Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Book 2, Prosa 2.
Philosophia, wearing the persona of Fortuna, asserts:
Audacter adfirmem, si tua forent quae amissa conquereris, nullo modo perdidisses.
Translation:
Confidently I would declare, if those things belong to you, which you complain were lost, then you would not have lost them.
Partial Parse, to explain verb forms.
affirmem: present subjunctive, A & G call this the subjunctive of modesty, an instance of the potential subjunctive.
forent: imperfect subjunctive, a condition contrary to fact in the present.
amissa: perfect passive participle.
conquereris: present active indicative. From a deponent verb conqueror.
perdisisses: pluperfect subjunctive, a condition contrary to fact in the past. On the premise of Fortuna, one cannot be deprived of what truly belongs to one. Hence when you complain that you’ve had something taken away from you, then that proves it didn’t belong to you.
What is interesting here is that si tua forent quae amissa conquereris, nullo modo perdidisses is not indirect discourse after affirmem. Indirect discourse would be si tua forent quae amissa conquereris [indicative because it would not be part of the indirect discourse], te nullo modo perditurum fuisse.
Thanks Qimmik for the tip on indirect discourse; I considered the category of indirect discourse in this sentence, but gave up when I saw no application. Since the prose sections of Cons.Phil. are narratives of a conversation, there should be opportunty to review indirect discourse.