In Chapter XXXII (32) of Familia Romana, the captain says to Medus (line 132) “Miror unde pecuniam sumpseris ut alios redimeres, cum te ipse redimere non possis.” Why is “redimere” here in a secondary tense (imperfect subjuntive), while “miror” and “sumpseris” are in primary tenses? “Sumpseris” is the perfect subjunctive, but isn’t the perfect tense always primary in the subjunctive?
The perfect can be either primary or secondary in the subjunctive as well. This is very typical case of consecutio temporum. So miror is primary, sumpseris is secondary (i.e. historical), indicating an action occurring before the primary. Then we have redimeres, again secondary indicating an action contemporary with sumpseris.
There are many grammar points that, although I have studied them, I often fail to recover them from memory when needed. So I’m asking a couple of grammar questions to improve my mental check-list.
I quote the sentence under study:
Miror unde pecuniam sumpseris ut alios redimeres, cum te ipse redimere non possis.
So “Miror . . . redimeres” is an instance of indirect question, and not indirect statement, right?
And, “cum . . . no possis.” is an instance of a cum-circumstantial clause, right?
So in dealing with indirect speech, you must ask, “Is this indirect statement, or indirect question.”
That makes sense. I also found this in Allen & Greenough (484.j), which seems to be relevant to this sentence: “When a clause depends on one already dependent, its sequence may be secondary if the verb of that clause expresses past time, even if the main verb is in a primary tense.”
So, the clause “ut alios redimere” depends on “unde pecuniam sumpseris,” which in turn depends on “miror.” Am I understanding this correctly?
I believe you are correct that “Miror . . . redimeres” is an indirect question. I took “cum . . . non possis” to be a cum-causal clause, not circumstantial – “I wonder where you got money to redeem others, since you could not redeem yourself.” “Possis” is a primary tense and subjunctive, and primary tenses are in the indicative in cum-circumstantial clauses, but in the subjunctive in causal clauses. I hope I am explaining this accurately. I am using Unit 15 of Moreland & Fleischer as a guide here.
I believe you are correct that “Miror . . . redimeres” is an indirect question. I took “cum . . . non possis” to be a cum-causal clause, not circumstantial – “I wonder where you got money to redeem others, since you could not redeem yourself.” “Possis” is a primary tense and subjunctive, and primary tenses are in the indicative in cum-circumstantial clauses, but in the subjunctive in causal clauses. I hope I am explaining this accurately. I am using Unit 15 of Moreland & Fleischer as a guide here.
Thanks to Chesterton, for helpful correction, and also for the reference to Moreland & Fleischer in Unit 15. That’s p. 349 in my copy, and I see that I had completely forgotten the point mentioned by Chesterton, with respect to the cum circumstantial clause in the primary sequence. Besides that, on rereading I now see that the clause comprises a causal explanation, logically speaking, why the speaker “wonders”. Somehow the possibility of the cum-causal clause had slipped off my mental checklist.
You are welcome. To me, remembering the different rules for the subjunctive is the most challenging thing in Latin grammar. I am also trying to work on my mental checklist, as it were.
