Future periphrastic

Latin Learning Latin
1

After some time procrastinating, resting, and reading some Horace and the Anabasis, I’ve started on Pro Caelio. It’s pretty readable so far but I’ve encountered an unfamiliar construction in the second section: “descensurum fuisse” and “habiturum fuisse”. i was familiar with the future periphrastic before just as the way to form subjunctive futures while this future periphrastic is new to me; here the notes translated the terms as “would have stooped (to this accusation)” and “would have had (hope)”. A&G have as such but don’t elaborate.

Do I have this right?

Dixit traditurum esse obsides. – he said he would (i.e. in the future) deliver hostages
Dixit traditurum fuisse obsides. – he said he would (i.e. in general or at the time) deliver hostages
Dicit traditurum fuisse obsides. – he says he would (if given the choice) deliver hostages.

I’m not at all sure of this, especially as the former is a future infinitive and the second and third would be a periphrastic construction proper..

2

I’d say

  1. OK
  2. He said he had had the intention of delivering hostages.
  3. He says he has had the intention of delivering hostages.

Basically the fuisse refers to something happening before the the time of dixit or dicit (i.e, the intention of delivering hostages at a later time).

3

You are probably already there yourself, but, in case it helps, whenever confusion arises it is good to think of the periphrastic forms (both of the future particple and the gerundive) as pure adjectives with a specific charge (which happens to be temporal), and build your understanding of the sentence around them as adjectives rather than the other way around.

4

To supplement bedwere’s and anphph’s good replies a little.

In your examples you need either se or eum: se if the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of dixit, eum if it’s someone else. I add se.

Dixit se traditurum esse obsides. – Yes, as you have it: “he said he would (i.e. in the future) deliver hostages”, more literally he said he was going-to-deliver them.
Dixit se traditurum fuisse obsides. – he said he had-been/would-have-been going-to-deliver hostages. Most likely this would be attended by an if-clause or equivalent with imperf. or pluperf. subjunctive.
Dicit se traditurum fuisse obsides. – Same again, only “he says he was/had-been/would-have-been going-to …”. It’s not a matter of sequence. The fuisse could represent either a perf.indic. or pluperf.indic. or pluperf.subj. in direct speech, most likely the last (direct speech “I would have been …).”

They’re all periphrastic. Future infin. (whether active or passive) doesn’t have a form of its own, but avails itself of forms of esse, as even the indic. sometimes does too, e.g. traditurus sum I’m going to deliver (I’m—what?—traditurus, cf. anphph) vs. tradam I’ll deliver.

5

bedwere, anphph

Thank you very much.

mwh

Oops – I had assumed that “se” was implied from “dixit” absent a pronoun or named subject.

If I’m reading your post right you’re basically just fleshing out anphph’s comment (not to belittle it; it helps demonstrate the principle very well). I had some sense of this in composing my sentences but never really thought about it (probably because I hadn’t been exposed to the “fuisse” form until now) but now I see that it’s basically literal with the participle, the verb indicating time. “Traditurus sum” = “I am going-to-deliver” in your quiz: present as the present state of having an event in the future. I see that the Latin here can be translated literally into English).

What is the distinction between “traditurus sum” and “tradam”?

I’ve looked over your response but I’m on “lunch” and short on time; I’ll have to read it a couple more times but I think I understand it better.

This is where it would be really nice to have a classroom. If it weren’t for this website I have no idea what I’d do (though in the opening chapters of Jude the Obscure the protagonist somehow manages to pick up some Greek, which is a remarkable achievement now that I see what that takes).

6

How is it in Greek?

α’· εἶπε τοὺς ὁμήρους παραδώσειν.
β’· εἶπε τοὺς ὁμήρους παραδώσων γενέσθαι.
γ’· λέγει τοὺς ὁμήρους παραδώσων γενέσθαι.

7

Anyone would think you’d been studying Greek, which would not use the equivalent of “se,” as bedwere shows. (I’m not much taken with his sentences, but never mind that.) But then the participle would be nominative to agree with the main subject.

Yes basically I was just fleshing out anphph’s post. As well as bedwere’s.

