I think you need to keep in mind the fact that the “rules” are simply generalizations extracted by scholars (to a large extent very diligent German scholars in the mid-19th century to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude) by considering as many examples as possible in the body of texts surviving from the classical period, which have not always been transmitted in perfect condition. There are apparently very few examples of unreal conditions in indirect discourse (o.o.). So we should be cautious about accepting the rules as stated by the authorities. We simply have to live with a certain amount of uncertainty on this point. Woodcock writes with confidence, of course, but given the small body of evidence, we can’t be entirely sure he’s right, especially when he resorts to claims that the text is corrupt in order to fit it within his preconceived ideas about the syntax of these clauses. I would suggest not lingering too long over an obscure point like this, and, instead, trying to understand each instance of an unreal condition in indirect discourse on its own terms when–and if–we encounter it.
Adrianus, Quimmik, Junja:
In the belief that using Latin actively will help me enjoy my beloved Horace & Co even more, and at the risk of lowering the level of this present debate, I’d like to run my basic understanding of the esse/fuisse dichotomy past you all, experts that you are.
Woodcock himself doesn’t translate his Direct Speech or Indirect Speech examples to English so I’ve taken the liberty of providing my own rough-and-ready English versions. I’ve also added some ‘exemplifications’ of my own. Please forgive, correct or ignore!
- PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-fact):
“Si hoc diceret, erraret.”
(If he said that, he would be wrong)
<Eduardus Snowden “Si”, inquit, “ cives scirent, turbarentur.>
<Eduardus says/said: “If the people knew, they’d be upset.>
Censeo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I think that if he said that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Eduardus censet, si cives scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.>
<Eduardus thinks that if the people knew, they’d be upset.>
Censebam, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I thought that if he said that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Eduardus censebat, si cives scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.>
<Eduardus thought that if the people knew, they’d be upset.>
7. FUTURE IDEAL (Future Less Vivid):
”Si hoc dicat, erret.”
(If he should say that, he would be wrong)
<Si Lisa praeses fiat, mundum reddat.>
<If Lisa Simpson should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet.>
Censeo, si hoc dicat, eum erraturum ESSE.
(I think that if he should (ever) say that, he WOULD BE wrong)
<Censeo, si Lisa praeses fiat, eam mundum reddituram ESSE.>
<I think that if Lisa should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet.>
Censebam, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum ESSE.
(I thought that if he should (ever) say that, he WOULD BE wrong.)
<Censebam, si Lisa praeses fiebat, eam mundum reddituram ESSE.>
<I thought that if Lisa should become president, she WOULD SAVE the planet. Perhaps she will.>
- Future Logical (Future More Vivid):
“Si hoc dicet, errabit”.
(If he says that, HE’LL BE wrong)
O.O – (No difference from no. 7.)
(Can anyone provide the two missing examples that Woodcock blandly says are ‘no different from no. 7’?)
Actually, I’d like to see more (and better) examples of these tricky constructions used in real-life/ familiar contexts. The repetitive schematic “I think/thought that if you say/said that …” just isn’t enough.
Anybody?
Vale!
Int
Hi Qimmik 
Hi Interaxus
Hi Adrianus
Qimmik wrote :
I think you need to keep in mind the fact that the “rules” are simply generalizations extracted by scholars (to a large extent very diligent German scholars in the mid-19th century to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude) by considering as many examples as possible in the body of texts surviving from the classical period
That’s what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how grammars are made. It was a mystery I have wondered about as much as I wondered how dictionaries are made.
Qimmik wrote :
I would suggest not lingering too long over an obscure point like this, and
It sounds like I might be held in contempt by you if I post further questions and my thinking.
Ok.
But I wish you can understand that this is the process of me (not a mature Latinist at all) understanding Latin grammar.
And I even have got flashes of new ideas, exchanging several posts here.
Interaxus wrote :
- PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-fact):
“Si hoc diceret, erraret.”
(If he said that, he would be wrong)
<Si Eduardus domum rediret, insanus esset.>
<If Edward Snowden returned home, he’d be mad.>Censeo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum FUISSE.
