SYNTAX OF THE VERB

The Syntax of the Verb relates chiefly to the use of the Moods (which express the manner in which the action is conceived) and the Tenses (which express the time of the action). There is no difference in origin between mood and tense; and hence the uses of mood and tense frequently cross each other. Thus the tenses sometimes have modal significations (compare indicative in apodosis, § 517. c; future for imperative, § 449. b); and the moods sometimes express time (compare subjunctive in future conditions, § 516. b, and notice the want of a future subjunctive).

The parent language had, besides the Imperative mood, two or more forms with modal signification. Of these, the Subjunctive appears with two sets of terminations, -ā-m, -ā-s, in the present tense (moneam, dīcam), and -ē-m, -ē-s, in the present (amem) or other tenses (essem, dīxissem). The Optative was formed by iē-, ī-, with the present stem (sim, duim) or the perfect (dīxerim). (See details in §§ 168, 169.)

Each mood has two general classes or ranges of meaning. The uses of the Subjunctive may all be classed under the general ideas of will or desire and of action vividly conceived; and the uses of the Optative under the general ideas of wish and of action vaguely conceived.

It must not be supposed, however, that in any given construction either the subjunctive or the optative was deliberately used because it denoted conception or possibility. On the contrary, each construction has had its own line of development from more tangible and literal forms of thought to more vague and ideal; and by this process the mood used came to have in each case a special meaning, which was afterwards habitually associated with it in that construction. Similar developments have taken place in English. Thus, the expression I would do this has become equivalent to a mild command, while by analysis it is seen to be the apodosis of a present condition contrary to fact (§ 517): if I were you, etc. By further analysis, I would do is seen to have meant, originally, I should have wished (or I did wish) to do.

In Latin, the original Subjunctive and the Optative became confounded in meaning and in form, and were merged in the Subjunctive, at first in the present tense. Then new tense-forms of the subjunctive were formed,

and to these the original as well as the derived meanings of both moods became attached (see § 438). All the independent uses of the Latin subjunctive are thus to be accounted for.

The dependent uses of the subjunctive have arisen from the employment of some independent subjunctive construction in connection with a main statement. Most frequently the main statement is prefixed to a sentence containing a subjunctive, as a more complete expression of a complex idea (§ 268). Thus a question implying a general negative (quīn rogem? why should n't I ask?) might have the general negative expressed in a prefixed statement (nūlla causa est, there is no reason); or abeat, let him go away, may be expanded into sine abeat. When such a combination comes into habitual use, the original meaning of the subjunctive partially or wholly disappears and a new meaning arises by implication. Thus, in mīsit lēgātōs quī dīcerent, he sent ambassadors to say (i.e. who should say), the original hortatory sense of the subjunctive is partially lost, and the mood becomes in part an expression of purpose. Similar processes may be seen in the growth of Apodosis. Thus, tolle hanc opīniōnem, lūctum sustuleris, remove this notion, you will have done away with grief (i.e. if you remove, etc.).

The Infinitive is originally a verbal noun (§ 451), modifying a verb like other nouns: volō vidēre, lit. “I wish for-seeing”: compare English “what went ye out for to see?” But in Latin it has been surprisingly developed, so as to have forms for tense, and some proper modal characteristics, and to be used as a substitute for finite moods.

The other noun and adjective forms of the verb have been developed in various ways, which are treated under their respective heads below.

The proper Verbal Constructions may be thus classified:—

I. Indicative: Direct Assertion or Question (§ 437).

The Indicative is the mood of direct assertions or questions when there is no modification of the verbal idea except that of time.

The Indicative is sometimes used where the English idiom would suggest the Subjunctive:—

1. longum est, it would be tedious [if, etc.]; satius erat, it would have been better [if, etc.]; persequī possum, I might follow up [in detail].

For the Indicative in Conditions, see §§ 515, 516; for the Indicative in implied Commands, see § 449. b.

The Subjunctive in general expresses the verbal idea with some modification

such as is expressed in English by auxiliaries, by the infinitive, or by the rare subjunctive (§ 157. b).

The Subjunctive is used independently to express—

1. An Exhortation or Command (Hortatory Subjunctive: § 439).
2. A Concession (Concessive Subjunctive: § 440).
3. A Wish (Optative Subjunctive:§ 441).
4. A Question of Doubt etc. (Deliberative Subjunctive: § 444).
5. A Possibility or Contingency (Potential Subjunctive: § 446).

For the special idiomatic uses of the Subjunctive in Apodosis, see § 514.

The Subjunctive is used in dependent clauses to express—

1. Condition: future or contrary to fact (§§ 516. b, c, 517).
2. Purpose (Final, § 531).
3. Characteristic (§ 535).
4. Result (Consecutive, § 537).
5. Time (Temporal, § 546).
6. Indirect Question (§ 574).

The Subjunctive is also used with Conditional Particles of Comparison (§ 524), and in subordinate clauses in the Indirect Discourse (§ 580).

SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT SENTENCES

Hortatory Subjunctive

The Hortatory Subjunctive is used in the present tense to express an exhortation or a command. The negative is nē.

