That would be the "future-more-vivid" conditional sentence and would only have indicatives in Latin as well.And here's a different situation:
S'il n'est pas un idiot, il sera content.
If he isn't an idiot, he will be glad.
In this case, the "then"-clause is in the future indicative tense.
If it wasn't my fault, then I don't understand why you wouldn't want to believe me.
Si mea culpa non erat, non ita percipio cur tu mihi credere non velles.
Thanks. Yes, that makes sense.Excellent, except for:
Si mea culpa non fuit, non ita percipio cur tu mihi credere non volueris.
[/i]You must use the perfect subjunctive (volueris) when it refers to an action previous to another one in the present (percipio).
I never feel very comfortable with the difference between "fuit" and "erat." But I think you know it better, so I accept the correction.Regarding fuit/erat, I can't explain why, it's my Romance background that says erat is out of place there.
I don't think that is correct. According to my grammar book you can't use the future tense in the si-clause. Is it just your gut feeling or do you any background information that makes you question my sentence?I think Latin requires the future indicative in both, so:
Si is idiota non erit (or fuerit), felix erit.
Odd -- my Latin book (Wheelock's Latin) saysI don't think that is correct. According to my grammar book you can't use the future tense in the si-clause. Is it just your gut feeling or do you any background information that makes you question my sentence?
and the reference grammar I look these questions up in says (the relevant section is online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0001&query=head=#277)Simple fact future ... : Si id faciet, prudens erit. ... Future indicative in both clauses;
(a) is true, but (b) is very arguable. I can't think of any conditional verb which can't be interpreted as part of an elliptic conditional sentence. Which makes (a) a moot point.The so-called 'conditional' tense is badly named because it (a) it does not appear in all conditional sentences and (b) frequently appears in sentences which are not conditional.
There is no tense (or mood) that can cover every verb in every conditional sentence, in the Romance languages. However, the conditional is the one that has the strongest association with them; indicatives and subjunctives have many other uses.Re (a) The 'conditional'tense does not to my knowledge occur in conditional sentences which are not hypothetical.
...if I were right?Re (b) how about sentences like:
I knew that they would come (oratio obliqua statement)
Yes, that does make more sense.[...] shouldn't your coda to my "I knew that they would come" be rather "if I was right". The sentence is not in the least hypothetical, as your "were" suggets. Quite the reverse, in fact, for "I knew that they would come".
And since we are in the Latin forum: How would you translate that sentence?Re (b) how about sentences like:
I knew that they would come (oratio obliqua statement)
Actually, it's still (a bit) about the conditional mood ... and even if! (moderatorem nobiscum patientem habemus )Whodunit,
SH-sh-sh! please! You'll get us both thrown out for being 'off-topic'!
Would you call that a conditional or subjunctive? Actually, it is the future infinitive that is often translated as a conditional into modern languages, but what would be in Latin except an infinitive? I would have translated it the same as you did, but "Sciebam, ut ii veniant" would have been my choice for an ut-clause. Of course, that would be ambiguous, as it could be understood as a clause in the simultaneity and in the posteriority. Therefore, the infinitive construction (as you used it) is always the better choice for indirect future statements.But, since you ask, I deny that it was actually 'off-topic'. The original query asked what would be the Latin equivalent of the conditional tense. I gave an answer, which I was obliged to modify by saying that my answer did not apply to conditional tenses used in modern European languages in either indirect statements (of which the sentence you quote contains an example) or indirect questions.
As for how I would translate the sentence you quote:
"sciebam eos esse venturos"
would be one possibility.
I'm not sure I understand your theory. Would you say this is a subjunctive as well?Pondering on the adjective "subjunctive" itself I reached the conclusion that any verb in a subordinate clause could be called "subjunctive" in that it subjoined its clause to a major clause. This is indeed a tenable theory and uses the term "subjunctive"as describing a verb's function rather than as describing its form - which is what most Britons tend to do.
Let's regard what Cicero wrote:In other words, I'm afraid you're translation - though interesting - is wrong. It contravenes "usage", unless, of course, you can quote a publicly recognised Latin author who expressed indirect statement by a subjunctive clause. I'm always open to new material.
And Socrates said Scio, ut nescio, if I remember well.In cotidianis autem commentationibus equidem mihi adulescentulus proponere solebam illam exercitationem maxime, qua C. Carbonem nostrum illum inimicum solitum esse uti sciebam, ut aut versibus propositis quam maxime gravibus aut oratione aliqua lecta ad eum finem, quem memoria possem comprehendere, eam rem ipsam, quam legissem, verbis aliis quam maxime possem lectis, pronuntiarem; ... Source, 154
Yep, live and learn!Man lernt nie aus.
Then I must have misunderstood you. What else did you mean by any verb in a subordinate clause could be called "subjunctive" in that it subjoined its clause to a major clause. Please elaborate upon that theory for classical languages or open a new thread for it.Of course, no subjunctives here.
Well, you might be right. I didn't have much time yesterday and didn't check if sciebam and ut belonged together. I apologize for that counterproductive quote. In the meantime, I have checked if it was possible at all to use ut after scire as a conjunction for an object clause. And what I have gathered from some websites (unfortunately my book nor my dictionary elaborate upon this issue) is that ut + subjunctive can only be used after verbs of command, wish etc. So, scire needs an accusativus cum infinitivo as you chose it.Thank you for the Cicero quote. As you will, of course, know the juxtaposition of "sciebam" and "ut" is quite fortuitous, since the clause introduced by the conjunction "ut" is not the object of "sciebam".
I just checked it and I think they used the infinitive construction in Greek for the phrase, too. Scio me nescire, however, is more common than my Scio, ut nesciam. (I just saw that I wrote nescio!). Thus, I think you are correct about that my ut-clause was wrong.It is extremely improbable that Socrates should ever have written anything in Latin. If you'd like to quote me the Greek, I'd be obliged but in any case it can hardly be germane to the issue.
This is off-topic but in Greek it depended on the verb what construction you used, but the thing Socrates is often said to have said uses οἶδα for "know" which I don't think can take the infinitive -- often you see the paraphrase Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι ουδὲν οἶδα, literally means "one I-know that nothing I-know."I just checked it and I think they used the infinitive construction in Greek for the phrase, too.
I think you should use the "Imperfect active of the subjunctive" to form a conditional mood in Latin, due to the fact that this conjugation represents something that is not real, but could be, such as a desire.Is there any way to render the conditional mood in Latin as in other modern romance languages or would you merely use the indictive or subjunctive based on context?