(I think that if he’d said that, he WOULD HAVE BEEN wrong)
<Censeo, si Eduardus domum rediret, eum insanum futurum FUISSE.
<I think that if Edward had returned home, HE’D HAVE BEEN mad.>
This Cenceo, si hoc diceret, eum erraturum fuisse is Present Unreal Condition & Result, according to Woodcock,
but looking at your translation, which is different from Woodcock’s intention, I am recalled to that question
“In O.O. of Unreal Conditional Sentence, to which the tense of the Inf. is related, to the verb of the conditonal clause, or to the main verb of the sentence ?”
I asked that above, but nobody’s answered to it yet.
By the way, Interaxus,
don’t you think remembering a lot of actual usages of Unreal Conditional Sentence in one’s own language may help deeply understanding the construction of Latin Unreal Conditional Sentence ?
I’ve got an idea, that by remembering the parallel examples of each Latin grammar (or Greek, or any language’s) in one’s own language, one might be lead to a grasp of grammar itself, or, grammar in general, that may (if roughly) rule every language in the world.
I think so as I often notice a similarity or even identity between the grammar of Latin and that of Japanese, when I try literally translating Latin into Japanese.
Adrianus, I ask you again.
Can I ask further about the reason why Fut. pt. -urum is used, after Qimmik advised me to leave off this thinking ?
Now I’m hesitating.
Junja,
I’ve edited my original post. Hope it’s better now.
Vale!
Int
Think of examples in your own language of Oratio Obliqua, or Unreal Conditional Sentence, or any grammatical structure listed in Latin grammar, then you’ll notice some similarity in the use of, for example, tenses between your language and Latin.
So, while just reading Latin grammar book often gives us complicated understanding and leaves us vague, this method can perhaps give us a more deeper, from-the-inside understanding of Latin grammar.
Let me remember Japanese examples of Unreal Conditional Sentences.
1. Present Unreal Condition :
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashii.
If I literally translate it,
If you died, I am sad.
One can also say,
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashii darou.
Literal translation :
If you died, I would be sad. (or, it can be translated “I will be sad”.)
But, Japanese don’t say, (though the one who hears it will understand it, while feeling it is of a little strange structure.)
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashikatta,
(literal trans. : If you died, I was sad.)
neither can we say,
moshi anataga shindara, watashiha kanashikatta darou,
(literal trans. : If you died, I would have been sad.= I would be going to be sad.)
English speaking people, too, may get some insight by literally translating Latin into English without modifying it with the normative grammar, and then by testing if the translation can be sufficiently understood without modification, or even can be spoken by somebody if he spoke without caring about the normative grammar.
Using Pf. for the Protasis,
moshi anataga shindeshimattara, watashiha kanashii.
(literal trans. a little off the normative grammar : if you have died, I am sad.)
moshi anataga shindeshimattara, watashiha kanashii darou.
(literal trans. : if you have died, I would be sad, or I will be sad.)
2. Past Unreal Conditional :
moshi anataga anotoki hutawo aketeitara, watashiha hutawo shimeteita.
(literal trans. without obeying to the normative English grammar : If you had opened the lid at that time, I had shut the lid then.)
One can also say :
moshi anataga anotoki hutawo aketeitara, watashiha hutawo shimeteita darou.
(literal trans. : If you had opened the lid at that time, I would have shut the lid then.)
This post is just for a kind of trial.
If anybody got interested, I will add further.
I tried composing Japanese version of Unreal Conditional sentences,
and I thought I found these things.
In Oratio Obliqua of Unreal Conditional,
the Inf. seems to be related to the main
verb of the sentence in tense,
rather than to the si clause.
Because, when I was translating the
O.O. of Japanese Unreal Conditional into Latin,
I noticed that I always decide the tense of
the Inf. in accordance with the main verb.
(“In O.O. of Unreal Conditional Sentence,
to which the tense of the Inf. is related,
to the verb of the conditonal clause, or to the main verb of the sentence ?”