1. hōs latrōnēs interficiāmus (B. G. 7.38), let us kill these robbers.
2. caveant intemperantiam, meminerint verēcundiae (Off. 1.122), let them shun excess and cherish modesty.

The Second Person of the hortatory subjunctive is used only of an indefinite subject, except in prohibitions, in early Latin, and in poetry:—

1. iniūriās fortūnae, quās ferre nequeās, dēfugiendō relinquās (Tusc. 5.118), the wrongs of fortune, which you cannot bear, leave behind by flight.
2. exoriāre aliquis ultor (Aen. 4.625), rise, some avenger.
3. istō bonō ūtāre dum adsit, cum absit nē requīrās (Cat. M. 33), use this blessing while it is present; when it is wanting do not regret it.
4. doceās iter et sacra ōstia pandās (Aen. 6.109), show us the way and lay open the sacred portals.

For Negative Commands (prohibitions), see § 450.

The Imperfect and Pluperfect of the hortatory subjunctive denote an unfulfilled obligation in past time:—

1. morerētur, inquiēs (Rab. Post. 29), he should have died, you will say.
2. potius docēret (Off. 3.88), he should rather have taught.
3. nē poposcissēs (Att. 2.1.3), you should not have asked.
4. saltem aliquid dē pondere dētrāxisset (Fin. 4.57), at least he should have taken something from the weight.

The Hortatory Subjunctive is used to express a concession.

The Present is used for present time, the Perfect for past. The negative is nē.

1. sit fūr, sit sacrilegus: at est bonus imperātor (Verr. 5.4), grant he is a thief, a godless wretch: yet he is a good general.
2. fuerit aliīs; tibi quandō esse coepit (Verr. 2.1.37), suppose he was [so] to others; when did he begin to be to you?
3. nēmō is umquam fuit: nē fuerit (Or. 101), there never was such a one [you will say]: granted (let there not have been).
4. nē sit summum malum dolor, malum certē est (Tusc. 2.14), granted that pain is not the greatest evil, at least it is an evil.

For other methods of expressing Concession, see § 527.

For the Hortatory Subjunctive denoting a Proviso, see § 528. a.

Optative Subjunctive

The Optative Subjunctive is used to express a Wish. The present tense denotes the wish as possible, the imperfect as unaccomplished in present time, the pluperfect as unaccomplished in past time. The negative is nē:—

1. ita vīvam (Att. 5.15), as true as I live, so may I live.
2. ne vīvam sī sciō; (id. 4.16.8), I wish I may not live if I know.
3. dī tē perduint (Deiot. 21), the gods confound thee!
4. valeant, valeant cīvēs meī; sint incolumēs (Mil. 93), farewell, farewell to my fellow-citizens; may they be secure from harm.
5. dī facerent sine patre forem (Ov. M. 8.72), would that the gods allowed me to be without a father (but they do not)!

The perfect subjunctive in a wish is archaic:—

1. dī faxint (Fam. 14.3.3), may the gods grant.
2. quod dī ōmen āverterint (Phil. 12.14, in a religious formula), and may the gods avert this omen.

The Optative Subjunctive is often preceded by the particle utinam; so regularly in the imperfect and pluperfect:—

1. falsus utinam vātēs sim (Liv. 21.10.10), I wish I may be a false prophet.
2. utinam Clōdius vīveret (Mil. 103), would that Clodius were now alive.
3. utinam mē mortuum vīdissēs (Q. Fr. 1.3.1), would you had seen me dead.
4. utinam nē vērē scrīberem (Fam. 5.17.3), would that I were not writing the truth.

In poetry and old Latin utī or ut often introduces the optative subjunctive; and in poetry sī or ō sī with the subjunctive sometimes expresses a wish:—

1. ut pereat positum rōbīgine tēlum (Hor. S. 2.1.43), may the weapon unused perish with rust.
2. ō sī angulus ille accēdat (id. 2.6.8), O if that corner might only be added!
3. sī nunc sē nōbīs ille aureus rāmus ostendat (Aen. 6.187), if now that golden branch would only show itself to us!

Velim and vellem, and their compounds, with a subjunctive or infinitive, are often equivalent to an optative subjunctive:—

1. velim tibi persuādeās (Fam. 9.13.2), I should like to have you believe (I should wish that you would persuade yourself).
2. dē Menedēmō vellem vērum fuisset, dē rēgīnā velim vērum sit (Att. 15.4.4), about Menedemus I wish it had been true; about the queen I wish it may be.
3. nōllem accidisset tempus (Fam. 3.10.2), I wish the time never had come.
4. māllem Cerberum metuerēs (Tusc. 1.12), I had rather have had you afraid of Cerberus (I should have preferred that you feared Cerberus).

Deliberative Subjunctive

The Subjunctive was used in sentences of interrogative form, at first when the speaker wished information in regard to the will or desire of the person addressed. The mood was therefore hortatory in origin. But such questions when addressed by the speaker to himself, as if asking his own advice, become deliberative or, not infrequently, merely exclamatory. In such cases the mood often approaches the meaning of the Potential (see § 445). In these uses the subjunctive is often called Deliberative or Dubitative.

