http://latinviafables.blogspot.com/

Leo, vacca, capra, et ovis
societatem iungunt.
Cervum permagnum capiunt!
Leo praedam dividit
in quattuor partes aequales.
Tum ita dicit,
“Prima pars mea est,
quia sum leo.
Secundam partem
mihi tribuere debetis,
quia sum fortissimus.
Tertiam mihi sumo
propter egregium laborem meum.
Quartam ... si tangis,
iram meam excitabis!”
Sic leo solus
totam praedam retinet.

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

adrianus wrote: "all who might have taken up the sword will die by the sword" in English condemns many who will never actually take up a sword!
Yes, but your sentence is different from my "all who may have already taken up the sword...". A nuance, but they do mean different things...

A moot point, of course. I should like to think that hell will freeze before I will have used the perfect subjunctive again in such circumstances. [1]

Regards

David

[1] Hold on, isn't that first clause a potential su.... :wink:

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

brookter wrote:If I've understood this correctly, cēperint could be both "who might have taken up the sword (already)...
I wrote what you wrote originally, brookter.
Scripsi quod tu, brookter, primitùs scripsisti.
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: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

Note Laura that the tenses aren't interchangeable here, I reckon, so no ambiguity
Inter se hîc tempora commutari non possunt, tunc non est ambiguitas.

"quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?"
"By what expression will I respond to her whom I would hold in contempt?"

but not this // sed non itá:

"quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempsero?"
"By what expression will I respond to her whom I will have held in contempt?"

"Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audiverim, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator." "Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least would have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one."

but not this // sed not itá:

"Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audivero, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator." "Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least will have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one."
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.

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

adrianus wrote:
brookter wrote:If I've understood this correctly, cēperint could be both "who might have taken up the sword (already)...
I wrote what you wrote originally, brookter.
Scripsi quod tu, brookter, primitùs scripsisti.
Yes, I saw that after I'd replied to you, although I'd modified it in a later post as we became more specific in the discussion. However, you did miss out the 'already', and I do think that that is a crucial element, in the context...

Regards

David

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

I, who might already have taken up the sword but has not, will die by it!
A bit unfair, don't you think?
Nonnè iniquius est?
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.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

Adrianus, you yourself have argued fervently for the use of the future perfect in a relative clause clauses subordinated to a future indicative clause; I introduced those samples from Woodcock simply in order to show that it is equally possible to use a perfect subjunctive if you wish to create a generic relative clause likewise coordinated with a future indicative. With ne and non there are two different forms that help distinguish between the indicative and the subjunctive, with qui, there is no way to resolve the ambiguity IF the verb form itself is ambiguous, as is the case with ceperint.

So, if you want to understand qui gladium ceperint as a future perfect indicative, that works.
If someone else wants to understand qui gladium ceperint as a perfect subjunctive, that works, too.

Sometimes this use is explained as being similar to the use of cum with the perfect subjunctive to indicate cause, if that helps make it more clear (again, I am NOT arguing that ceperint must be subjunctive, but simply that it can be subjunctive, just as easily as it can be future perfect).

Cum responderit, omnia iam intellegitis.
Because he answered, you now understand everything.

Cum gladium ceperint, gladio peribunt.
Because they seized the sword, they will die by the sword.

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

Again, I agree with Laura. The form is ambiguous, but the meaning is not. If it is meant as a general truth isn't the subjunctive possible if not more suitable?

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

adrianus wrote:
I, who might already have taken up the sword but has not, will die by it!
A bit unfair, don't you think?
Nonnè iniquius est?
Yes, but the original wasn't about 'you' or "I" or "he", where the doubt is purely in the motivation (sword taken up, yes or no?) but about "they" where there is also uncertainty about how many of the sword-wielding criminals there might be. "There might be people out there who have already taken up the sword and if there are, all of them are going to die by it," would be just as valid an interpretation.