I have thrown this question twice above.)
In composing Japanese versions, I found
the tenses can be, when appearing variously
in one sentence, decided by an
arbitrary point of view of the speaker,
in Japanese.
And I thought this could be the case also in the real spoken Latin.
I think there were many variations
in the tenses of Protasis and Apodosis of
Unreal Conditional of Latin,
and that the extant texts which grammarians gathered
may be showing only a part of them.
Pease give me your opinion about these thinking.
Here are my compositions
that have led the above thinking.
Past Unreal Conditional
Possible way of speaking, version 1
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteita.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itteita (had gone).
Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habueras, ieras in Americam.
Latin translation (nearer to the instruction of grammar) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses,
ieras (confidence expressed with Indic.) in Americam.
Latin translation (more nearer to the instruction of grammar) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isses in Americam.
Possible way of speaking, version 2
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itta.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itta (have gone :
I’m not sure why
we can use Pf. here, but maybe the point of view is
including the whole past, Plupf. past and Pf. past.
And using Pf. makes the assertational
effect stronger than Plupf..).
Latin translation (literal) :
si tunce pecuniam habuisses, isti in Americam.
Possible way of speaking, version 3
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteitadarou.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) itteitadarou (would have had gone).
Latin translation :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isses in Americam.
Possible way of speaking, version 4
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe ikutokorodatta.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time) okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America) ikutokorodatta (was going to go).
Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, eras itura in Americam
(using Impf. looking at the attempted action
as kept unrealised in a span of time).
Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, fuisti itura in Americam
(using Pf. looking at the attempted action
as attempted at a pont of time).
Latin translation (literal) :
si tunc pecuniam habuisses, ibas in Americam
(this Impf. usage is also listed
in Gildersleeve & Lodge, 597 Remark 2).
2-2.
O.O. of Past Unreal Conditional
Possible way of speaking, version 1
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteta to omou.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money)
motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteita (had gone) to omou (I think that).
Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam
(couldn’t make a literal translation
since there is no Plupf. Inf. in Latin).
Latin translation (nearer to the instruction of grammare) :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, fuisse ituram in Americam.
Possible way of speaking, version 2
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe ittetadarou to omou.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteitadarou (would have had gone)
to omou (I think that).
Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, ituram fuisse in Americam
(couldn’t make a literal translation
since there is no Plupf. Inf. in Latin).
Another trans.,
Censeo potuisse te, si tunc p. h., isse in Americam.
Possible way of speaking, version 3
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteiru to omou.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteiru (have gone : uttered from a present point of view)
to omou (I think that).
Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam
Possible way of speaking, version 4
moshi anotoki okanewo motteitara, anataha amerikahe itteirudarou to omou.
moshi (if) anotoki (at that time)
okanewo (money) motteitara (you had had),
anataha (you) amerikahe (to America)
itteirudarou (would have gone : uttered from a present point of view)
to omou (I think that).
Latin translation :
Censeo te, si tunc pecuniam habuisses, isse in Americam
(couldn’t make a literal translation
since there is no Subj. Pf. Inf. in Latin).
Maybe,
Censeo posse te, si tunc …, isse in Americam.
…oh, I’m tired.
\
- Present Unreal Conditional
Junya:
Si saeculo undevicesimo viveres, dissertationem apud universitatem Germanam scriberes. Longam barbam albam gereres.
<If you were living in the 19th century, you’d be writing your dissertation at a German university. You’d have a long white beard.>
Dico/Dixit te, si saeculo undevicesimo viveres, dissertationem apud universitatem Germanam scripturum fuisse. Longam barbam albam gesturum fuisse.
<I say/said that if you were living in the 19th century, you’d be writing your dissertation at a German university. You’d have a long white beard.>
Joking aside, si Japonice loquerer, fortasse ea quae scripsisti intellegerem.
(Dico/dixi me, si Japonice loquerer, fortasse intellecturum fuisse.)
