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.
They had gone away that they might not be seen.
Abierunt ne vidererentur.
Because the English has “had”, I thought the pluperfect was in the primary. When I looked at the key I saw that considering whether the pluperfect were in the primary is irrelevant. Also the use of that auxiliary may not sign the English pluperfect.
I’m not sure what the problem is, but the following should help.
“They had gone away” is pluperfect, abierant. Pluperfect is a historic tense.
Abierant ne viderentur (imperfect subjunctive) means “They had gone away in order that they might not be seen” (“They had gone away lest they be seen”),
i.e. “They had gone away to avoid being seen.”
You wrote “Abierunt ne vidererentur.” For vidererentur (a non-form) read viderentur.
abierunt is perfect tense. Here it’s followed by imperfect subjunctive. That tells us that the perfect is here being used as a historic tense, meaning “they went away” (not as a primary tense, meaning “they have gone away”).
So this means “They went away in order that they might not be seen”,
i.e. “They went away to avoid being seen.”
You may be making things more complicated than they are.
Yes. I am. So for now, one sentence at a time. I can’t explain my confusion. But it will resolve.
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.
"I’m not sure what the problem is…"
Pluperfect indicative: Third principle stem plus the imperfect indicative of sum.
ab-ire. ire, eo, ii, itum. Third principle stem: i , so, abieram, abieras, abierat, abieramus, abieratis, abierant.
Historical tense: Pluperfect indicative.
Therefore: Abierunt ne vidererentur. is wrong because the dependent requires an historical tense in the primary.
Matthew, read again carefully what Michael wrote.
Abierunt is not pluperfect, but perfect.
vidererentur is wrong in any possible circumstance because it’s not Latin.
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.
-
“You wrote ‘Abierunt ne vidererentur’”. For vidererentur (a non-form) read viderentur.”.
-
“abierunt is perfect tense. Here it’s followed by imperfect subjunctive. That tells us that the perfect is here being used as a historic tense.”.
Therefore: Abierunt ne vidererentur. is wrong because the dependent requires an historical tense in the primary.
Also looking again at the answer key:
3) Abierunt ne videantur. Perfect indicative and present subjunctive
4) Abierant ne viderentur. Pluperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive
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.
The pluperfect subjunctive is the joint of the third principle stem of a verb with the imperfect subjunctive of sum
20 Tunc cœpit exprobráre civitátibus, in quibus factæ sunt plúrimæ virtútes ejus, quia non egíssent pœniténtiam
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
Coepit exprobare…quia non egissent…
Question: Is the dependent in the above sentence precedent to a historic tense? If it is, I fail to understand how/why.
Coepit here is historic. It is perfect in the sense of action completed in the past. This is also called aoristic perfect, to be distinguished from the perfect proper that indicates a complete action in the present time.
Egissent precedes the action associated with coepit and must be in the pluperfect subjunctive.
He began to upbraid because they had not done.
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.
eram, eras, erat, eramus, eratis, erant.
essem, esses, esset, essemus, essetis, essent.
Question: May the aoristic perfect be used with both imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive?
Exercise 4
- Aegros relinquemus ne impediamur.
Present indicative, present subjunctive.
\ - Ut amicos juvemus dolorem pati volumus.
Present indicative, present subjunctive
\ - Ut nos juvarent celerrime contenderant.
Pluperfect indicative, imperfect subjunctive
8 Hoc fecit ut consul fieret.
Aoristic perfect, imperfect subjunctive
Better question: May both the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctive be used in a clause dependent from a principal in the aoristic perfect? The answer is yes. The aoristic perfect is a historic tense. If the dependent is contemporary with it, you write the present subjunctive, if it is precedent, you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
- relinquemus is not present but…
FINAL SENTENCES…
Contemporary action or precedent action in the dependent clause related to action in the primary clause
May both the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctive be used in a clause dependent from a principal in the aoristic perfect?
3rd conjugation
relinquo, relinquere, reliqui, relictum.
Future indicative, primary tense in final sentences
relinquam, relinques, relinquet, relinquemus, relinquetis, relinquent.
Re: NH Latin Prose Composition
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.
FINAL SENTENCES
Et factum est, cum consummásset Jesus parábolas istas, tránsiit inde.
The pluperfect is in the clause dependent of the primary in which is the aoristic perfect. But this is not a final sentence. My next dumb questions are: Can this sequence occur in other kinds of sentences and may the sentence above belong to a kind of sentences?
Yes, this is a classic example of application of the consecutio temporum in a temporal, half-causal clause.
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.
FINAL SENTENCES
I think the following sentence involves the active participle nominative with the imperfect subjunctive in the dependent and makes an action contemporary with the action (not aoristic) of the primary whose verb is perfect indicative.
Et congregátæ sunt ad eum turbæ multæ, ita ut navículam ascéndens sedéret
How must I see the use of the infinitives in the following: “…nec ad Deum se erigere potis est nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea quae videntur, agnoscere.”
It seems the use of “nec…utut” is a kind of mode for construction.
First it’s not a final but a consecutive. Yes, the action in the dependent is contemporary with the primary. However the perfect indicative congregatae sunt in the primary is aoristic (action completed in the past). In fact the original Greek (Mat. 13:2) has συνήχθησαν, which is aorist indicative passive. In Latin we use the perfect to translate both the Greek aorist (action completed in the past) and the Greek perfect (action completed in the present). Hence in Latin it is only the context that tells you when the action is actually completed.
Regarding the second (Pascendi dominici gregis, Denzinger 3475 2072), it reads:
Quare nec ad Deum se erigere potis est, nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea, quae videntur, agnoscere.
You could rewrite the second part as "non potis est agnoscere illius [i.e., Dei] exsistentiam
So agnoscere depends on potis est
Please provide sources next time.
Thank you
The final and consecutive clauses are kinds of adverbial clauses.
The consecutive clause acts as the result of the action of the independent clause.
“Nemo tam potens est ut omnia efficere possit.”
“Nobody is so powerful as to be able to perform everything.”
It is not possible for one to perform everything as a result of being so powerful.
(Mountford, Arnold, & Bradley, 2006) pp76
“…nec ad Deum se erigere potis est nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea quae videntur, agnoscere.”
“…Can neither reach God nor come to know of his existence by means of visible things.”
This clause sounds as though “to reach” or “to know” would not be possible by the action of seeing. It is not an independent clause. But the action of the infinitives seems to be dependent upon the indicative passive, as though being a result of the indicative passive.
Amerio, R., Italian, J. P. P., Roman, A., & Parsons, J. P. (1996). Iota unum: A study of changes in the Catholic church in the XXth century (5th ed.). Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press., pp373
Within the context of paragraph 163, it seems the author is showing the proposition that, after all, the intellect cannot have truth as a specific object and that this had begun to be prevalent thinking after the Council?
Final Sentence
Ut amicos juvemus dolorem pati volumus.
the deponent infinitive with present indicative, first person plural, in the independent clause, a primary tense, with purposing action in the dependent clause given in the present subjunctive, contemporary to action in the independent