Et quis dixit ut grammatica necesse sit iustam esse?

Regards

David (I suspect that last bit of Latin may need some work....)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

brookter wrote:"There might be people out there who have already taken up the sword and if there are, all of them are going to die by it," would be just as valid an interpretation.
Et hoc (potentiale modo): // This would also (as potential subjunctive):
"There might be people out there who might have already taken up the sword and if there are (whether they have or have not), all of them are going to die by it"
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: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

lauragibbs wrote:Sometimes this use is explained as being similar to the use of cum with the perfect subjunctive to indicate cause...
Yes, I forgot that "qui" + any subjunctive can mean "because", even though I like to use that formula in posts here often!
Ita, oblitus sum "qui" cum verbo ullius temporis subjunctivo modo "quia" significare, quod me aggravat qui saepè illâ eâdem regulâ in hôc foro scribam!
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.

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

I would say that the overall thing to learn from this whole discussion is this: Unless clearly marked by ne/non, 1sg, etc., it is not worth stressing over a form such as ceperint.

There is not anything to be gained semantically by forcing a parsing upon the verbal form. In the other subjunctive/indicative tenses this is not the case and a single parsing must be sought.

I have been reading Latin almost daily for about 3 years now, and have come across many such forms. I leave forms such as ceperint ambiguous and have never failed to understand a single Latin phrase because of it.

Of course, maybe interficio should not be understood as simply meaning "to kill" or "to destroy". Maybe we should concern ourselves about the subtle distinction the verb conveys... It appears to mean something like "to do through (to completion)" and not simply "to kill". :D

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

Calvinist, I am definitely far more interested in interpreting the meaning of things rather than fretting over the grammar when there are other more pressing concerns with regard to the meaning! This saying from the Bible, for example, is of great interest for all kinds of reasons; I posted about a rhyming Latin proverb - Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit - in a blog post some years ago, which was of course an occasion to discuss Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt - here's that old post:
http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/ ... perit.html

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

lauragibbs wrote:Calvinist, I am definitely far more interested in interpreting the meaning of things rather than fretting over the grammar when there are other more pressing concerns with regard to the meaning! This saying from the Bible, for example, is of great interest for all kinds of reasons; I posted about a rhyming Latin proverb - Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit - in a blog post some years ago, which was of course an occasion to discuss Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt - here's that old post:
http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/ ... perit.html
Very good!

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

The original Greek is: παντες γαρ οι λαβοντες μαχαιραν εν μαχαιρη απολουνται.

The Greek uses an aorist participle οι λαβοντες --> "those who have taken" ... further proof that the form of the verb is less important than the expressed meaning.

I've expressed this idea before. It's important to remember that an author/speaker begins with a message which is then filtered through his particular language, style, etc., and manifests itself in some grammatical/syntactical form shaped and limited by the constraints of the particular language. We are presented with the output, and must work our way back to the input... the original message. This entails analysis of grammar, but it is much more than that. I think we can become overly fascinated with the system that is grammar and forget the one and only purpose of language: to transmit ideas across a seemingly impassible chasm of symbolic abstractions into the heart and mind of the hearer.

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

Now, don't start confusing me with Greek...

I'm only just on Chapter 3 of Pharr's Homeric Greek: desperately fighting the Hydra of Accents on the lowest level of the Dungeon of Phonology with only the Wooden Shield of Interest and the Plastic Sword of Persistence for protection. κᾱλὴ βουλή...

I think I'll just go and lie down...

Seriously, thanks to all who replied to my question: the thread went rather deeper than I expected, but I did enjoy it!

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

Hi David, one thing to observe from Calvinist's invocation of the Greek here: Greek, unlike Latin, has an aorist active participle. One of the great imbalances in Latin, and one of its biggest difference from Greek, is that Greek has an aorist active participle, and Latin does not.