As regards your ‘thrice-unanswered question’, I understand you to mean: “Does the tense of the Infinitive in an Unreal Conditional sentence relate to the verb of the subordinate (subjunctive) clause or to the introductory/head verb (eg dico/dixi)?”
Moreland & Fleischer (Latin, an Intensive course, p 399) give these examples:
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)
Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)
Here the ‘tense’ (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause, “the tense of which is the same as it would have been in the direct statement”.
For anyone interested (Quimmik, Adrianus?), here’s chapter and verse on Woodcock’s objection to ‘futurum esse’ in Present Unreal Conditions and the tired munk’s ‘typo’. It’s an essay from around 1900!
https://archive.org/details/jstor-288405
I’ve edited my earlier post for the third and final time. I’ve settled for:
PRESENT UNREAL (Present Contrary-to-Fact):
“Si”, inquit Eduardus Snowden, “ cives haec scirent, turbarentur.”
<Edward says/said: “If the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>
Eduardus censet, si cives haec scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.
<Eduardus thinks that if the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>
Eduardus censebat, si cives haec scirent, turbaturos FUISSE.
<Eduardus thought that if the citizens knew these things, they’d be upset.>
Vale!
Int
Thank you for replying, Interaxus ! 
Sorry for responding this late, I was watching the Sochi Olympic women’s figure skate late at night and couldn’t study yesterday.
2.
The journal you introduced to us is interesting.
That’ll answer my question.
I will read it later.
1.
Interaxus wrote :
As regards your ‘thrice-unanswered question’, I understand you to mean: “Does the tense of the Infinitive in an Unreal Conditional sentence relate to the verb of the subordinate (subjunctive) clause or to the introductory/head verb (eg dico/dixi)?”
Moreland & Fleischer (Latin, an Intensive course, p 399) give these examples:
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dicit (dicet) si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FACERENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would oppress)
Dixit si insidias contra rem publicam FECISSENT, consulem eos oppressurum fuisse. (would have oppressed)Here the ‘tense’ (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause, “the tense of which is the same as it would have been in the direct statement”.
I’m glad that that question is
now answered.
But could you explain why you understand that
“Here the ‘tense’ (though not the form) of the infinitive clearly relates to the tense of the verb in the subordinate clause,”
as I am not sure and can’t understand that way ?
And I have a feeling
that the tense of Inf. can be
had in the speaker’s mind
totally separate from the tense of the
si clause (the subordinate clause, as you call),
like being thought absolutely
as an Independent Sentence,
and then is combined with
an Unreal Conditional clause.
And I feel the O.O. sentence of Unreal Conditional sentence (like, Dico te, si -eres, -rum fuisse) is combined in a way similar
to the way a sentence
vereor ut amicus veniat
is combined,
I mean, here vereor
and ut amicus veniat
are separately conceived
as if each is an Independent Sentence.
I mean, Dico te -rum fuisse, and, si -eres, can be conceived separately.
By the way, this Moorland & Fleischer, too, seems to be different from Gildersleeve & Logde (and agreeing with E.C.Woodcock) in presenting the O.O. of Present Unreal Conditional.
G&L would write
Dicit si insidias … facerent, consulem eos oppressurum esse.
Using Pf. fuisse, I feel, gives to the Inf. part of an O.O sentence
an Unreal Conditional atmosphere (so, not just a literal transfiguration of Past tense form of O.R. verb into Inf. form), even when it is Independent
(here I mean, independent from a si clause.
You know, there are such
ways of making an Independent Sentence.
Like, just saying “I could do it.”, implying “if such and such
condition was satisfied”, but leaving it unsaid or even without thinking it.)
Interaxus, reading that
journal article is interesting.
Thak you very much ! 
That tells me how the scholars about
grammar study grammar,
and I can get an inside-knowledge
of this field, like how they make grammar.
It is the first time I’ve read such a thesis or essay.
I started learning Latin and Greek all on
my own after leaving college
(I’m a drop-out. And I majored in the Indian
Philosophy, a different area
than the Western Classical literature
or the Western History or the Western Philosophy.),
solely depending on the information I could get from the internet.