The Subjunctive is used in questions implying (1) doubt, indignation, or (2) an impossibility of the thing's being done. The negative is nōn.

1. quid agam, iūdicēs? quō mē vertam (Verr. 5.2), what am I to do, judges ? whither shall I turn?
2. etiamne eam salūtem (Pl. Rud. 1275), shall I greet her?
3. quid hōc homine faciās? quod supplicium dīgnum libīdinī êius inveniās (Verr. 2.40), what are you to do with this man? what fit penalty can you devise for his wantonness?
4. an ego nōn venīrem (Phil. 2.3), what, should I not have come?
5. quid dīcerem (Att. 6.3.9), what was I to say?
6. quis enim cēlāverit īgnem (Ov. H. 15.7), who could conceal the flame?

In many cases the question has become a mere exclamation, rejecting a suggested possibility:

1. mihi umquam bonōrum praesidium dēfutūrum putārem (Mil. 94), could 1 think that the defence of good men would ever fail me!

Potential Subjunctive

Of the two principal uses of the Subjunctive in independent sentences (cf. § 436), the second, or Potential Subjunctive,

is found in a variety of sentence-forms having as their common element the fact that the mood represents the action as merely conceived or possible, not as desired (hortatory, optative) or real (indicative). Some of these uses are very old and may go back to the Indo-European parent speech, but no satisfactory connection between the Potential and the Hortatory and Optative Subjunctive has been traced. There is no single English equivalent for the Potential Subjunctive; the mood must be rendered, according to circumstances, by the auxiliaries would, should, may, might, can, could.

The Potential Subjunctive is used to suggest an action as possible or conceivable. The negative is nōn.

In this use the Present and the Perfect refer without distinction to the immediate future; the Imperfect (occasionally the Perfect) to past time; the Pluperfect (which is rare) to what might have happened.

The Potential Subjunctive has the following uses:—

1. In cautious or modest assertions in the first person singular of expressions of saying, thinking, or wishing(present or perfect):—
   1. pāce tuā dīxerim (Mil. 103), I would say by your leave.
   2. haud sciam an (Lael. 51), I should incline to think.
   3. tū velimsīc exīstimēs (Fam. 12.6), I should like you to think so.
   4. certum affīmāre nōn ausim (Liv. 3.23), I should not dare to assert as sure.
2. In the indefinite second person singular of verbs of saying, thinking, and the like (present or imperfect):—
   1. crēdāsnōn dē puerō scrīptum sed ā puerō; (Plin. Ep. 4.7.7), you would think that it was written not about a boy but by a boy.
   2. crēderēsvictōs (Liv. 2.43.9), you would have thought them conquered.
   3. reōs dīcerēs (id. 2.35.5), you would have said they were culprits.
   4. vidērēssusurrōs (Hor. S. 2.8.77), you might have seen them whispering (lit. whispers).
   5. fretō assimilāre possīs (Ov. M. 5.6), you might compare it to a sea.
3. With other verbs, in all persons, when some word or phrase in the context implies that the action is expressed as merely possible or conceivable:—
   1. nīl egocontulerimiūcundō sānus amīcō; (Hor. S. 1.5.44), when in my senses I should compare nothing with an interesting friend.
   2. fortūnam citiusreperiās quam retineās (Pub. Syr. 168), you may sooner find fortune than keep it.
   3. aliquis dīcat (Ter. And. 640), somebody may say.

Forsitan, perhaps, regularly takes the Potential Subjunctive except in later Latin and in poetry, where the Indicative is also common:—

1. forsitan quaerātis quī iste terror sit (Rosc. Am. 5), you may perhaps inquire what this alarm is.
2. forsitan temerē fēcerim (id. 31), perhaps I have acted rashly.

Fortasse, perhaps, is regularly followed by the Indicative; sometimes, however, by the Subjunctive, but chiefly in later Latin:—

1. quaerēs fortasse (Fam. 15.4.13), perhaps you will ask.

The Imperative is used in Commands and Entreaties:—

1. cōnsulite vōbīs, prōspicite patriae, cōnservāte vōs (Cat. 4.3), have a care for yourselves, guard the country, preserve yourselves.
2. dīc, Mārce Tullī, sententiam, Marcus Tullius, state your opinion.
3. tē ipsum concute (Hor. S. 1.3.35), examine yourself.
4. vīve, valēque (id. 2.5.110), farewell, bless you (live and be well)!
5. miserēre animī nōn dīgna ferentis (Aen. 2.144), pity a soul bearing undeserved misfortune.

The third person of the imperative is antiquated or poetic:—

1. ollīs salūs populī suprēma lēx estō (Legg. 3.8), the safety of the people shall be their first law.
2. iūsta imperia suntō, eīsque cīvēs modestē pārentō (id. 3.6), let there be lawful authorities, and let the citizens strictly obey them.

