Perfect subjunctive or Future perfect

Latin Learning Latin
41

Adriane,

Thanks for your response - I do appreciate it.

As I said above, brookter, “ceperint” is future perfect here, not past perfect subjunctive. There is no reason for it to be past perfect subjunctive, but there is a reason for it to be future perfect (completed in the future at the time to which “peribunt” refers). [Only ancient grammarians such as Priscian or Probus etc refer to the future perfect as subjunctive; we today say indicative for the future perfect.]

I confess I’m getting confused again. I certainly hadn’t picked up that you’d ruled out the perfect subjunctive, only that you maintained there was a discernible difference between the two.

My fault, I’m sure, as is no doubt the fact that I don’t understand why you’re saying there is no reason for it to be future perfect. I thought that the perfect subjunctive is used in a subordinate subjunctive clause when the main clause is present or future to represent completed action relative to the main verb.

“All those who may have already picked up the sword will die by the sword” does not appear to me to be an impossible sentence (in English, I mean - whether it is valid in Latin is the reason I posted in the first place!)

I’m not saying that this is the more likely explanation - from your response, it clearly isn’t - but you appear to be ruling it out as valid Latin and I’m not sure I understand why.

Regards

David

42

Two things.

First I want to clarify my example with English. My point is that I wouldn’t be a liar (I was saying it rhetorically) if I stated “By tomorrow morning I will have finished my paper”. The point of my example was to point out the fact that the distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood breaks down significantly once we are speaking of yet-to-happen events (which are all hypothetical). If we used a past or present tense the distinction is significant: “He might have gone to the store” is semantically very different from “He went to the store.” The former is a hypothetical, based upon either ignorance or some conditions which may be specified. The latter is a statement of fact. It is stated as a certainty. The indicative does not work this way when we extend it to the future. “By tomorrow I will have finished my paper” is not a statement of fact. It describes an intention dependent upon conditions. The subjunctive can be used to express the exact same sentiment.

Secondly, I do not understand why the statement can’t be understood as a perfect subjunctive. You refer to it as past perfect subjunctive, which I don’t understand. It doesn’t refer to past events. Time is relative in oblique moods, right? Or am I confusing Latin with Greek? My understanding is that a perfect subjunctive describes an action which occurs before the apodosis. The fact that it is perfect merely means the action is already done when we come to the apodosis. A future perfect indicative would give the same idea, the only difference being that the time element of the verb is now absolute (future, but completed), not relative.

Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.
All who will have taken the sword, will die by the sword.

Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.
All those who might have taken the sword, will die by the sword.

I perceive no difference in meaning. Am I missing something? Both sound overly cumbersome in English. We would prefer the present indicative in English: “All who take the sword, will die by the sword.” This again would give the exact same meaning. All three versions are understood as being conditional. The future perfect doesn’t give the impression of certainty. There may be a certain rule for conditional sentences that we can apply to determine that the tense must be ____, but as far as comprehension goes there is no difference in my opinion.

I guess it comes down to how technical you want to get. But breaking conditional sentences into categories such as “future more vivid” “future less vivid” etc. seems to be a more recent, and unnatural device. It’s deeply ingrained in Latin pedagogy, and as a device to build analytical thinking skills it may be helpful, but Latin isn’t a programming language like C++. The meaning of a conditional sentence is mostly understood by context.

43

I quite agree with Adrianus: the first translation you gave is simply invalid. It must be future perfect here. You’ll notice his second example has the apodosis in the subjunctive as well, pereāmus, which makes it a less-vivid conditional and completely valid.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. You must have misunderstood something.

The subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses of indirect discourse, and in that case the future perfect indicative (as well as the perfect indicative) of direct discourse is replaced by the perfect subjunctive of indirect discourse. Sometimes the indicative is used instead, however, either for emphasis or to suggest that the subordinate clause is not part of the actual thought/words/intentions of the person behind the indirect discourse. In such a case there is the possibility of some ambiguity since the future perfect indicative and perfect subjunctive are identical except the first person singular (at least without macrons), but it’s not very significant.

Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of?

It can be expressed in Latin as well, but not in the way you did it. If you add fortasse to the future perfect protasis it will be more or less equivalent to the English (although I confess the English sounds a bit nonsensical to me).


ETA: One could take qui ceperimus as a relative clause of characteristic, I suppose, but I’ve never seen it so used with an inclusively defined antecedent like omnes before. Seems unlikely.

44

Hi Imber,

I took it from my notes on 'Lingva Latina: A College Companion" (Jeanne Marie Neumann), Chapter XXXII, page 231. I’ve just checked the original and it says, verbatim:

“The perfect subjunctive represents completed action in a subjunctive subordinate clause when the main verb is present or future.”

It contrasts this with the use of the present subjunctive for incompleted actions.

