I don’t understand this dum conjuction in some sentences; or perhaps what i dont understand is the consecutio temporum used in dum sentences. For example:
Milo se dixit in senatu mansisse dum hic dimissus esset. This, according to NH latin prose composition, is the correct rendering of: Milo said he had stayed in the senate untill it was dismissed.
Now, shouldn’t the subjunctive imperfect be the correct tense instead? I mean, the senate was not dismissed before he left, but leaving and dismissing happened at the same time.
A less puzzling key translates “He refused to fight till reinforcements came” as “Negavit se pugnaturum dum supplementa adveniret.” Is " Negavit se pugnaturum dum supplmenta advenissent" wrong?
Thanks.
Hi Siquiera. Leaving and dismissing didn’t take place at exactly the same time but in consequent immediate succession. He left after the dismissal (as a result of it). Consecutio temporum = dum translated as “until” or “until that”, as opposed to dum contemporaneous translated as “while”, “whilst” or “during the time in which” and pluperfect subjunction because a prior action. In addition, wouldn’t there be a pluperfect subjunctive anyway because of the use of indirect speech? “He said that he had stayed in the senate until it had been dismissed” (“I stayed in the senate until it was dismissed”).
Oops accidental post. Sorry. But since I posted this anyway I may as well say that I think I’m wrong about the dependent clause being pluperfect subjunctive anyway as a result of indirect speech. All that mattered was that the main clause was past time and the dependent clause was prior for it to be pluperfect subjunctive. Had the dependent clause been imperfect subjunctive, it would have meant “He said that he had remained in the senate while it was being dismissed”.
I think maybe your second example works both ways (or have I got totally confused?) to express a future subjunctive:
He refused to fight [that he would fight], until reinforcements should arrive [imperfect subjunctive] Strictly speaking, I think, he could start to fight when he knows the reinforcements are arriving. (so simultaneous)
and
He refused to fight until the reinforcements should have arrived. (until they should have finished arriving?) [pluperfect subjunctive].
Hi, Adriane. what you’re saying is that dimissus esset depends on dixit ( and not on se mansisse), right? so, as dismissing happened before saying, it would have to be pluperfect. But, in the same composition book, we read: Jussi sunt se castris tenere dum hostis sibi occasionem pugnandi daret, which sounds better to me.
Since ive found this other example of dum usage, im almost convinced that dimitteretur would be right also. In fact, as i said, it sounds much better to me.
Hi Siqueira.
In the first post I was referring to the “se mansisse” clause. It’s “dimissus esset” because the writer says “se mansisse” (“I remained” which is a PAST tense --a perfect infinitive, which in reported speech is “that he had remained”).
I now think that I’m talking rubbish. See next post.
Hi Siquiera, maybe you’re absolutely right and the use of a perfect subjunctive in a “dum” clause is an oddity in practice. Because when I try to find examples, I can’t. Forgive me for being misleading and wasting your time. 
Hi Siquiera. I’m nervous now about saying anything, but maybe the answer to your original question may be found in the following page about consecutio temporum or sequence of tenses, which says that infinites and participles have no effect on the tenses of dependent clauses, EXCEPT for PERFECT INFINITIVES which take either imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. http://faculty.acu.edu/~goebeld/public_html/latin/authors/grammar/syntax/consecutio.htm
When I look in Allen & Greenough’s New Latin Grammar (1916), section 585, “Tenses of the subjunctive in indirect discourse”, I find the same: “A subjunctive depending on a Perfect Infinitive is often in the Imperfect or Pluperfect, even if the verb of saying etc. is in a primary tense”. They illustrate the pluperfect example with a “tum” clause, “Tarquinium dixisse ferunt tum exsulantem se intellexisse quos fidos amicos habuisset (They tell us that Tarquin said that in his exile he had found out what faithful friends he had had.) [Here the main verb of saying, ferunt, is primary but the time is carried back by dixisse and intellexisse, and the sequence then becomes secondary.]” Isn’t that the answer: because there’s a perfect infinitive in your first sentence which is reported speech, reporting a past action that happened “as long as” or “only until” the dum clause had happened --so pluperfect subjunctive?
Hi, Adriane. Sorry for taking so long to answer. I see you’ve done some research, which has proven very helpful, thanks. Nevertheless, the consecutio temporum web page you linked doesn’t refer to dum, which is a tricky conjunction when meaning until regarding the subjunctive tense to be used.
Yes, as you later suggested, i believe the explanation for using the pluperfect subjunctive in the first sentence is that the author had his mind on the perfect infinitive mansisse. But, to wind it up, i also believe it wouldn’t be wrong if we substituted the imperfect dimitteretur for it. BTW, in English, is " he said he had remained till the senate had been dismissed" more grammatically correct than “he said he had remained till the senate was dismissed” ? Or are they both wrong?
Hi Siquiera. Is the English “he said he had remained till the senate had been dismissed” more grammatically correct than “he said he had remained till the senate was dismissed”? Both are grammatically correct, largely because the use of backshifted past tense in English is optional in many contexts when no practical difference is to understood either way.
Were his original words, imagined in English: “I remained until the senate was dismissed” or “I remained until the senate had been dismissed”? Both are grammatical but there is a nuanced difference. In English you can’t backshift the pluperfect in “until the senate had been dismissed” because that would involve three past tenses and you can’t have that, but you can backshift on the first part of that sentence, or on both parts of the first sentence, “I remained until the senate was dismissed”. In applying a backshift preterite to this complex two-part sentence in reported speech, it is grammatically acceptable to apply backshift + backshift OR backshift + non-backshift to convey the same meaning, and that’s a difference between your sentences. The only thing that is not grammatically correct in English is to use a non-backshift + backshift combination. If you want to check this, have a look at the excellent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), p.156 “Backshift with a complex original utterance”.
“I remained until the senate was dismissed” can be reported either as “He said he had remained until the senate was dismissed” ( = backshift + non-backshift) or “He said he had remained until the senate had been dismissed” (= backshift + backshift)
“I remained until the senate had been dismissed” can be reported only as “He said he had remained until the senate had been dismissed” (= backshift + non-backshift)
When I consider this, I think the pluperfect subjunctive in “Milo se dixit in senatu mansisse dum hic dimissus esset” may flag this distinction in his original words “I remained until the senate had been dismissed” rather than “I remained until the senate was dismissed” (translated by imperfect subjunctive in reported speech) and so you can indeed have an imperfect subjunctive there dependent on what was originally said, Siquiera! Also Allen & Greenough say the perfect infinitive can take either Imperfect or Pluperfect: “A subjunctive depending on a Perfect Infinitive is often in the Imperfect or Pluperfect”. Bene valeas, amice.
Were his original words, imagined in English: “I remained until the senate was dismissed” or “I remained until the senate had been dismissed”?
Its taken from a composition book, and its already reported speech: “He said he remained till the senate was dismissed.” So the actual spoken words are gone with the wind.
That the text read “was dismissed” and not " had been dismissed" was what triggered the question in my stupid brain in the first place.
Thank you for the complete answer to the off topic question about pluperfect in English. ( I guess I need a good grammar for that language as well).
Vale, amice.