The Future Imperative is used in commands, etc., where there is a distinct reference to future time:—

1. In connection with some adverb or other expression that indicates at what time in the future the action of the imperative shall take place. So especially with a future, a future perfect indicative, or (in poetry and early Latin) with a present imperative:—
   1. crāspetitō, dabitur (Pl. Merc. 769), ask to-morrow [and] it shall be given.
   2. cum valētūdinī cōnsulueris, tumcōnsulitōnāvigātiōnī; (Fam. 16.4.3), when you have attended to your health, then look to your sailing.
   3. Phyllida mitte mihī, meus est nātālis, Iollā; cum faciam vitulā prō frūgibus, ipse venītō (Ecl. 3.76), send Phyllis to me, it is my birthday, Iollas; when I [shall] sacrifice a heifer for the harvest, come yourself.
   4. dīc quibus in terrīs, etc., et Phyllida sōlus habētō (id. 3.107), tell in what lands, etc., and have Phyllis for yourself.
2. In general directions serving for all time, as Precepts, Statutes, and Wills:—
   1. is iūris cīvīlis cūstōs estō (Legg. 3.8), let him (the prætor) be the guardian of civil right.
   2. Boreā flante, nēarātō, sēmen nē iacitō (Plin. H. N. 18.334), when the north wind blows, plough not nor sow your seed.

The verbs sciō, meminī, and habeō (in the sense of consider) regularly use the Future Imperative instead of the Present:—

1. fīliolō mē auctum scītō (Att. 1.2), learn that I am blessed with a little boy.
2. sīc habētō, mī Tirō; (Fam. 16.4.4), so understand it, my good Tiro.
3. dē pallā mementō, amābō; (Pl. Asin. 939), remember, dear, about the gown.

The Future Indicative is sometimes used for the imperative; and quīn (why not?) with the Present Indicative may have the force of a command:—

1. sī quid acciderit novī, faciēs ut sciam (Fam. 14.8), you will let me know if anything new happens.
2. quīn accipis (Ter. Haut. 832), here, take it (why not take it?).

Instead of the simple Imperative, cūrā ut, fac (fac ut), or velim, followed by the subjunctive (§ 565), is often used, especially in colloquial language:—

1. cūrā ut Rōmae sīs (Att. 1.2), take care to be at Rome.
2. fac ut valētūdinem cūrēs (Fam. 14.17), see that you take care of your health
3. domī adsītis facite (Ter. Eun. 506), be at home, do.
4. eum mihi velim mittās (Att. 8.11), I wish you would send it to me.

For commands in Indirect Discourse, see § 588.

For the Imperative with the force of a Conditional Clause, see § 521. b.

Prohibition (Negative Command)

Prohibition is regularly expressed in classic prose (1) by nōlī with the Infinitive, (2) by cavē with the Present Subjunctive, or (3) by nē with the Perfect Subjunctive:—

1. (1) nōlī putāre (Lig. 33), do not suppose (be unwilling to suppose).
2. nōlī impudēns esse (Fam. 12.30.1), don't be shameless.
3. nōlīte cōgere sociōs (Verr. 2.1.82), do not compel the allies.
4. (2) cavē putēs (Att. 7.20), don't suppose (take care lest you suppose).
5. cavē īgnōscās (Lig. 14), do not pardon.
6. cavē festīnēs (Fam. 16.12.6), do not be in haste.
7. (3) nē necesse habueris (Att. 16.2.5), do not regard it as necessary.
8. nē sīs admīrātus (Fam. 7.18.3), do not be surprised.
9. hōc facitō; hōc nē fēceris (Div. 2.127), thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that.
10. nē Apellae quidem dīxeris (Fam. 7.25.2), do not tell Apella even.
11. nē vōs quidem mortem timueritis (Tusc. 1.98), nor must you fear death.

All three of these constructions are well established in classic prose. The first, which is the most ceremonious, occurs oftenest; the third, though not discourteous, is usually less formal and more peremptory than the others.

1. parce piās scelerāre manūs (Aen. 3.42), forbear to defile your pious hands.
2. cētera mitte loquī; (Hor. Epod. 13.7), forbear to say the rest.
3. fuge quaerere (Hor. Od. 1.9.13), do not inquire.

1. nē exspectētis (Pl. Ps. 1234), do not wait.
2. nē metuās (Mart. Ep. 1.70.13), do not fear.
3. cave quicquam responderis (Pl. Am. 608), do not make any reply.

1. nihil īgnōveris (Mur. 65), grant no pardon (pardon nothing).
2. nec mihi illud dīxeris (Fin. 1.25), and do not say this to me.

The Present Imperative with nē is used in prohibitions by early writers and the poets:—

1. nē timē (Pl. Curc. 520), don't be afraid.
2. nimium nē crēde colōrī; (Ecl. 2.17), trust not too much to complexion.
3. equō nē crēdite (Aen. 2.48), trust not the horse.

The Future Imperative with nē is used in prohibitions in laws and formal precepts (see § 449. 2).

The Infinitive is properly a noun denoting the action of the verb abstractly. It differs, however, from other abstract nouns in the following points: (1) it often admits the distinction of tense; (2) it is modified by adverbs, not by adjectives; (3) it governs the same case as its verb; (4) it is limited to special constructions.

