I’m working from an old Dutch schoolbook with only exercises and no explanations, and no mentioning of which grammar should accompany it. So sometimes I’m completely at a loss what the author (19th century schoolmaster ) wants.
In an exercise on ‘tempora anomala et defectiva’ I’ve got to find a form for:
“that you will learn” i.e. a future subjunctive. With other verbs, you could use the first periphrastic, e.g. amaturus sum. But learn (discere) has no supine, ergo, no part.fut.act. either. Anyone any idea what to use? By the way, the book glosses discere for learn, so I suppose I have to use it somehow.
Literally, “I say it will be with the result that you learn many things” - “I say that you’ll learn a bunch”
(and “I said that it would be with the result that you learn many things” - “I said you’d learn a bunch”
Typically, the roundabout expression fore ut + subj is used when the supine form (and thus the future participle) is lacking.
Is this what you’re looking for? – “that you will learn” isn’t really a future subjunctive but rather an indirect statement in subsequent time. Besides, there isn’t a future subjunctive, at least that I know of–there’s the present, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect.
What is the context of this phrase? In certain circumstances, the present subjunctive has future implications:
doceo ut discas – I teach so that you will learn. (Stuffy 19th c. translation: “…so that you may learn.”)
Other than that BPq’s circumlocution is a good way to do it, and you seem to realize that when the Romans needed to ‘cheat’ and create a future subjunctive, they would often use the future active ppl with subjunctive of ‘sum’, e.g.:
timeo ut me amatura sis – I am afraid that (one day in the future) you won’t love me.
Thanks to both of you. It must be ‘fore ut’, it has the right description in my grammars.
There’s no context, it’s an exercise with just phrases (‘do it immediately’, ‘know this well’, ‘having eaten’, etc. all kinds of exceptions to the usual rules).
It ought to be said that futurum esse can also be used in this construction (futurum esse ut). This actually means exactly the same thing as fore.
Also, I wanted to mention that the lack of a supine doesn’t ALWAYS imply the lack of a future participle, since sum doesn’t have the supine but does have futurus-a-um, a distinct and very important future participle.
Indeed, I remember my prof. responding to a question about a “future subjunctive” saying that all subjunctives are future. He didn’t mean that every construction with a subjunctive implies future time, but the subjunctive by nature often indicates things that have not yet/will not come to pass.
I know there is no future subjunctive, I meant that the sentence seemed to need one, where you usually would use the first periphrastic, but that couldn’t be used because there is no part.fut.act. of discere.
) wants.