CHAPTER 30 "Perfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive Active and Passive; Sequence of Tenses; Indirect Questions" As the title indicates, this chapter has a lot of new information it. I suggest that you try to digest it in two sittings: the perfect system subjunctive and the sequence of tenses first, and then the section on indirect questions -- which draws on the first two topics. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE The perfect system tenses, as you know, are the perfect, pluperfect and future perfect; they are built on the third principal part of the verb (for the active voice) and the fourth principal part (for the passive voice). In the subjunctive mood, however, there is no future perfect tense -- just as there was no future subjunctive in the present system. The subjunctive abhors the future. So you'll be learning only two tenses of the subjunctive for the perfect system: the perfect and the pluperfect. As Wheelock tells you, and this can hardly be overemphasized, verbs of all conjugations operate according to the same rules in the perfect system, so you needn't look at verbs of the different conjugations to know how they're going to work. Once you get to the third and fourth principal parts of the verbs, regardless of their original conjugations, there is only one set of rules all verbs follow. PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE The formula for the perfect subjunctive active is: 3rd principal part + eri + personal endings The one oddity is that the personal endings used for the subjunctive mood in the perfect system are not the endings you learned for the perfect system in the indicative; the endings are not "-i, -isti, -it, -imus, -istis, -erunt". The perfect system subjunctive uses the same endings which are used in the present system: "-m, -s, -t, -mus, -tis, -nt". Linguists use this fact as evidence that the subjunctive mood is somehow closely related to the present system of tenses. PLUPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE The formula for the pluperfect subjunctive active is: 3rd principal part + isse + personal endings As Wheelock tells you, this amounts to the perfect infinitive, which is the third principal part + isse, with personal endings attached to the end. Again, the personal endings are not "eram, eras," etc.; they are "-m, -s," etc. Let's look at the perfect and pluperfect subjunctive active for a couple of verbs. Write out the forms for the following verbs. Duco, -ere, duxi, ductus PERFECT PLUPERFECT 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ Audio, -ire, audivi, auditus PERFECT PLUPERFECT 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ Rogo (1) PERFECT PLUPERFECT 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ FUTURE PERFECT INDICATIVE AND PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE COMPARED Wheelock warns you that the perfect subjunctive is very similar to the future perfect indicative. Let's have a close look. The future perfect indicative is built on the third principal part and uses the future of the verb "sum" for its personal endings (except for the third person plural, where it's "erint" and not "erunt"). Compare the future perfect indicative with the perfect subjunctive from the verb "laudo (1)". FUTURE PERFECT INDICATIVE PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ 1st ______________________ ______________________ 2nd ______________________ ______________________ 3rd ______________________ ______________________ As you can see, there is only one person in which these two differ: the first person singular. In all the other forms, they are identical. But you needn't despair. There is an easy way to tell the difference between the future perfect indicative and the perfect subjunctive. You simply look at the context. If you see the form "laudaverint," for example, in a clause where the subjunctive is required, then the form is perfect subjunctive. If, on the other hand, you're in a clause where the subjunctive is not called for, then the form is future perfect indicative. It's as simple as that. You know of two subordinate clauses which require the subjunctive already: purpose and result. In the future you'll be gathering more. This is really the simpliest way to work with subjunctives, since knowing when a verb must be, or probably is, subjunctive greatly reduces the amount of dictionary time spent looking up words. Take this sentence, for example: "Haec dixerunt ut hac sapientia uteremur". You don't recognize the verb "uteremur," and just looking at it in isolation, you can see that the conjugated form here could have a number of possible sources. It could be (1) present indicative from a 2nd conjugation verb with a stem in "utere-" (2) future tense indicative from a 3rd conjugation verb with a stem in "utere-" (short "-e-") (3) present subjunctive from a first conjugation verb, stem "utera-" (4) imperfect subjunctive from a 2nd conjugation verb, stem "ute-" (5) imperfect subjunctive from a 3rd conjugation