The Latin Infinitive is the dative or locative case of such a noun

and was originally used to denote Purpose; but it has in many constructions developed into a substitute for a finite verb. Hence the variety of its use.

In its use as a verb, the Infinitive may take a Subject Accusative (§ 397. e), originally the object of another verb on which the Infinitive depended. Thus iubeō tē valēre is literally I command you for being well (cf. substantive clauses, § 562. N.).

Infinitive as Noun

The Infinitive, with or without a subject accusative, may be used with est and similar verbs (1) as the Subject, (2) in Apposition with the subject, or (3) as a Predicate Nominative.

1. As Subject:—
   1. dolēre malum est (Fin. 5.84), to suffer pain is an evil.
   2. bellum est sua vitia nōsse (Att. 2.17), it's a fine thing to know one's own faults.
   3. praestatcompōnerefluctūs (Aen. 1.135), it is better to calm the waves.
2. In Apposition with the Subject:—
   1. proinde quasi iniūriamfacere id dēmum esset imperiō ūtī; (Sall. Cat. 12), just as if this and this alone, to commit injustice, were to use power. [Here facere is in apposition with id.]
3. As Predicate Nominative:—
   1. id est convenienter nātūrae vīvere (Fin. 4.41), that is to live in conformity with nature. [Cf. ūtī in the last example.]

1. istuc ipsum nōn esse cum fueris miserrimum putō; (Tusc. 1.12), for I think this very thing most wretched, not to be when one has been. [Here istuc ipsum belongs to the nounnōn esse.]
2. miserārī,invidēre,gestīre,laetārī, haec omnia morbōs Graecī appellant (id. 3.7), to feel pity, envy, desire, joy,—all these things the Greeks call diseases. [Here the infinitives are in apposition with haec.]

The infinitive as subject is not common except with est and similar verbs. But sometimes, especially in poetry, it is used as the subject of verbs which are apparently more active in meaning:—

1. quōs omnīs eadem cupere, eadem ōdisse, eadem metuere, in ūnum coēgit (Iug. 31), all of whom the fact of desiring, hating, and fearing the same things has united into one.
2. ingenuās didicisse fidēliter artīs ēmollit mōrēs (Ov. P. 2.9.48), faithfully to have learned liberal arts softens the manners.
3. posse loquī ēripitur (Ov. M. 2.483), the power of speech is taken away.

Rarely the Infinitive is used exactly like the Accusative of a noun:—

1. beātē vīvere aliī in aliō, vōs in voluptāte pōnitis (Fin. 2.86), a happy life different [philosophers] base on different things, you on pleasure.
2. quam multa ... facimus causā amīcōrum, precārī ab indīgnō, supplicāre, etc. (Lael. 57), how many things we do for our friends' sake, ask favors from an unworthy person, resort to entreaty, etc.
3. nihil explōrātum habeās, nē amāre quidem aut amārī (id. 97), you have nothing assured, not even loving and being loved.

Infinitive as Apparent Subject of Impersonals

The Infinitive is used as the apparent Subject with many impersonal verbs and expressions:

Such are libet, licet, oportet, decet, placet, vīsum est, pudet, piget, necesse est, opus est, etc.:—

1. libet mihi cōnsīderāre (Quinct. 48), it suits me to consider.
2. necesse est morī (Tusc. 2.2), it is necessary to die.
3. quid attinet glōriōsē loquī nisi cōnstanter loquāre (Fin. 2.89), what good does it do to talk boastfully unless you speak consistently?
4. neque mē vīxisse paenitet (id. 84), I do not feel sorry to have lived.
5. gubernāre mē taedēbat (Att. 2.7.4), I was tired of being pilot.

With impersonal verbs and expressions that take the Infinitive as an apparent subject, the personal subject of the action may be expressed—

1. By a Dative, depending on the verb or verbal phrase:—
   1. rogant ut id sibifacere liceat (B. G. 1.7), they ask that it be allowed them to do this.
   2. nōn lubet enimmihidēplōrāre vītam (Cat. M. 84), for it does not please me to lament my life.
   3. vīsum est mihidē senectūte aliquid cōnscrībere (id. 1), it seemed good to me to write something about old age.
   4. quid est tam secundum nātūram quamsenibusēmorī; (id. 71), what is so much in accordance with nature as for old men to die?
   5. exstinguīhominī suō tempore optābile est (id. 85), for a man to die at the appointed time is desirable.
2. By an Accusative expressed as the subject of the infinitive or the object of the impersonal:—
   1. sī licet vīvereeum quem Sex. Naevius nōn volt (Quinct. 94), if it is allowed a man to live against the will of Sextus Nœvius.
   2. nōnne oportuit praescīsse mēante (Ter. And. 239), ought I not to have known beforehand?
   3. ōrātōremīrāscī minimē decet (Tusc. 4.54), it is particularly unbecoming for an orator to lose his temper.
   4. pudēretmē dīcere (N. D. 1.109), I should be ashamed to say.
   5. cōnsilia ineunt quōrum eōs in vestīgiō paenitēre necesse est (B. G. 4.5), they form plans for which they must at once be sorry.