However, Neumann doesn’t give any examples here for the perfect subjunctive, she merely makes the statement. I’ve since looked at the explanation of how the present subjunctive is used in these circumstances and the examples all involve the use of ut.

I’d assumed (clearly wrongly), that an element of uncertainty in a subordinate clause attracted the subjunctive but it would appear that the term ‘subjunctive subordinate clause’ is used more restrictively than that.

[quote=“brookter”]
“All those who may have already picked up the sword will die by the sword” does not appear to me to be an impossible sentence (in English, I mean - whether it is valid in Latin is the reason I posted in the first place!)
[/quote]

It can be expressed in Latin as well, but not in the way you did it. If you add > fortasse > to the future perfect protasis it will be more or less equivalent to the English (although I confess the English sounds a bit nonsensical to me).

It’s only nonsensical because I’m trying to fit it into English which roughly follows what I thought the Latin did: “There may be those who have already picked up the sword: they will all die” would be a less outlandish way of expressing the same idea… I do realise that this is an edge case, and will happily use the FPS in future…

[As an aside, wouldn’t the use of ‘fortasse’ miss out the ‘already having picked up’ (completion) idea?]

Again, let me reiterate, I asked the question because I didn’t know, and I’m really grateful for the time people have taken to give their explanations. Many thanks

David

45

I’d have to see for myself to be sure, but it looks like you’re taking a rule for a very specific instance and extrapolating it so as to make it apply as a general rule. You have to be careful to heed the context whenever a general statement like this is made in a grammar. Perhaps it’s just poorly written. Anyway, the use of ut in the examples leads me to believe she is referring specifically to consecutive (result) clauses. These must always take the subjunctive regardless, and the different tenses show relative time. The same is true for purpose clauses except that the idea of intention, which is by definition unfulfilled, necessarily makes the verb incomplete, so only the present and imperfect subjunctive are permitted (according to the sequence of tenses).

This is not always the case with the subjunctive in Latin. Indirect questions are no more uncertain than direct questions, for example, despite only one regularly taking the subjunctive.

I understand what you’re saying, but my feeling is that if it’s nonsensical in English it’s probably nonsensical in Latin. Your new sentence seems a bit different to me. I think you could use a perfect subjunctive in a relative clause of characteristic, but you’d have to drop the omnes.

No. fortasse is an adverb meaning “perhaps”. The “already having picked up” idea is still contained in the future perfect.

Again, let me reiterate, I asked the question because I didn’t know, and I’m really grateful for the time people have taken to give their explanations. Many thanks

I understand you’re just asking for clarification and are willing to be corrected. Apologies if I sound imperious; that’s not my intention.

46

“Omnes qui ceperint gladium” is not a subjunctive clause and there is no uncertainty suggested: “All who will take up the sword”. Clauses beginning “ut” (meaning “that” and not “as”) will be subjunctive, of course.
Non subjunctivo modo illa clausula et sine dubitatione comprehensâ. Certè subjunctivo modo sunt clausulae per “ut” inceptae (separatìm illae quo “sicut” vult dici).

Nota quoquè

“all who might have taken up the sword will die by the sword” in English condemns many who will never actually take up a sword!
Haec pars sententiae anglicae “all who might have taken up the sword” enim multos condemnat qui gladium verò nunquàm capiant!

47

Yikes, TextKit seems to have gobbled up my reply - I’ll write it up again and hope for better.
I disagree with Adrianus - there is every possible reason to read ceperint as a perfect subjunctive, and every possible reason to read it as future perfect. There is no way to distinguish, and I still don’t understand what would be gained by distinguishing between them. Omnes peribunt! They will die. How? Gladio omnes peribunt. They will all die by the sword. Who exactly??? Omnes qui ceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. All those who (could, would, might have, will have) grabbed a sword, will die by the sword.
For a reference, see Woodcock 155: “There was nothing to prevent the subjunctive from being used for its descriptive force alone, even when the antecedent of the relative was real and particular, and even when the action expressed by the subjunctive verb was a fact. […] The subjunctive in these descriptive clauses is called Generic.”
Two examples:
Terence Ph. 917 quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?
Cicero Br. 203 fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium, quos quidem ego audiverim
The first person forms there which Woodcock cites show unambiguously these are perf. subjunctive. Please note that this does not mean I am insisting that ceperint is definitely perfect subjunctive. It is AMBIGUOUS, and the difference does not matter.

48

Yes, I get that, Laura. That’s a type of subjunctive that fits, as in English:
Rectè dicis. Istud subjunctivi genus ut aptum capio, sicut etiam anglicé:

“quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?”
“By what expression will I respond to her whom I would hold in contempt?” [But not in English “By what expression will I respond to her whom I might hold in contempt?”]

“Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audiverim, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator.” “Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least would have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one.”