Difference between traditurus sum and simple future? The periphrastic form brings out the present + future, exactly as you put it, “the present state of having an event in the future.”

I see the original is … constituetis … nec descensurum quemquam … fuisse cui utrum vellet liceret nec …, where the relative clause is the equivalent of an if-clause (as we have in the “nor” part). “You’ll determine/establish that neither would anyone who had free choice (lit. to whom it was allowed whether he wanted to) have come down here (lit. would have been going-to come-down), nor …”, i.e. no-one would have brought the case to court (lit. would have been going to bring the case) if he was able to act of his own volition—which Cicero insinuates Atratinus wasn’t: rather he brought the prosecution only out of filial obligation.
And the continuation is “nor, when he did/had, would he have had [lit. would he have been going to have] any hope [lit. anything of hope/expectation sc. of winning the case] unless he was relying on …)”

Do ask if anything still puzzles.

The Pro Caelio shows Cicero at his best as a defense attorney but at his worst as a human being. It may be the most dishonest and dishonorable of all his speeches.
If you tire of Ciceronian oratory, you might consider reading Caelius’ later correspondence with Cicero.

8

Posts really shouldn’t be corrected afterwards like that. It disrupts the logic of discussion and now leaves mwh’s excellent answer hanging.

9

Timothée

You have a point. I’ve reverted the edit.

mwh

The Bryn Mawr commentary disagrees with you slightly on “descensurum … ad hanc accusationem fuisse”, rendering it as “would have stooped to this accusation”, which would begin the moral disapproval that continues with “nisi alicuius intolerabili libidine et nimis acerbo odio niteretur”.

Thank you very much for all help. What volume of the letters are Caelius’ in?

10

In contrary to fact conditionals in indirect discourse, the apodosis is regularly (for active verbs) rendered as future participle + fuisse.

I’m not sure it will be of much help, and I hope it isn’t more confusing than clarifying, but this is addressed in Allen & Greenough sec. 589b:

b. In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:—

The Protasis always remains unchanged in tense.

The Apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the Participle in -ūrus with fuisse.

If the verb of the Apodosis is passive or has no supine stem, the periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut (with the Imperfect Subjunctive) must be used.

An Indicative in the Apodosis becomes a Perfect Infinitive.

Examples are:—

“nec sē superstitem fīliae futūrum fuisse, nisi spem ulcīscendae mortis êius in auxiliō commīlitōnum habuisset ” (Liv. 3.50.7) , and that he should not now be a survivor, etc., unless he had had hope, etc. [Direct: nōn superstes essem , nisi habuissem .]

“illud Asia cōgitet, nūllam ā sē neque bellī externī neque discordiārum domesticārum calamitātem āfutūram fuisse, sī hōc imperiō nōn tenērētur ” (Q. Fr. 1.1.34) , let Asia (personified) think of this, that no disaster, etc., would not be hers, if she were not held by this government. [Direct: abesset , sī nōn tenērer .]

“quid inimīcitiārum crēditis [mē] exceptūrum fuisse, sī īnsontīs lacessīssem ” (Q. C. 6.10.18) , what enmities do you think I should have incurred, if I had wantonly assailed the innocent? [excēpissem … sī lacessīssem.]

“invītum sē dīcere, nec dictūrum fuisse, nī cāritās reī pūblicae vinceret ” (Liv. 2.2) , that he spoke unwillingly and should not have spoken, did not love for the state prevail. [Direct: nec dīxissem … nī vinceret .]

“nisi eō tempore quīdam nūntiī dē Caesaris victōriā … essent allātī, exīstimābant plērīque futūrum fuisse utī [oppidum] āmitterētur ” (B. C. 3.101) , most people thought that unless at that time reports of Cæsar’s victory had been brought, the town would have been lost. [Direct: nisi essent allātī … āmissum esset .]

“quōrum sī aetās potuisset esse longinquior, futūrum fuisse ut omnibus perfectīs artibus hominum vīta ērudīrētur ” (Tusc. 3.69) , if life could have been longer, human existence would have been embellished by every art in its perfection. [Direct: sī potuisset … ērudīta esset .]