A predicate noun or adjective is commonly in the Accusative; but with licet regularly, and with other verbs occasionally, the Dative is used:—

1. expedit bonās esse vōbīs (Ter. Haut. 388), it is for your advantage to be good.
2. licuit esse ōtiōsō Themistoclī; (Tusc. 1.33), Themistocles might have been inactive (it was allowed to Themistocles to be inactive).
3. mihi neglegentī esse nōn licet (Att. 1.17.6), I must not be negligent. [But also neglegentem.]
4. cūr hīs esse līberōs nōn licet (Flacc. 71), why is it not allowed these men to be free?
5. nōn est omnibus stantibus necesse dīcere (Marc. 33), it is not necessary for all to speak standing.

Complementary Infinitive

Verbs which imply another action of the same subject to complete their meaning take the Infinitive without a subject accusative.

Such are verbs denoting to be able, dare, undertake, remember, forget, be accustomed, begin, continue, cease, hesitate, learn, know how, fear, and the like:—

1. hōc queō dīcere (Cat. M. 32), this I can say.
2. mittō quaerere (Rosc. Am. 53), I omit to ask.
3. vereor laudāre praesentem (N. D. 1.58), I fear to praise a man to his face.
4. ōrō ut mātūrēs venīre (Att. 4.1), I beg you will make haste to come.
5. oblīvīscī nōn possum quae volō; (Fin. 2.104), I cannot forget that which I wish.
6. dēsine id mē docēre (Tusc. 2.29), cease to teach me that.
7. dīcere solēbat, he used to say.
8. audeō dīcere, I venture to say.
9. loquī posse coepī, I began to be able to speak.

Many verbs take either a Subjunctive Clause or a Complementary Infinitive, without difference of meaning.

Such are verbs signifying willingness, necessity, propriety, resolve, command, prohibition, effort, and the like (cf. § 563):—

1. dēcernere optābat (Q. C. 3.11.1), he was eager to decide.
2. optāvit ut tollerētur (Off. 3.94), he was eager to be taken up.
3. oppūgnāre contendit (B. G. 5.21), he strove to take by storm.
4. contendit ut caperet (id. 5.8), he strove to take.
5. bellum gerere cōnstituit (id. 4.6), he decided to carry on war.
6. cōnstitueram ut manērem (Att. 16.10.1), I had decided to remain.

1. eōs quōs tūtārī dēbent dēserunt (Off. 1.28), they forsake those whom they ought to protect.
2. aveō pūgnāre (Att. 2.18.3), I'm anxious to fight.

In poetry and later writers many verbs may have the infinitive, after the analogy of verbs of more literal meaning that take it in prose:—

1. furit tē reperīre (Hor. Od. 1.15.27), he rages to find thee. [A forcible way of saying cupit (§§ 457, 563. b).]
2. saevit exstinguere nōmen (Ov. M. 1.200), he rages to blot out the name.
3. fuge quaerere (Hor. Od. 1.9.13), forbear to ask (cf. § 450. N. 1).
4. parce piās scelerāre manūs (Aen. 3.42), forbear to defile your pious hands.

A Predicate Noun or Adjective after a complementary infinitive takes the case of the subject of the main verb:—

1. fierīque studēbam êius prūdentiā doctior (Lael. 1), I was eager to become more wise through his wisdom.
2. sciō quam soleās esse occupātus (Fam. 16.21.7), I know how busy you usually are (are wont to be).
3. brovis esse labōrō, obscūrus fīō; (Hor. A. P. 25), I struggle to be brief, I become obscure.

Infinitive with Subject Accusative

The Infinitive with Subject Accusative is used with verbs and other expressions of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving (Indirect Discourse, § 579):—

1. dīcit montem ab hostibus tenērī (B. G. 1.22), he says that the hill is held by the enemy. [Direct: mōns ab hostibus tenētur.]

Infinitive of Purpose

In a few cases the Infinitive retains its original meaning of Purpose.

The infinitive is used in isolated passages instead of a subjunctive clause after habeō, dō, ministrō:—

1. tantum habeō pollicērī (Fam. 1.5A. 3), so much I have to promise. [Here the more formal construction would be quod pollicear.]
2. ut Iovī bibere ministrāret (Tusc. 1.65), to serve Jove with wine (to drink).
3. merīdiē bibere datō; (Cato R. R. 89), give (to) drink at noonday.

Parātus, suētus, and their compounds, and a few other participles (used as adjectives), take the infinitive like the verbs from which they come:—

1. id quod parātī sunt facere (Quint. 8), that which they are ready to do.
2. adsuēfactī superārī (B. G. 6.24), used to being conquered.
3. currū succēdere suētī; (Aen. 3.541), used to being harnessed to the chariot
4. cōpiās bellāre cōnsuētās (B. Afr. 73), forces accustomed to fighting.

1. īnsuētus nāvigandī (B. G. 5.6), unused to making voyages.
2. alendīs līberīs suēti (Tac. Ann. 14.27), accustomed to supporting children.
3. corpora īnsuēta ad onera portanda (B. C. 1.78), bodies unused to carry burdens.