Although Latin verbs gives you a choice of aspect AND voice (when you want a passive verb, you can put it in the present or the perfect; when you want an active verb, you can put it in the present or the perfect), the Latin participle forces you into a very restrictive combined choice perfect/passive OR present/active - if you really want an active participle in Latin, you have no choice but to use present aspect; if you really want a passive participle in Latin, you have no choice but to use perfect aspect. Likewise, if you really want a perfect participle, you have no choice but to use passive voice; if you really want a present participle, you have no choice but to use active voice. So, if you are ever scratching your head over a Latin participle, remember the LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE and the way that the options are very symmetrical indeed, but very limited.

A great laboratory to watch the strange consequences of this problem is exactly the Latin translation of the New Testament. In general, the Latin follows the Greek with amazing closeness... but every time the Greek uses an aorist active participle, which is very often indeed since it is a commonly used form, the Latin translator has a kind of crisis: what to do? The use of a relative clause, as in this verse, is one of those possible solutions. Even someone with just a little Greek can learn a lot from looking at the Greek and Latin New Testament side by side; Sacred Texts Polyglot Bible online makes it easy to do that!
http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/index.htm

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

adrianus wrote:
calvinist wrote:...since they are identical in form in almost every instance.
Not so // Minimé!
cēperō cēperim
cēperis cēperīs
cēperimus cēperīmus
cēperitis cēperītis


four out of six forms differ between those tenses. Similarities of spelling are more likely to confuse the non-native speaker, not the native speaker, except if they don't care, of course (which is possible, indeed).

Adriane,
Apologies for going back over old ground, but I've just noticed this.

I've checked and none of my textbooks (Allen and Greenhough, Orberg / Neumann, Collins Latin Dictionary) has an ī in any of the endings of either tense - they are uniformly short. The only difference they note between the Perfect Subjunctive and the Future Perfect Active is the first person (-erim / -erō).

Is there a grammarian's debate about this issue?

Regards

David

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

From the research I've done it appears that Adrianus is technically correct. Many Latin teachers and books do not stress this point because it is not reflected in the orthography and in many cases a form like ceperimus is ambiguous in a written text.

Check out this link, page 95, first paragraph:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasa ... nctive.pdf

It notes that the perfect subjunctive is formed from the future perfect tense, with a modal marker in the final vowel. This would be a very subtle distinction in both meaning and pronunciation. Latin did not have a strong stress accent, which means that the only difference between the perfect subjunctive and the future perfect was a very slight shift in accent (only in 1pl and 2pl, and probably unnoticeable to our ears), and a lengthening of the final -i-. This is assuming that the speaker is speaking slowly and being careful to enunciate his words properly, which even educated speakers don't generally do during everyday speech. The distinction between long/short vowels in final, unstressed syllables is very subtle, even in a language that distinguishes clearly between long/short. Combine this with the fact that the distinction between long/short vowels was already fading during the Imperial period, plus the fact that the two overlap considerably semantically, and the result is that people learning Latin as a second language (and even as a first language) probably did not distinguish them as two separate tenses.
Last edited by calvinist on Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

brookter
Textkit Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by brookter »

Calvinist,

An interesting paper - I've read the paragraph you point out and I've filed the link for more detailed reading later. It makes sense that there was a distinguishing feature between moods, and I had wondered why there wasn't in Latin - hence my interest in Adrianus's comments.

Thanks!

David

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

You're welcome. As I've said earlier (and Laura), I don't disagree entirely with Adrianus. I just think that in a sentence such as Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt, it is not worth the time sorting out whether ceperint is perf.subj. or fut.perf.ind. Actually, the -i- in ceperint would be short either way, since final -nt always shortens the preceding vowel whether it is meant to be long or not. So it truly would be ambiguous even being pronounced by a careful orator such as Cicero.

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

brookter wrote: It makes sense that there was a distinguishing feature between moods, and I had wondered why there wasn't in Latin - hence my interest in Adrianus's comments.
Yes, the distinction between the indicative and subjunctive moods is important and noteworthy. However, the hypothetical use of the subjunctive (as opposed to its other uses in dependent clauses) can blur with the future tense, as we see in this case.

