perf. indic. are often almost identical in form with the pres. and perf. subj., and might almost as well be classed with the subj. tenses', which they often replace, or are replaced by; but it is also true that the future may be stated as a fact (just as much as the past, though belonging to the region of fact, may be treated as a conception or hypothesis); though, even then, the ideality or uncertainty of the future often leads to the use of the subjunctive, the certainty of the past even in hypothesis to that of the indicative; e. g. si velis for si voles ; manebo donec redeat (redierit); ausim; haud facile dixerim; fecit si potuit, cf. 27, 14. 'Frequen § 30. y. Frequency (with temporal conjunctions, § 30 y. or si, or relatives), as an indefinite conception, may reason- cy: an inably take the subjunctive, and does so generally in Livy ception. and Tacitus. See Madvig, § 359. Cf. 9, 5; 16, 33; 17, 13; 21, 10; 22, 25. definite con tions used cording as ception is 8. Conjunctions have no inborn predilection for Conjuncindicative or subjunctive. We shall find that most may with either be used with either, and there are good reasons for the mood, acexceptions. We must not take then for our guide arbi- fact or contrary rules, that they rejoice in this or that, but examine expressed. the idea of the sentence, and see whether it is a conception or fact stated. The facts about their usage may be summarized as follows: reasons for the usage are added below of course all (except sometimes dum) are found with subjunctive in oratio obliqua or dependent sentences. : 1 It must not be forgotten that, chronologically, tense-forms precede the existence of moods: that in fact moods and the classification of tenses under them are arbitrary though useful fictions of grammarians, and though in the main based on truth, are still open in some details to question and possibly to subsequent revision. Moods used i. Cause, as a statement of fact, is generally expressed by the with causal indicative; causal conjunctions then are mostly found with the conjunc tions. with temporal, indicative-compounds of quidem (which means in fact,' e. g. siquidem, quandoquidem; cf. Roby, §§ 1747, 1988,) nearly always; but cause in your own mind or the mind of another is conception, not fact, and takes the subjunctive with quum (a kind of temporal conception implying sequence and so cause), or with any of the causal conjunctions given above. It should be remarked that si, like quando, quum, only incidentally expresses cause, and that siquidem is generally purely hypothetical not causal; cf. pro Mil. XVIII. 48. Cf. 7, 7, 15, 41; 22, 3, &c. ii. All temporal conjunctions are found both with indicative and subjunctive. Simple juxtaposition of facts co-ordinately ar 1 Ne is used to negative final, imperative, optative, and some conditional clauses; non all other clauses, and all subordinate parts or fractions even of imperative clauses. Zumpt's (p. 361), Madvig's (§ 456, obs. 2), and Heindorf's (Horace, Sat. 11. 5, 91) instances to the contrary from the poets are only apparent exceptions. It is not till Quintilian's time that instances occur like non dixeris, non perdamus. ranged requires the indicative; therefore use quum, postquam with the indicative where you wish to state two facts in some temporal connexion; but as soon as you get to pure conception (as often of a fact never realized, e. g. priusquam rex veniret abiit) or inchoate and incomplete actions, these particles take a subjunctive; postquam very rarely, because it refers mainly to complete past actions. Cf. 3, 6; 7, 33, 34; 9, 24; 16, 14; 23, 7, 35, &c. N.B. Notice that dum is found mostly with the pres. indic. § 30. with dum, even in oblique narration (as vividly descriptive); ante quam, prius- postquam, quam (if with the indicative), and postquam, with the perfect rather quum, than pluperfect; e.g. postquam venit=after he had come; the point of time to mark (after which the other event happened) is venit not venerat. Where we wish to mark strongly a previously completed fact, and not merely to use it as a point of time, the pluperfect is found, e. g. postquam occiderat; 'after he had first killed.' Cf. 24, 40; 47, 2, 7; 51, 16. Quum however (as marking chronological sequence with causal connexion more or less implied, or as stating facts allusively and not directly) takes the subjunctive in connexion with historic tenses. iii. An aim must be a conception, and these particles are only with final, found with subjunctives. Cf. 3, 6; 9, 4, &c. iv. Concessive, as conceding either a fact or a hypothesis, will with concessive, take