“In the following sentences Latin requires the dependent verb to be in the subjunctive.”
They have come in order that they may conquer us.
Veniunt nos vincant.
They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt libertatem nostris emeremus.
We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificiebamus tam bene vincere speremus.
There are several problems. The exercise only requires you to choose the right tense without translating. So you should first understand the consecutio temporum (Rule 1, page 2). If you want to translate, you should apply Rule 2, page 4 (for final sentences) and Rule 3, page 8 for consecutive sentences. Also you should refresh English morphology. What tense is they have come? What tense is we had succeeded? To what Latin tenses do these English tenses correspond?
Exercise 1, page 3
The primary sequence uses in the main clause the indicative: present, future, or perfect tense (with auxiliary) with either the present or perfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause.
The secondary/historical sequence uses in the main clause the indicative: imperfect, pluperfect or perfect tense with either the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause.
The pluperfect indicative tense which is formed with the auxillary “had” and the past participle.
English grammar: Pluperfect. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2016, from http://www.tolearnenglish.com/free/news/0gpluperfect.htm
The pluperfect indicative tense for Latin is formed by joining to the third principle part of any verb the imperfect of “sum”: eram, eras, erat, eramus, eratis, erant.
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?T1=sum&Submit=Go&D1=9&H1=109
“Final” senetences show final cause, that purpose to which some verb/action is ended.
“They have come” is in perfect indicative tense.
i, isti, it, imus, istis, erunt and so it is “venerunt” not “veniunt”.
2) They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt ut libertatem nostris emeremus.
The perfect indicative in the main clause doesn’t have the auxiliary and the dependent subjunctive is imperfect.
3) We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificeramus tam bene ut vincere speremus.
“We had…succeeded” is in pluperfect indicative tense but the dependent verb is imperfect subjunctive…? Well, at least according to the answer key, it is. But am I wrong about the independent verb?
nostris really? What case is it?
procificeramus What’s the perfect stem?
speremus What tense is it?
Notice that in the book it is:
We had already succeeded so well that we hoped to win.
Otherwise it would be strange.
It is imperfect subjunctive because the dependent indicates something contemporary with a historic sense:
If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
Next, I’m going to just review the above four definitions.
The perfect auxiliary in the main clause makes a secondary/historical tense and in the subordinate clause either the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive will be used.
I am going to the city to buy bread
Ad urbem eo ut panem emam
He went to the city lest he should see his father.
Ad urbem ivit ne patrem videret.
We have gone home to see our friends.
Domum ivimus ut amicos videamus
We shall go to Caesar to ask for peace.
Ad Caesarem ibimus ut pacem rogemus.
Do not send me to ask for peace.
Ne me miseris ut pacem rogem.
We were running fast that we might not be caught.
Celeriter currebamus ne caparemur.
“If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.”
Question: For the following how is the action in the dependent precedent to that of the independent clause?
I have bought a horse that I may not be tired.
Equum emi ut non fessus sim.
Give him a sword that he may not be killed.
Gladium da ei ne interficiatur.
Check typo in bold word. Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive) may raise some objections from the purists of classical Latin.
As for your question, principal and dependent are contemporary in either case. The perfect in this case is used as a primary tense to indicate a present condition.
We were running fast that we might not be caught.
Celeriter currebamus ne caparemur.
“If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.”
Question: For the following how is the action in the dependent precedent to that of the independent clause?
I have bought a horse that I may not be tired.
Equum emi ut non fessus sim.
Give him a sword that he may not be killed.
Gladium da ei ne interficiatur.[/quote]
Check typo in bold word. Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive) may raise some objections from the purists of classical Latin.
As for your question, principal and dependent are contemporary in either case. The perfect in this case is used as a primary tense to indicate a present condition.
The bold indication is a typo. I did read the answer key as I typed it’s sentences… It is strange and shameful to state the poverty of my intellect but that condition is the motive of my persistence.
“caperḗmur”
Question:
“Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive)”… A final clause signifies the end from which an action is defined. Does not a consecutive clause show the necessity of an effect from a cause?
The final implies a purpose in the mind of the agent.
You had gone to Italy to see the king’s son.
ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
So in the preceding is written a final sentence showing the purpose of a going, existing in the mind of agents prior to their going and signified in it’s dependent clause.
We were sent to ask for peace.
Missi sumus ut pacem rogaremus.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
In the preceding I don’t understand why the action in the dependent is contemporary with the action of the independent.
In the first sentence the dependent is contemporary with the principal, which is in a historic tense. So wrong tense and wrong mood in the dependent. Or maybe it’s just a typo?
We were sent [in the past] to ask [in the past] for peace.
The second sentence too shows a principal in a historic tense and a dependent contemporary with the principal. So the imperfect conjunctive is correct.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
“In the first sentence the dependent is contemporary with the principal, which is in a historic tense. So wrong tense and wrong mood in the dependent. Or maybe it’s just a typo?” Bedwere
The imperfect subjunctive is made by adding to the infinitive active of any verb the personal endings.
ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis
No, there is not a typo in the sentence. There is a confusion. The principle is imperfect indicative/historic. The dependent must be imperfect subjunctive. The confusion is conceptual and visual since I am not certain about how to see the relation of time and so put the imperfect indicative into the dependent and my visual difficulty is an accident: Videratis is imperfect indicative.
You went to Italy that you might see the king’s son.
Ad Italiam ieratis ut regis filium videretis.
A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.
Videratis, dear sir, is not imperfect indicative. What tense is it really? What is the imperfect indicative of video?
“Videratis, dear sir, is not imperfect indicative. What tense is it really? What is the imperfect indicative of video?”
The imperfect indicative of video is videbam.
“Videratis” is made with the third principle stem and the imperfect of sum, i.e., the pluperfect indicative.
I don’t know what to say! I know how to make the imperfect and pluperfect of both indicative and subjunctive moods! Anyway… I better go away from any thing I post, return to it after at least and hour, review it for the obvious and then post it with corrections.
That may help. Also, try to read some easy Latin every day to get a deeper feeling of the language. The Gospels would be perfect.
I find the Android app “Latin Bible Free” very useful for this. If one is stuck, the English translation can be displayed by tapping on each verse. For the English text, one can can choose between the Douay-Rheims and the Catholic Public Domain Version.
Thank you. I have VulSerch4 with the Douay-Rheims. Also the Liber I have and practice from it frequently for the Ancient Rite. I’ll just keep on keepn’ on! The Collects of the Mass are even becoming more clear as a result of working in this forum. But I’m not a young man anymore. But I cannot not persist in this.
In addition to the Vulgate, I have also been reading chapters from Caesar’s “De Bello Gallico”. I like the fact that there are several annotated versions. One of them, the 1907 edition by Ewing, Lowe and Thomas (available here) is fully macronised and has an extensive grammar appendix which refers to passages from the book. I often read it on the way to or from work, and I don’t progress to the next chapter until I think I’ve understood all the grammar (although I often find out I missed something). Re-reading earlier chapters also helps.
Final Sentences
The final implies a purpose in the mind of the agent.
A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.
Dumb question: In a final sentence is an active infinitive in the dependent always contemporary with the action in the principle?
If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
Exercise 4
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
I was sent to ask for peace.
missus sum ut pacem rogarem
A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.
If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
I shall do this in order to help my friends.
Hoc faciam ut amicos juvem.
If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
They have gone away lest they should be seen.
Abierunt ne videantur
The use of the perfect auxiliary signifies the primary tense.
You may have some rare case of past intention. Also a final dependent in English could also have a passive infinitive, but it’s (nearly) always contemporary. Of course, not all dependents are final.