“ at plērīque exīstimant, sī ācrius īnsequī voluisset, bellum eō diē potuisse fīnīre ” (B. C. 3.51) , but most people think that, if he had chosen to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, he could have ended the war on that day. [Direct: sī voluisset … potuit .]

“Caesar respondit … sī alicûius iniūriae sibi cōnscius fuisset, nōn fuisse difficile cavēre ” (B. G. 1.14) , Cæsar replied that if [the Roman people] had been aware of any wrong act, it would not have been hard for them to take precautions. [Direct: sī fuisset , nōn difficile fuit (§ 517. c).]

[] Note 1.–I> n Indirect Discourse Present Conditions contrary to fact are not distinguished in the apodosis from Past Conditions contrary to fact, but the protasis may keep them distinct.
[] Note 2.–The periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut is sometimes used from choice when there is no necessity for resorting to it, but not in Cæsar or Cicero.

[*] Note 3.–Very rarely the Future Infinitive is used in the Indirect Discourse to express the Apodosis of a Present Condition contrary to fact. Only four or five examples of this use occur in classic authors: as,Titurius clāmābat sī Caesar adesset neque Carnutēs, etc., “neque Eburōnēs tantā cum contemptiōne nostra ad castra ventūrōs esse” (B. G. 5.29) , Titurius cried out that if Cæsar were present, neither would the Carnutes, etc., nor would the Eburones be coming to our camp with such contempt, [Direct: sī adesset … venīrent .]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+589&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

I’m not sure whether this should be viewed as a special case of the “future periphrastic” construction or simply as an independent phenomenon. Apparently, according to A&G, you never find future participle + esse in present contrary to fact conditionals in indirect discourse, as the first two examples cited in A&G show. I think you would expect future participle + esse in present contrary to fact conditionals in indirect discourse if this construction were a special case of the future periphrastic construction.

11

By the way, it’s worthwhile working through the examples in A&G to see how this works.

12

I certainly will do so. Thanks for the information as always.

The Dyck/Cambridge edition came today (I went ahead and ordered it). Very interesting-seeming commentary, as in-depth as the series typically is – it looks like the Bryn Mawr and Cambridge will complement each other very well. I’ll read the introduction tomorrow.

13

Take the first of the A&G examples:

“nec sē superstitem fīliae futūrum fuisse, nisi spem ulcīscendae mortis êius in auxiliō commīlitōnum habuisset ” (Liv. 3.50.7) , and that he should not now be a survivor, etc., unless he had had hope, etc. [Direct: nōn superstes essem , nisi habuissem .]

“nec sē superstitem … futūrum fuisse, nisi spem … habuisset” is literally “and that he wouldn’t have been going to be a survivor [as he now is] if he hadn’t had hope.”
In English we could say either “that if he hadn’t had hope he wouldn’t have been a survivor [i.e. the survivor that he now is]” or perhaps more likely “… he wouldn’t be a survivor [as in fact he now is].” Latin, as ever, is more logical. He had to have hope before he would be (would have become, was going to be) a survivor. His present survivorhood was in the future (futurum) relative to the hope, but has now been achieved (fuisse) by his past fulfilment (habuisset not haberet) of the hope on which it was conditioned.

Or have I just added to the confusion?

Caelius-Cicero correspondence. Shackleton-Bailey is the man. A 3-volume set of Loebs (don’t use the older ones), Cicero, Letters to Friends (epistulae ad amicos). The Cael.-Cic. batch is in vol.1 if I remember, written five years after the pro Caelio. This is real Latin, wonderful to read and wonderfully translated by S-B. (Cover the page!) It’s a huge contrast wtih formal oratorical Latin of the speeches, as well as revealing the nitty-gritty realities of political life in these exciting times.

14

Your explanation makes sense in the abstract and I can understand what the examples are saying but once I try to break them down my head it’s a bit harder. I’ll look it over again.

Plerique did a lot of existimming in Caesar.