49

In honor of this sneaky form, for the fabula facilis today, I decided to find a fable with a relative clause like the one in “gladio peribunt” - and I found this famous fable! :slight_smile:
Leo, Vacca, Capra, et Ovis
Societatem aliquando iunxerant leo, vacca, capra, et ovis. Cervum permagnum cum cepissent, leo praedam divisit in quattuor partes aequales. Tum ita locutus est, “Prima pars mea est, quia sum leo; secundum mihi tribuetis, quia sum fortissimus; tertiam mihi sumo propter egregium laborem meum; quartam qui tetigerit, iram meam excitabit.” Sic totam praedam solus retinuit.

50

And here is the fabula facilis version - I try to stick to indicative verbs, present when possible. :slight_smile:
http://latinviafables.blogspot.com/

Leo, vacca, capra, et ovis
societatem iungunt.
Cervum permagnum capiunt!
Leo praedam dividit
in quattuor partes aequales.
Tum ita dicit,
“Prima pars mea est,
quia sum leo.
Secundam partem
mihi tribuere debetis,
quia sum fortissimus.
Tertiam mihi sumo
propter egregium laborem meum.
Quartam … si tangis,
iram meam excitabis!”
Sic leo solus
totam praedam retinet.

51

Yes, but your sentence is different from my “all who may have already taken up the sword…”. A nuance, but they do mean different things…

A moot point, of course. I should like to think that hell will freeze before I will have used the perfect subjunctive again in such circumstances. [1]

Regards

David

[1] Hold on, isn’t that first clause a potential su… :wink:

52

I wrote what you wrote originally, brookter.
Scripsi quod tu, brookter, primitùs scripsisti.

53

Note Laura that the tenses aren’t interchangeable here, I reckon, so no ambiguity
Inter se hîc tempora commutari non possunt, tunc non est ambiguitas.

“quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim?”
“By what expression will I respond to her whom I would hold in contempt?”

but not this // sed non itá:

“quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempsero?”
“By what expression will I respond to her whom I will have held in contempt?”

“Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audiverim, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator.” “Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least would have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one.”

but not this // sed not itá:

“Fuit Sulpicius vel maxime omnium quos quidem ego audivero, grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator.” “Sulpicius was actually of all those whom I at least will have heard an especially powerful orator and, as I would thus put it, very much a theatrical one.”

54

Yes, I saw that after I’d replied to you, although I’d modified it in a later post as we became more specific in the discussion. However, you did miss out the ‘already’, and I do think that that is a crucial element, in the context…

Regards

David

55

I, who might already have taken up the sword but has not, will die by it!

A bit unfair, don’t you think?
Nonnè iniquius est?

56

Adrianus, you yourself have argued fervently for the use of the future perfect in a relative clause clauses subordinated to a future indicative clause; I introduced those samples from Woodcock simply in order to show that it is equally possible to use a perfect subjunctive if you wish to create a generic relative clause likewise coordinated with a future indicative. With ne and non there are two different forms that help distinguish between the indicative and the subjunctive, with qui, there is no way to resolve the ambiguity IF the verb form itself is ambiguous, as is the case with ceperint.

So, if you want to understand qui gladium ceperint as a future perfect indicative, that works.
If someone else wants to understand qui gladium ceperint as a perfect subjunctive, that works, too.

Sometimes this use is explained as being similar to the use of cum with the perfect subjunctive to indicate cause, if that helps make it more clear (again, I am NOT arguing that ceperint must be subjunctive, but simply that it can be subjunctive, just as easily as it can be future perfect).

Cum responderit, omnia iam intellegitis.
Because he answered, you now understand everything.

Cum gladium ceperint, gladio peribunt.
Because they seized the sword, they will die by the sword.

57

Again, I agree with Laura. The form is ambiguous, but the meaning is not. If it is meant as a general truth isn’t the subjunctive possible if not more suitable?

58

Yes, but the original wasn’t about ‘you’ or “I” or “he”, where the doubt is purely in the motivation (sword taken up, yes or no?) but about “they” where there is also uncertainty about how many of the sword-wielding criminals there might be. “There might be people out there who have already taken up the sword and if there are, all of them are going to die by it,” would be just as valid an interpretation.

Et quis dixit ut grammatica necesse sit iustam esse?

Regards

David (I suspect that last bit of Latin may need some work…)

59

Et hoc (potentiale modo): // This would also (as potential subjunctive):
“There might be people out there who might have already taken up the sword and if there are (whether they have or have not), all of them are going to die by it”

60

Yes, I forgot that “qui” + any subjunctive can mean “because”, even though I like to use that formula in posts here often!
Ita, oblitus sum “qui” cum verbo ullius temporis subjunctivo modo “quia” significare, quod me aggravat qui saepè illâ eâdem regulâ in hôc foro scribam!