verb, stem "ute-" But if you examine the context of the form, you'll notice that it's in an "ut" clause, and since all "ut" clause you know so far take the subjunctive, the verb must be in the subjunctive mood, thus eliminating possibilities 1, 2, and 3. This is precisely how Latin is read by even the most advanced readers -- only the experienced reader goes through these steps almost instantaneously. Let's move on. PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE You recall that the perfect indicative passive is formed from the fourth principal part (the perfect passive participle) with a conjugated form of the verb "sum" in the present tense. The perfect subjunctive passive is formed exactly the same way, only the verb "sum" is in the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative. laudatus, -a, -um sim PLUPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE How do you imagine Latin forms the pluperfect subjuctive passive? Remember that the pluperfect indicative passive is the fourth principal part (the perfect passive participle) with a conjugated form of "sum" in the imperfect tense. Take a guess. laudatus, -a, -um essem Let's practice a couple of verbs in the perfect system passive subjunctive. Moneo, -ere,m monui, monitus PERFECT PASSIVE PLUPERFECT PASSIVE 1st _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 2nd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 3rd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 1st _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 2nd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 3rd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ Praesto, -are, praestiti, praestitus PERFECT PASSIVE PLUPERFECT PASSIVE 1st _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 2nd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 3rd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 1st _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 2nd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 3rd _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ SEQUENCE OF TENSES You now know all four tenses of the subjunctive mood -- there is no future or future perfect of the subjunctive. Next you need to know how these four tenses are used. First you need to recall that verbs show absolute time only when in they're indicative mood; in every other mood, verb show only time relative to the verb in the indicative mood. Once again, only the indicative mood shows real time; when verbs are in the infinitive, participial or subjunctive mood, they can indicate only whether their action takes place before, during, or after the action of the main verb. The rules of the "sequence of tenses" tell you which tense in the subjunctive mood shows which temporal relationship. Let's be clear on this: the sequence of tenses are rules that apply to dependent subjunctives (subjunctive verbs in subordinate clauses) and only to dependent subjunctives. These rules have nothing to do with participles or infinitives or any other form of a verb which has relative tense. This is the sequence of tense of dependent subjunctives only. For the purposes of these rules, the tenses of the main verb of a sentence are divided into two categories: the primary tenses, and the secondary (or historical) tenses. Primary Tenses: Present Future Future Perfect Perfect Secondary Tenses: Perfect Imperfect Pluperfect This means that if the main verb is in one of the primary tenses, then the sentence is in "primary sequence". If the main verb is in one of the secondary tenses, then the sentence is in "secondary sequence". Now the rules. (1) In primary sequence (a) a present subjunctive shows time contemporaneous or it may show time subsequent to the action of the main verb; (b) a construction called the "active future periphrastic" with the present subjunctive of the verb "sum" may be used to show time subsequent to the action of the main verb; (c) a perfect subjunctive shows time prior to the action of the main verb. (2) In secondary sequence (a) an imperfect subjunctive shows time contemporaneous or it may show time subsequent to the action of the main verb; (b) the active future periphrastic with the imperfect subjunctive of the verb "sum" may show time subsequent to the action of the main verb; (c) a pluperfect subjunctive shows time prior to the action of the main verb. Let's look at this another way: MAIN VERB SUBORDINATE SUBJUNCTIVE TEMPORAL RELATIONSHIP FUT. PERI. + SIM TIME AFTER PRIMARY PRESENT SAME TIME OR AFTER PERFECT TIME BEFORE FUT. PERI. + ESSEM TIME AFTER SECONDARY IMPERFECT SAME TIME OR AFTER PLUPERFECT TIME BEFORE Let's have a look at how this works (We'll skip the periphrastic tenses for now.) 1. "Haec dicit ut pericula comprehendamus". (He is saying these things, so that we may understand the dangers.) 