The poets and early writers often use the infinitive to express purpose when there is no analogy with any prose construction:—

1. fīlius intrō iit vidēre quid agat (Ter. Hec. 345), your son has gone in to see what he is doing. [In prose: the supine vīsum.]
2. nōn ferrō Libycōs populāre Penātīs vēnimus (Aen. 1.527), we have not come to lay waste with the sword the Libyan homes.
3. lōrīcam dōnat habēre virō; (id. 5.262), he gives the hero a breastplate to wear. [In prose: habendam.]

For the Infinitive used instead of a Substantive Clause of Purpose, see § 457.

For tempus est abīre, see § 504. N. 2.

Peculiar Infinitives

Many Adjectives take the Infinitive in poetry, following a Greek idiom:—

1. dūrus compōnere versūs (Hor. S. 1.4.8), harsh in composing verse.
2. cantārī dīgnus (Ecl. 5.54), worthy to be sung. [In prose: quī cantētur.]
3. fortis trāctāre serpentīs (Hor. Od. 1.37.26), brave to handle serpents.
4. cantāre perītī; (Ecl. 10.32), skilled in song.
5. facilēs aurem praebēre (Prop. 3.14.15), ready to lend an ear.
6. nescia vincī pectora (Aen. 12.527), hearts not knowing how to yield.
7. tē vidēre aegrōtī; (Plaut. Trin. 75), sick of seeing you.

Rarely in poetry the infinitive is used to express result:—

1. fingit equum docilem magister īre viam quā mōnstret eques (Hor. Ep. 1.2.64), the trainer makes the horse gentle so as to go in the road the rider points out.
2. hīc levāre ... pauperem labōribus vocātus audit (Hor. Od. 2.18.38), he, when called, hears, so as to relieve the poor man of his troubles.

The infinitive occasionally occurs as a pure noun limited by a demonstrative, a possessive, or some other adjective:—

1. hōc nōn dolēre (Fin. 2.18), this freedom from pain. [Cf. tōtum hōc beātē vīvere (Tusc. 5.33), this whole matter of the happy life.]
2. nostrum vīvere (Per. 1.9), our life (to live).
3. scire tuum (id. 1.27), your knowledge (to know).

Exclamatory Infinitive

The Infinitive, with Subject Accusative,

may be used in Exclamations (cf. § 397. d):—

1. tē in tantās aerumnās propter mē incidisse (Fam. 14.1), alas, that you should have fallen into such grief for me!
2. mēne inceptō dēsistere victam (Aen. 1.37), what! I beaten desist from my purpose?

A subjunctive clause, with or without ut, is often used elliptically in exclamatory questions. The question may be introduced by the interrogative -ne:—

1. quamquam quid loquor? tē ut ūlla rēs frangat (Cat. 1.22), yet why do I speak? [the idea] that anything should bend you!
2. egone ut tē interpellem (Tusc. 2.42), what, I interrupt you?
3. ego tibi īrāscerer (Q. Fr. 1.3), I angry with you?

Historical Infinitive

The Infinitive is often used for the Imperfect Indicative in narration, and takes a subject in the Nominative:—

1. tum Catilīna pollicērī novās tabulās (Sall. Cat. 21), then Catiline promised abolition of debts (clean ledgers).
2. ego īnstāre ut mihi respondēret (Verr. 2.188), I kept urging him to answer me.
3. pars cēdere, aliī īnsequī; neque sīgna neque ōrdinēs observāre; ubi quemque perīculum cēperat, ibi resistere ac prōpulsāre; arma, tēla, equī, virī, hostēs atque cīvēs permixtī; nihil cōnsiliō neque imperiō agī; fors omnia regere (Iug. 51), a part give way, others press on; they hold neither to standards nor ranks; where danger overtook them, there each would stand and fight; arms, weapons, horses, men, foe and friend, mingled in confusion; nothing went by counsel or command; chance ruled all.

The number of possible Tenses is very great. For in each of the three times, Present, Past, and Future, an action may be represented as going on, completed, or beginning; as habitual or isolated; as defined in time or indefinite (aoristic); as determined with reference to the time of the speaker, or as not itself so determined but as relative to some time which is determined; and the past and future times may be near or remote. Thus a scheme of thirty or more tenses might be devised.

But, in the development of forms, which always takes place gradually, no language finds occasion for more than a small part of these. The most obvious distinctions, according to our habits of thought, appear in the following scheme:—

Most languages disregard some of these distinctions, and some make other distinctions not here given. The Indo-European parent speech had a Present tense to express a and g, a Perfect to express d, an Aorist to express h, a Future to express c and i, and an Imperfect to express b. The Latin, however, confounded the Perfect and Aorist in a single form (the Perfect scrīpsī), thus losing all distinction of form between d and h, and probably in a great degree the distinction of meaning. The nature of this confusion may be seen by comparing dīxī, dicāvī, and didicī (all Perfects derived from the same root, DIC), with e)/deica, Skr. adiksham, de/deixa, Skr. dideça. Latin also developed two new forms, those for e (scrīpseram) and f (scrīpserō), and thus possessed six tenses, as seen in § 154. c.