Either way you look at it Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt is describing a hypothetical situation. "If one takes the sword, he will die by the sword" is semantically identical, although the subject has moved 180* from the all inclusive "all" to the indefinite "one", and other structural elements have changed. The meaning is exactly the same.

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

lauragibbs wrote:Even someone with just a little Greek can learn a lot from looking at the Greek and Latin New Testament side by side; Sacred Texts Polyglot Bible online makes it easy to do that!
http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/index.htm
Thank you for that link! I've wanted to have something like this, but thought I'd have to buy one of those expensive Bible software packages. Which version of the Vulgate is it? I prefer the Nova Vulgata, since it matches the Greek more closely.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

I am not sure about the version - I just use that polyglot as a quick-and-dirty reference. It could even be that Nova Vulgata is copyrighted (I am not really sure about that - it's fascinating and depressing the way that copyright issues affect very much just which Greek and Latin Bible texts you will find online).

Another good resource, but not for Greek, is the Bible at New Advent, which has the Douay-Rheims English translation is done from the Latin rather than King James:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat001.htm

One last thought about the future perfect / perfect subjunctive discussion that I think is worth remembering: the future is just not as "indicative" as the other indicative tenses. That's why I don't fuss about the ambiguity of forms like "Quid faciam?" either - faciam could be future (so-called) indicative, or present subjunctive, but to me the future and subjunctive are so close in meaning (something I would obviously not say about present indicative and present subjunctive!), that I don't fret about the formal ambiguity.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

lauragibbs wrote:to me the future and subjunctive are so close in meaning (something I would obviously not say about present indicative and present subjunctive!), that I don't fret about the formal ambiguity.
To me they are not so close that I don't enjoy the subtlety of intended and interpreted distinction.

Mihi equidem inter se non satìs similia sunt ut distinctiones et propositae et interpretatae non placeant.
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.

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

Adrianus, I think you are missing a very important point about language in general. Languages are fundamentally different not in what they can express, but in what they force their speakers to express. A Latin author was required to choose one of the tenses, and the fact that he chose one does not always mean that he felt that it expressed some subtle distinction that he wanted to convey... now we are thinking backwards. We are thinking that the distinctions which a language makes with its tenses are the exact distinctions that an author sees as important. Not true.

Chinese has no verbal tense system. It can express time with words like "tomorrow" or some particles which mark aspect. However, a Chinese verb can be totally unmarked in a way that a verb in an Indo-European language cannot. A Chinese speaker only includes time or aspect in his communication if he considers it relevant. In Latin we are forced to pick a time and aspect every time we use a verb. Many times we just pick one that fits, not because we really felt we needed to express all the subtleties of that tense, but because we had to pick something. The infinitive is unmarked, but we cannot use the infinitive to replace all our verbal forms in everyday speech.

Another example. In English we do not mark gender on nominals. The languages descended from Latin do. Consider this sentence:

"I went to see a friend."

I do not have to express the gender of the friend if I think this is irrelevant to what I'm trying to communicate. The point is that I saw a friend. The gender is an accidental issue to me. Latin and its descendants must reveal the gender of the friend even if it's considered irrelevant.

The elaborate system of tenses provides a very efficient system of expressing many subtle distinctions which a language like Chinese would have to describe in a roundabout way. This is a benefit when you need to express those distinctions. But at the same time, the system is always there, even when you don't need it, constantly forcing you to mark both the time and aspect on verbs, number on nouns, etc. The language cannot be stripped of these added semantic features. You must choose.