2. "Via ita longa est ut ad urbem numquam veniant". (The road is so long that they never come to the city.) Both of these sentences are in primary sequence because the tense of the main verb is one of the primary tenses. Therefore any subordinate subjunctives in the sentence can be either in the present or perfect tense: the present tense for action contemporaneous or subsequent to the main verb, the perfect for action prior. The subordinate clause in the first sentence "ut pericula comprehendamus" obviously cannot be depicting an action that occurred before the action of the main verb -- it we already understood the dangers, then there would be no reason for him to be speaking. Therefore the tense of the subjunctive is present. In the second sentence, the result of an activity or state can never be prior to the event or the state. Consequently, a result clause, just a purpose clause, can never be prior to the action of the main verb of the sentence. Therefore, "veniant" is a present subjunctive, showing time contemporaneous or subsequent to the main verb "est" in primary sequence. Now let's change the sequence of these sentences from primary to secondary by changing the tense of the main verb to one of the secondary tenses: the imperfect. What will happen to the tense of the subordinate subjunctives? 1. Haec dicebat ut pericula ____________________. 2. Via ita longa erat ut ad urbem numquam ____________________. The temporal relationships of the subordinate subjunctive and the main verb are still the same: they're both still showing time contemporaneous or subsequent. But now we're in secondary sequence, so the tense of the subjunctive must change to the imperfect, since the imperfect subjunctive shows time contemporaneous or subsequent in subordinate subjunctives in secondary sequence. The forms will be "comprehenderemus" and "venirent". You'll see many more examples of this soon. INDIRECT QUESTIONS The title of this section tells it all: just as statements can be the object of a verb -- becoming "indirect" statements -- so also direct questions can be objects of verbs -- becoming indirect questions. Here are some example of how this is done in English. Rewrite these direct questions as indirect questions after the leading verb "I wonder". DIRECT QUESTIONS: (a) "What are you doing"? (b) "Why are they here"? (c) "Are you coming"? (d) "How is this done"? INDIRECT QUESTIONS: (a) I wonder _________________________________________________. (b) I wonder _________________________________________________. (c) I wonder ________________________________________________. (d) I wonder _________________________________________________. Notice the the original direct question is changed very little when we make it indirect. The only change we make in English is to "uninvert" the subject and verb: from "what are you doing" to "what you are doing". Let's look at some more complicated examples of indirect question in English, because sometimes more of a change is required to go from direct to indirect questions. Let's your native English sensitivities guide you in the following examples. DIRECT QUESTIONS: (a) "Did you see her"? (b) "When will he come to help us"? (c) "How many times have they told you this"? (d) "What kind of trouble were they in"? INDIRECT QUESTIONS: (a) I wanted to know _______________________________________________________. (b) She asked _______________________________________________________. (c) They couldn't say _______________________________________________________. (d) They don't remember _______________________________________________________. As you can see, when the tenses start varying, the original direct question is often reshaped when it becomes indirect. Notice also that there is a variety of verbs which can introduce indirect question -- not just verbs which are asking a question like "to ask" to "inquire" etc. In Latin, as in English, an indirect question is a finite construction -- that is, the verb of the indirect question has person. This is unlike the indirect statement in Latin, where the original finite verb becomes an infinitive, and the original nominative subject becomes the accusative subject of the infinitive. The mood of the original verb, however, changes from the indicative to the subjunctive. Here are some simple examples to show you how this works. Dir. Quest.: Cur venis? (Why are you coming?) Indir. Quest.: Nescio cur venias. (I don't know why you're coming.) Dir. Quest.: Veniuntne nostri amici? (Are our friends coming?) Indir. Quest.: Rogat veniantne nostri amici. (He is asking whether our friends are coming.) Dir. Quest.: Quanta pericula sunt? (How great are the dangers?) Indir. Quest.: Video quanta pericula sint. (Now I see how great the dangers are.) OBSERVING SEQUENCE OF TENSE IN INDIRECT QUESTION As you can see, a sentence with an indirect question embedded in it is essentially a complex sentence, with a subordinate subjunctive in a dependent clause. The part of the sentence which introduces the indirect question is the main clause, and the indirect question itself is a subordinate clause, in which the verb happens to be in the subjunctive verb. So, because this question involves a dependent subjunctive, the