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.