Back to our example, "I went to see a friend." English forces less upon the speaker than Latin does, but Chinese allows the speaker almost complete freedom to reveal only what he wants... <--- note the English pronoun forces a gender distinction even now when I don't want it to! Anyway, the Chinese would not be forced to explicitly state the time (past) or number of the noun (singular). We may think these are necessary, but that's because we speak English!! The Chinese have built one of the greatest empires in history without a forced tense/aspect verbal system or gender/number nominal system. It works fine for them. Actually, it worked fine for them. You know what? The time really doesn't matter.... for them, work fine.

User avatar
lauragibbs
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by lauragibbs »

Calvinist, I have copied and pasted that post to use for future reference. That is one of the clearest expressions of the balance between structure and expression in language... I know others might see language differently, but I really agree with your approach and I really value the way you have expressed it here! Thank you! :-)

User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by calvinist »

lauragibbs wrote:Calvinist, I have copied and pasted that post to use for future reference. That is one of the clearest expressions of the balance between structure and expression in language... I know others might see language differently, but I really agree with your approach and I really value the way you have expressed it here! Thank you! :-)
:D Thank you! It's insight that I've gained from long discussions with one of my linguistics professors and also by my own study and comparison of Latin, English, Chinese, Spanish, and Greek, which describe the exact same reality and yet do so in sometimes completely opposite ways.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by adrianus »

clavinist wrote:Adrianus, I think you are missing a very important point about language in general. Languages are fundamentally different not in what they can express, but in what they force their speakers to express. A Latin author was required to choose one of the tenses, and the fact that he chose one does not always mean that he felt that it expressed some subtle distinction that he wanted to convey... now we are thinking backwards. We are thinking that the distinctions which a language makes with its tenses are the exact distinctions that an author sees as important. Not true.
Following from this...in the sentence "Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt" which one tense (the original question) was the author forced to choose? Alternatively, if you think that two tenses can have identical meanings ("I will" and "I might", in English, as you have said) then how does language "force" me to choose between them?

Secundum hunc locum...Cum ita sententiâ "Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt", quod unum tempus à scriptore optandum erat? Contrà, si dicas dua tempora eodem significationem habere (ut praeter "I will" et "I might" dixisti), quomodo tunc lingua in ipsâ me compellat ut inter eis eligam?
calvinist wrote:Many times we just pick one [tense] that fits, not because we really felt we needed to express all the subtleties of that tense, but because we had to pick something.
You do but "we" don't, because I try not to. Of course, though, I often make mistakes in Latin.

Tu sic facis, nos non facimus, cum ego diversum facere coner. Saepè autem latinè erro.
calvinist wrote:...but Chinese allows the speaker almost complete freedom to reveal only what he wants... <--- note the English pronoun forces a gender distinction even now when I don't want it to!
If you do not want it to, speak otherwise in English (say "one"). Not that it does force a gender distinction necessarily. In latin and in English, the masculine gender ("he" in English / "amicus" in Latin) CAN stand for masculine or feminine (undetermined).

Si non sic audeas, aliter sones. Verò interìm femininum genus in anglicè "he" pronomine includitur non minùs latinè cum homine ut amico non descriptè expresso, vel includi potest.
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.

User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by Lex »

adrianus wrote:If you do not want it to, speak otherwise in English (say "one").
That doesn't always work.

1) He went to the store.

2) She went to the store.

3) One went to the store. (?)

The first and second sentences above work fine; the third is not proper English. (One what went to the store?) The fact is, in some instances, English forces one (*grin*) to mark gender where one may not wish to. This fact is born out by the silly movement by some "womyn's" studies nuts to lobby for a new, gender-neutral pronoun "ze", which is applicable to humans (unlike "it").
Last edited by Lex on Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re: Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Post by Lex »

brookter wrote:I'm only just on Chapter 3 of Pharr's Homeric Greek: desperately fighting the Hydra of Accents on the lowest level of the Dungeon of Phonology with only the Wooden Shield of Interest and the Plastic Sword of Persistence for protection.
Hehehe.... where that darned Rod of Conjugation when I need it?
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

Post Reply