Imperfect Tense of Potential Subjunctive

Latin Learning Latin
1

According to the revised Bradley’s Arnold (p.99):

The > imperfect > and pluperfect tenses denote > what would be happening > or would have happened if some imagined condition of the past were being fulfilled. > The reference of the imperfect is generally to the present, > that of the pluperfect to the past.
(si facias), pecces
(if you should do it), you would sin
(si faceres), peccares. (if you were doing it), you would be sinning.
(si fecisses), peccavisses. (if you had done it), you would have sinned.

However, A&G and many other authorities translate the imperfect with “would have”:

Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax, p. 91:

The imperfect potential subjunctive expresses the speaker’s or writer’s opinion as to what was likely to happen in the past, i.e. what could have or might have happened.

The phrase from Livy,

crēderēs eōs bonōs esse

could be translated either way, and I’ve seen both (you would believe/you would have believed)

Same with this from Horace:

hīc, ubi nunc fora sunt, lintrēs errāre vidērēs

you would see/would have seen boats



What about this from Cicero:

quis umquam crederet mulierum adversarium Verrem futurum [esse]?

This seems to only work with “would have:”

“who would ever have been believing that Verrus would be an adversary of women?”


Lastly, another from Cicero which seems to only allow for “would have”:

Cuperem vultum videre tuum, cum haec legeris

I would have liked to have seen your face when you were read this.

The idea expressed in Bradley’s Arnold, that the potential subjunctive is in fact the apodosis of a conditional clause with an unexpressed protasis doesn’t seem to hold up. Instead, there does seem to be some sense of “potential.” Thoughts? Have I missed something? The explanation from Bradley’s Arnold reduces categories, but it just doesn’t seem to work.

2

Seems to me that impf.subj. always has contrafactual present reference—what would be happening (right now). That’s how I’ve always read Livy’s crederes etc. (you’d believe i.e. you’d be believing, as in You’d better believe it!), and it suits the examples you give:
“hīc, ubi nunc fora sunt, lintrēs errāre vidērēs” (not Horace but Ovid?) means you’d be seeing boats (if circumstances were different);
similarly Cic’s “quis umquam crederet mulierum adversarium Verrem futurum” Who would ever think (lit. be believing) that V. would be …?;
and similarly again “cuperem vultum videre tuum, cum haec legeris” I’d be wishing to see your face when you’ve read (lit. will have read) this.

So I’m with Bradley on this.

3

Yes, I thought it was Ovid but I had “Horace” in my notes. I have corrected it.

Thanks for your comments. I have been teaching it Bradley’s way, but I stumbled across a subjunctive handout with some of these quotations this morning and took another look at it. Perhaps the quotes are not as damaging as I had first thought.

It looks like the Cicero quotation (I would be wishing to see your face …) has another reading, videres, instead of videris, I actually didn’t notice the discrepancy, and it was the videres reading that was making me rethink Bradley.

4

Not quite sure what your videres/videris refers to. We have legeris (fut.perf.) in the second Cicero quote, which is certainly right against legeres.
Instead of “I’d be wishing to see your face” (cuperem …) English might say “I wish I could see your face” or “I’d love to see …”, but Latin is more exact in its time relations.

This use of imperfect subjunctive corresponds to Greek’s use of imperfect indicative + ἄν, again with reference to the present.

5

Yes, I meant the legeres/legeris reading. My Greek’s a bit rusty but I’m getting back into it and will make a note of that.