accordingly indicatives or subjunctives. Elliptical forms like licet (ut)-(fac) ut, really introduce dependent sentences which come under another rule, and are only apparent exceptions. Quamvis and quantumvis are, strictly, not conjunctions but adverbs qualifying an elliptical dependent clause, e. g. quamvis sit, &c., be it as much as you like, &c. Cf. 29, 19; 47, 9. In Tacitus quamvis is usually found with indicative, quamquam with subjunctive, as also sometimes in Livy. V. You may take either a certain fact or a conception as a with concondition. These particles therefore are found with both moods. Cf. 37, 21, 24, 39; 52, 6, 24, 28. ditional, vi. Consecutive clauses are found invariably in the subjunc- with consecutive, tive, as merely qualifying preceding statements and not stating (otherwise than allusively) a fresh fact. (The Greeks often seem to treat their core as a mere copula=itaque.) Cf. 7, 20; 20, 4. vii. Comparison also takes indicative or subjunctive accord- with comingly as you compare conceptions or facts. parative. Cf. 7, 50; 28, 3; 39, 27. $30. Final or consecutive with ne or non, e.g. fit ut, &c. Subjunctive Subjunctives, preceded by ut, often stand alone parenthetically, or as subjects apparently of fit, abest, accidit, restat, &c. (Madv. §373), where a substantival infinitive could often be used. They doubtless are, or were originally, either final or consecutive classes, and take for their negative ne or non accordingly: so that the negative may be used as a test; e.g. ne plura dicam, restat ut ne taceam, tantum abest ut non taceam, &c. Cf. 15, 9; 27, 14; 37, 40. They may be used (as quod with indic.) with any tense— e.g. accedit quod faciam, ut facturus sim, quod facturus essem. Cf. Cic. p. Rosc. Amer. §§ 83, 104. $ 30. E. The tenses in the subjunctive follow the rules laid down in § 27, § 29, but differ slightly from the indicative. They are constantly used in a relatively or absolutely future sense, or where you would expect futures, no doubt from the connexion' in character and etymology of this mood with the future; e.g. metuo ne veniat; gratulerne tibi an timeam? dubito an faciam. Cf. 17, 11; 19, 11; 37, 60; 38, 4, 8, 14. Even the past tenses (imperf. and pluperf.) seem to have a future sense in wishes and conditions, but they always imply at the same time something past and impossible. An act of the past, existing only in hypothesis, is hopelessly unreal', as the past is unalterable; e.g. si venisset, utinam adisset, veniret si posset. In final sen 1 The pres. and perf. subj. (just as their counterpart the Greek subj. resembles the primary tenses of the indicative) are in form like the indic. futures, and are used of future conceptions or contemplated possibilities: the imperf. and pluperf. of past events, sometimes real, sometimes hypothetical and therefore unalterable impossibilities, being more akin to the past tenses of the indicative (just as the Greek optative implying less reality than the subjunc. approximates in form to the historic tenses of indicative, which are used also for unrealities or unalterable impossibilities). 2 Beginners cannot be too often cautioned that the imperfect subj. cannot be used of future ideas (except futures from a past standing point), and has nothing to do with probability or possibility except incidentally. tences (haec monui ut veniret) the past is used after the past because if the action is past, the preceding aim of it must be also, even though future with respect to the action. Cf. Madv. § 378. Dependent futures. § 30. . In oratio obliqua the pres. subj. is constantly § 30. used for the future: scribet si quid habebit frequently be- conditional comes dicit se scripturum si quid habeat; but where it is necessary to express at once the future or conditional as well as the conceptive or dependent meaning of a clause, the subjunctive cannot do double duty' (cf. Madvig on pluperf. § 381 sub fin.) without leading to ambiguity, and the future or conditional meaning has to be marked more fully and distinctly; e.g. (scribat) scriberet si quid (habeat) haberet, but accedit ut scripturus (sit) esset si quid (habeat) haberet: not ut scriberet, which would mean 'that he wrote.' The protasis, it will be noticed, remains unchanged (cf. 40, 23), and the pluperfect (si quid habuisset) would only be used in a different sense, of a definite uncontinuing time of action. (1) The change may be expressed in a tabular form thus:— (Fact.) 1 I am indebted for this expression originally to Mr H. Jackson, (Trin. Coll.), as also for several other suggestions. 2 Madvig (§ 381) seems to confuse cases (2) and (3). |