15

Sometmes it’s best just to master the facts (which are what A&G provide, with examples) rather than trying to account for them, and maybe it was a bad move on my part to try to unpack the rationale. It can make the head spin.

In the last plerique sentence,

“at plērīque exīstimant, sī ācrius īnsequī voluisset, bellum eō diē potuisse fīnīre ” (B. C. 3.51), but most people think that, if he had chosen to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, he could have ended the war on that day. [Direct: sī voluisset … potuit .]

if it were not “he could have ended” but simply “he would have ended” it would be not “potuisse finire” but “finiturum fuisse” (direct “fin(iv)isset”). Note “potuit” indic. rather than pluperf.subj. in the direct form, in accordance with regular usage. He had the power to end it If he’d wanted, not he would have had the power. Again logic at work.

16

I’ve done some more thinking about this and I think I understand both the initial question (“what does x-turum fuisse mean?”) and the rationale of the conditions.

“quid inimīcitiārum crēditis [mē] exceptūrum fuisse, sī īnsontīs lacessīssem ” (Q. C. 6.10.18) , what enmities do you think I should have incurred, if I had wantonly assailed the innocent? [excēpissem … sī lacessīssem.]

what (of) enmities do you all believe (indirect discourse) I (would have been in the state of being about to incur)…
if I had assailed the innocent.

If he had assailed the innocent – then with that action accomplished in the past, then he would have been in that state (but still in the past relative to believing). My specific thought being that the pluperfect is the “toggle” for the condition of the apodosis. (ed: well that’s what a protasis does but the interaction between different times is what I meant)

English idiom renders it “if I assailed the innocent” (“I would have incurred” as in Latin, or “I would incur” being the apodosis). The imperfects work the same way in the other examples.

Is this at least close to right? If so, it’s not that tough after all; if not, I’ll stop thinking about it.

17

I think you’ve got it, at least as well as I have. I’d have said English idiom would more likely be “if I had assailed” than “if I assailed,” but perhaps my English is too old-fashioned. A grammarian might want to ask why the direct form isn’t quid excepturus fuissem, but I’m no grammarian and will happily leave you to get a little further into the speech that Cicero published. There’s plenty more slime to come.

18

There’s plenty more slime to come.

Yes, that’s exactly why it’s fun to read. Especially with good notes that point out how evasive and disingenuous Cicero is.

19

Not starting a new thread for this:

I was talking to a guy I know who is heavily into video games. It turns out that there are actually teams of players who compete in multiplayer games online, and one of these teams is named Natus Vincere, purportedly meaning “born to win”. Obviously this is ludicrous – I imagine they just plugged it into a translation program – and I suggested “natus ad vincendum” as a more correct version; he found a link to someone who offered “natus victu”. The supine just feels wrong to me and according to Allen & Greenough it’s usually confined to a small list of verbs, “vincere” not being one of them, and the grammatical sense seems to be different from something like “mirabile dictu”. For whatever reason this has been bugging me for the last day. What would a good translation of “born to win” be?

I’ve never done any kind of composition work.

20

If the supine were to be used it would have to be the accusative victum. But that natus victum would be puzzling to anyone (e.g. an ancient Roman) not already plugged into the English expression.

But maybe an infinitive of purpose isn’t completely wrong:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D460

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D461

It probably should be plural nati if it’s a team.

Ad victoriam nati or nati ut vincamus would probably be best, but less pithy, or maybe nati victores or natu victores (though natu is usually used in expressions of age, e.g. maior natu, etc.). The future participle victuri can express purpose, but victuri nati seems unintelligible.

How about ortu victores? In general, ortus and related words seem better than natus–less prosaic. Ab ortu victores? Ad victoriam orti?

The problem is that the expression “born to win” by itself is too contemporary to be translated into Latin in a manner that’s both pithy and intelligible. There’s no parallel Latin idiom. It requires a more literal translation: nati ut vincamus, maybe, and even then it might be puzzling to ancient Romans.

It’s the same problem that presents itself when people come to this site looking for Latin translations of contemporary pop culture slogans for tattoos (but I think the newer team of moderators has reduced the incidence of this phenomenon).