Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

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.
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by benissimus » Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:40 am

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=3;threadid=482;start=0#4038 date=1060981540]<br />In response to Espiscopus' first response -<br /><br />English really only has the imperfect subjunctive. In the simple fact present constructions and in the contrary to fact present constructions, English wouldn't use the subjunctive tense (if it does, it has been rendered indistinguisable over the centuries; and, thus, it no longer exists, in my opinion).<br /><br />I have to disagree. While English rarely uses the subjunctive beyond the present and perfect tense, there are still a reasonable number of appllications:<br /><br />*If I were you...<br />*Be the flowers red or grey, I would love them just the same.<br /><br /><br />There are also a few that are rightfully past forms but are now used to represent the present:<br /><br />*I would (have) do(ne) this.<br />*I should (have) do(ne) this.<br />*I could (have) do(ne) this.<br />*I might (have) do(ne) this.<br />*I may (have) do(ne) this.<br /><br />Then of course the Jussive via an assistive verb:<br /><br />*May we succeed<br />*Let us win.<br />*My will be done.<br /><br />Interestingly, the words "will," "shall," "should," and "would" were originally all subjunctive forms, and English was truly without any future tense whatsoever....<br /><br /><br />If I were an idiot, I would do this.<br />Si fuera idiota, lo haria.<br />Si stultus sim, id faciat<br />Se fossi idiota, lo farei<br /><br />This is one of the few constructions in which English uses the subjunctive - as far as I am aware. Interestingly, this construction is ubiquitous to many languages (at least romance languages anyway).<br />[/quote]<br /><br />On a final note... scio. scire, scivi, scitum is a 4th conjugation verb! :o
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Skylax » Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:34 pm

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=3;threadid=482;start=0#4005 date=1060977774]<br /><br />Si cvi libri Ciceronis placent, ille sciat se profecisse.<br />-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus <br /><br />That man knows himself to have progressed, if to whom the books of Cicero are a delight.<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />sciat is a jussive subjunctive meaning "let him know". It makes up for a 3rd pers. sing. present imperative. (Bennett, § 275)

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Episcopus » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:27 pm

Ah jussive :D <br /><br />Finally we have lift off! <br /><br />Thankyou SkylaX
phpbb

User avatar
Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Skylax » Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:19 pm

Si cvi libri Ciceronis placent, ille sciat se profecisse.<br />-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus <br /><br />Moreover, the CVI isn't a relative pronoun, it stands here for ALICVI ("to someone"). So :<br /><br />"If someone enjoys Cicero's works, let know to this man that he has progressed."<br /><br />("Si les oeuvres de Cicéron plaisent à quelqu'un, que celui-là sache qu'il a fait des progrès")

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Episcopus » Sat Aug 16, 2003 7:35 pm

[quote author=Skylax link=board=3;threadid=482;start=15#4108 date=1061057990]<br />Moreover, the CVI isn't a relative pronoun, it stands here for ALICVI ("to someone"). So :<br /><br />("Si les oeuvres de Cicéron plaisent à quelqu'un, que celui-là sache qu'il a fait des progrès")<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Cet évêque il est tout à fait d'accord avec cela <br />Tu peux toujours avoir raision même aux situations assez compliquées ;)<br /><br />If the books of Cicero please someone, may that man know that he has progressed.<br /><br />
phpbb

User avatar
Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Skylax » Sat Aug 16, 2003 7:41 pm

Merci, Monseigneur.

Lumen_et_umbra
Textkit Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:12 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Lumen_et_umbra » Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:22 am

Thank you, adz, and skylax. <br /><br />Adz -<br /><br /> I didn't find your explination convoluted; I found it informative and helpful! Thank you. Also, thank you for what you said about my progression through Latin (even if your prognostications aren't realized... ever ;) )<br /><br /><br />Skylax -<br /><br /> The first form of the subjunctive, across which I came in Wheelock's, was the jussive. I am horrified that I was not able to recognize that in the sentence in question immediately after having seen it. The reason for which others veered off into attempts of fitting the setence within the context of a conditional sentence had been because I introduced this thread with the conjecture of the sentence being a conditional one.<br /><br /><br />Benissimus -<br /><br /> The phrase "If I were" does employ the imperfect subjunctive. Although, what I had meant to say, in the thread to which you have responded, had been that the imperfect subjunctive seems to be the only form of the subjuntive in colloquial use in contemporary English.
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Episcopus » Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:43 am

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=3;threadid=482;start=15#4148 date=1061079773]<br />the imperfect subjunctive seems to be the only form of the subjuntive in colloquial use in contemporary English.<br />[/quote]<br />Unfourtunately
phpbb

Ptolemaios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:15 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by Ptolemaios » Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:01 pm

There's a terrible rhyme in Dutch to remember when forms of quis represent forms of aliquis. Translated, it means so much as:<br />'After si, nisi, num and ne, can't ali come along with quis'<br /><br />Or: Na si, nisi, num en ne, mag ali niet met quisje mee.<br /><br />Ptolemaios
phpbb

ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re:Why is the subjunctive present in the second clause?

Post by ingrid70 » Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:26 pm

[quote author=Ptolemaios link=board=3;threadid=482;start=15#4857 date=1061823690]<br />There's a terrible rhyme in Dutch to remember when forms of quis represent forms of aliquis. Translated, it means so much as:<br />'After si, nisi, num and ne, can't ali come along with quis'<br /><br />Or: Na si, nisi, num en ne, mag ali niet met quisje mee.<br /><br />Ptolemaios<br />[/quote]<br /><br />oh my, now you mention it, I know that one. Thanks for reminding me.<br /><br />Ingrid
phpbb

Locked