Conditions and Sequence of Tenses
A few conditions:
Future Less Vivid (a.k.a. “Should-Would”) represents a future condition merely as an
idea, as potential; the speaker makes no assertion of his belief in its probability. It
uses present subjunctive in protasis (if clause) and apodosis (result clause).
Example:
Si venias, abeam.
(If you should come [were to come], I would leave.)
Future More Vivid represents a distinct supposition about a future situation. It uses
future indicative in the protasis and apodosis.
Example:
Si venies, abibo.
(If you come [will come], I shall leave.)
**[If the conditional act (of the protasis) is regarded as completed before the act of the
apodosis begins, then you use a perfective tense in the protasis--perfect subjunctive in
FLV and future perfect indicative in FMV:
si venerim, abeas. (FLV): If I should (have) come, you would leave.
si venero, abibis. (FMV): If I shall (have) come, you will leave.]**
Contrary to Fact conditions state a supposition as implicitly false. This falseness
comes from the transfer of a future condition to past time: the time for the realization of
the condition has passed and has already been found to be untrue, so if it is to remain
conditional it must be contrary to the facts.
Present C-F uses imperfect subjunctives in both clauses:
Example:
Si venires, abirem.
(If you were coming, I would leave. [but you aren’t, so I’m won’t])
Past C-F uses pluperfect subjunctives in both clauses:
Example:
Si venisses, abivissem.
(If you had come, I would have left. [but you didn’t, so I didn’t)
Sequence of Tenses refers to the system of subjunctive tenses used in subordinate
clauses in Latin. It comprises two sets of two subjunctives; each set performs the same
functions but in different contexts. Each set has a perfective and a non-perfective
subjunctive to represent an original perfective or non-perfective verb.
General rule: Subordinate clauses become subjunctive in indirect discourse.
(See ¶577 in Allen & Greenough’s New Latin Grammar for a more thorough analysis.)
Primary sequence: this means sentences whose main (introductory) verbs are not
past tense (i.e. present, future, and future perfect). Subordinated clauses that still
use conjugated verbs when made subordinate to one of these primary sequence
introductory verbs will use primary sequence subjunctives, namely present and
perfect subjunctives. The perfect will represent any original perfective tense, the
present any originally non-perfective tense.
Example:
Dico si venias, me abiturum esse. (FLV above; si-clause, being
subordinate, uses a subjunctive in indirect discourse, (which it happened to be
already). Since that original verb was non-perfective, the present subjunctive is now
used. The apodosis becomes fut. infin. in keeping with regular rules of indirect
discourse: abeam represents the future.)
Example:
Dico si venerim, te abiturum esse. (FLV in note above; original perfective
verb (subjunctive) becomes perfective subjunctive.)
Example:
Dico si venias, me abiturum esse. (FMV above; non-perfective verb in
original si-clause, venies, becomes non-perfective subjunctive venias. Original
future indicative becomes future infinitive in indirect discourse.)
Example:
Dico si venerim, te abiturum esse. (FMV in note above; perfective verb in
original si-clause, venero, becomes perfective subjunctive venerim.)
You probably noticed that once you filter FLV and FMV through indirect discourse they
are indistinguishable from one another. Context of the statement will provide your
only guide to which of the two is intended by the author. One might assume that at
this point the distinction was not so crucial or the Romans would have invented a
way to distinguish them.
Example:
Dico si venires, me abiturum fuisse. (Present C-F above; the protasis
remains unchanged, while the unfulfilled [contrafactual] potential of the apodosis is
represented by a future participle joined to a past-tense infinitive.)
Example:
Dico si venisses, me abiturum fuisse. (Past C-F above; the protasis
remains unchanged, while the unfulfilled [contrafactual] potential of the apodosis is
represented by a future participle joined to a past-tense infinitive.)
You probably noticed here that these C-F conditions are similar in apodoseis but, by
retaining the protaseis unchanged, the Romans made them distinguishable.
Secondary sequence: this means sentences whose main (introductory) verbs are past
tense (i.e. perfect, imperfect, and pluperfect). Subordinated clauses that still use
conjugated verbs when made subordinate to one of these secondary sequence
introductory verbs will use secondary sequence subjunctives, namely imperfect and
pluperfect subjunctives. The pluperfect will represent any original perfective tense,
the imperfect any originally non-perfective tense.
Example:
Dixi si venires, me abiturum esse. (FLV above; si-clause, being
subordinate, uses a subjunctive in indirect discourse, (which it happened to be
already). Since that original verb was non-perfective, the imperfect subjunctive is
now used according to secondary sequence. The apodosis becomes fut. infin. in
keeping with regular rules of indirect discourse: abeam represents the future.)
Example:
Dixi si venissem, te abiturum esse. (FLV in note above; original perfective
verb (subjunctive) becomes pluperfect subjunctive according to secondary
sequence, because the perfective aspect of the pluperfect subjunctive is used to
represent any original perfective verb or idea.)
Example:
Dixi si venires, me abiturum esse. (FMV above; non-perfective verb in
original si-clause, venies, becomes non-perfective subjunctive [imperfect] venires.
Original future indicative becomes future infinitive in indirect discourse.)
Example:
Dixi si venissem, te abiturum esse. (FMV in note above; perfective verb in
original si-clause, venero, becomes perfective subjunctive [pluperfect] venissem.)
Again as in primary sequence, FLV and FMV are indistinguishable in secondary
sequence indirect speech.
Example:
Dixi si venires, me abiturum fuisse. (Present C-F above; the protasis
remains unchanged, while the unfulfilled [contrafactual] potential of the apodosis is
represented by a future participle joined to a past-tense infinitive.)
Example:
Dixi si venisses, me abiturum fuisse. (Past C-F above; the protasis
remains unchanged, while the unfulfilled [contrafactual] potential of the apodosis is
represented by a future participle joined to a past-tense infinitive.)
You probably noticed once more that these C-F conditions are similar in apodoseis but,
by retaining the protaseis unchanged, the Romans made them distinguishable in
secondary sequence as well as in primary--in fact, the conditions themselves do not
change from primary to secondary sequence.
To conclude:
With a primary sequence main (introductory) verb (present, future, future perfect), Latin
uses a present subjunctive to represent an original non-perfective verb from direct
discourse (direct quotation) and it uses a perfect subjunctive to represent an
originally perfective verb.
With a secondary sequence main (introductory) verb (perfect, imperfect, pluperfect),
Latin uses an imperfect subjunctive to represent an original non-perfective verb from
direct discourse (direct quotation) and it uses a pluperfect subjunctive to represent
an originally perfective verb.
Primary:
Secondary:
present subjunctive
perfect subjunctive
imperfect subjunctive
pluperfect subjunctive
These sets of subjunctives show the same sets of relationships in different contexts,
namely in primary vs. secondary sequences.