rules of the sequence of tenses come into play. You remember that the tense of the main verb determines the sequence of the sentences, and hence determines the tenses subordinate subjunctives in the sentence can be in. If the main verb is in one of the primary tenses, then the sentence follows the primary sequence: the subordinate subjunctives can be in the present or perfect tenses. If the main verb is in one of the secondary tenses, then the sentence follows the secondary sequence: the subordinate subjunctives can be in the imperfect or pluperfect tenses. Now let's apply these rules to indirect questions. TIME CONTEMPORANEOUS When the indirect question is depicting an event that is conceived of as contemporaneous with the action of the main verb, then the subordinate subjunctive is either in the present tense (primary sequence) or in the imperfect tense (secondary sequence). (a) "Nescio quid facias"? (I don't know what you're doing.) (b) "Nescivi quid faceres"? (I didn't know what you were doing.) (c) "Rogat veniantne nostri amici". (He asks whether our friends are coming.) (d) "Rogaverunt venirentne nostri amici"? (They asked whether our friends were coming.) TIME PRIOR When the indirect question is depicting an event that is conceived of as having been undertaken before the action of the main verb, then the subordinate subjunctive is either in the perfect tense (primary sequence) or in the pluperfect tense (secondary sequence). (a) "Nescio quid feceris". (I don't know what you did.) (b) "Nescivi quid fecisses". (I didn't know what you had done (or did).) (c) "Rogat venerintne nostri amici". (He asks whether our friends came.) (d) "Rogaverunt venissentne nostri amici". (They asked whether our friends had come (or came).) TIME SUBSEQUENT (AFTER) When the indirect question is depicting an event that is conceived as coming after the action of the main verb, then the subordinate subjunctive is the active future periphrastic with the present subjunctive of "sum" in the present tense (primary sequence) or the active future periphrastic with the imperfect subjunctive of "sum". (a) "Nescio quid facturus sis". (I don't know what you will do (you're going to do).) (b) "Nescivi quid facturus esses". (I didn't know what you were going to do (would do).) (c) "Rogat sintne venturi nostri amici". (He asks whether our friends will come (are going to come).) (d) "Rogaverunt essentne venturi nostri amici". (They asked whether our friends were coming (would come).) Let's summarize all this in one place: PRIMARY SEQUENCE quid facturus sis (what you will do) Nescio quid facias (what you are doing) quid feceris (what you did) sintne venturi nostri amici (whether our friends will come) Rogo veniuntne nostri amici (whether our friends are coming) venerintne nostri amici (whether our friends came) SECONDARY SEQUENCE quid facturus esses (what you would do) Nescivi quid faceres (what you were doing) quid fecisses (what you did) essentne venturi nostri amici (whether our friends would come) Rogavi venerentne nostri amici (whether our friends were coming) venissentne nostri amici (whether our friends had come) SOME ADDITIONAL WORK It's going to take some time, and a lot of practice, to master all the material in this chapter. I suggest you start by working through Wheelock's answered exercises for this chapter. Read the entire sentence before you get down to translating it. Pass you eyes over every word of it, and don't top until you get to the end of the setnece. Try to size up the architecture of the sentence. Identify the main clause, the main verb, look for subordinate clauses and try to identify them as relative, purpose, result, indirect statement, indirect question, etc. Once you've seen the entire sentence, and once you have a feel for where all the parts of it are heading, then you can begin the work of translating with greater direction. Struggle with the sentence for a while before you look up the answers. Try to make them make sense. (And constantly ask youself what sequence of tense the sentence is following.) VOCABULARY PUZZLES cognosco The "-sc-" inserted before the ending of the verb is call the "inceptive" or "inchoative" infix. It denotes the sense that the action of the verb is only in the process of being realized or in the very beginning stages. "Cognosco," therefore, means "to get to know" or "to become acquainted with," not "to know". In the perfect tense, the verb means "to have gotten to know" or "to have become acquainted with," and this amounts to our present tense "to know". Therefore, we translate "cognovi" not "I knew" but "I know" ("I got know."). comprehendo Look at the range of meanings for this verb. All the meanings are related to the idea of getting hold of something. Also, check the third principal part, "comprehendi". Some of the forms of the perfect tense will be identical to those of the present tense: "comprehendit" (he grasps), and "comprehendit" (he grasped); "comprehendimus" (we grasped), and "comprehendimus" (we grasped). 01/10/93