The lines between these six tenses in Latin are not hard and fast, nor are they precisely the same that we draw in English. Thus in many verbs the form corresponding to I have written (d) is used for those corresponding to I am writing (a) and I write (g) in a slightly different sense, and the form corresponding to I had written (e) is used in like manner for that corresponding to I was writing (b). Again, the Latin often uses the form for I shall have written (f) instead of that for I shall write (i). Thus, nōvī, I have learned, is used for I know; cōnstiterat, he had taken his position, for he stood; cōgnōverō, I shall have learned, for I shall be aware. In general a writer may take his own point of view.

INCOMPLETE ACTION: PRESENT TENSE

The Present Tense denotes an action or state (1) as now taking place or existing, and so (2) as incomplete in present time, or (3) as indefinite, referring to no particular time, but denoting a general truth:—

1. senātus haec intellegit, cōnsul videt, hīc tamen vīvit (Cat. 1.2), the senate knows this, the consul sees it, yet this man lives.
2. tibi concēdō meās sēdīs (Div. 1.104), I give you my seat (an offer which may or may not be accepted).
3. exspectō quid velīs (Ter. And. 34), I await your pleasure (what you wish).
4. tū āctiōnem īnstituis, ille aciem īnstruit (Mur. 22), you arrange a case, he arrays an army. [The present is here used of regular employment.]
5. minōra dī neglegunt (N. D. 3.86), the gods disregard trifles. [General truth.]
6. obsequium amīcōs, vēritās odium parit (Ter. And. 68), flattery gains friends, truth hatred. [General truth.]

The present is regularly used in quoting writers whose works are extant:—

1. Epicūrus vērō ea dīcit (Tusc. 2.17), but Epicurus says such things.
2. apud illum Ulixēs lāmentātur in volnere (id. 2.49), in him (Sophocles) Ulysses laments over his wound.
3. Polyphēmum Homērus cum ariete colloquentem facit (id. 5.115), Homer brings in (makes) Polyphemus talking with his ram.

Present with iam diū etc.

The Present with expressions of duration of time (especially iam diū, iam dūdum) denotes an action continuing in the present, but begun in the past (cf. § 471. b).

In this use the present is commonly to be rendered by the perfect in English:—

1. iam diū īgnōrō quid agās (Fam. 7.9), for a long time I have not known what you were doing.
2. tē iam dūdum hortor (Cat. 1.12), I have long been urging you.
3. patimur multōs iam annōs (Verr. 5.126), we suffer now these many years. [The Latin perfect would imply that we no longer suffer.]
4. annī sunt octō cum ista causa versātur (cf. Clu. 82), it is now eight years that this case has been in hand.
5. annum iam audīs Cratippum (Off. 1.1), for a year you have been a hearer of Cratippus.
6. adhūc Plancius mē retinet (Fam. 14.1.3), so far Plancius has kept me here.

Conative Present

The Present sometimes denotes an action attempted or begun in present time, but never completed at all (Conative Present, cf. § 471. c):—

1. iam iamque manū tenet (Aen. 2.530), and now, even now, he attempts to grasp him.
2. dēnsōs fertur in hostīs (id. 2.511), he starts to rush into the thickest of the foe.
3. dēcernō quīnquāgintā diērum supplicātiōnēs (Phil. 14.29), I move for fifty days' thanksgiving. [Cf. senātus dēcrēvit, the senate ordained.]

Present for Future

The Present, especially in colloquial language and poetry, is often used for the Future:—

1. īmusne sessum (De Or. 3.17), shall we take a seat? (are we going to sit?)
2. hodiē uxōrem dūcis (Ter. And. 321), are you to be married to-day?
3. quod sī fit, pereō funditus (id. 244), if this happens, I am utterly undone.
4. ecquid mē adiuvās (Clu. 71), won't you give me a little help?
5. in iūs vocō tē. nōn eō. nōn īs (Pl. Asin. 480), I summon you to the court. I won't go. You won't?

For other uses of the Present in a future sense, see under Conditions (§ 516. a. N.), antequam and priusquam (§ 551. c), dum (§ 553. N. 2), and § 444. a. N.

Historical Present

The Present in lively narrative is often used for the Historical Perfect:—

1. affertur nūntius Syrācūsās; curritur ad praetōrium; Cleomenēs in pūblico esse nōn audet; inclūdit sē domī; (Verr. 5.92), the news is brought to Syracuse; they run to headquarters; Cleomenes does not venture to be abroad; he shuts himself up at home.

For the Present Indicative with dum, while, see § 556.

The present may be used for the perfect in a summary enumeration of past events (Annalistic Present):—

1. Rōma interim crēscit Albae ruīnīs: duplicātur cīvium numerus; Caelius additur urbī mōns (Liv. 1.30), Rome meanwhile grows as a result of the fall of Alba: the number of citizens is doubled; the Cœlian hill is added to the town

IMPERFECT TENSE

The Imperfect denotes an action or a state as continued or repeated in past time:—

1. hunc audiēbant anteā; (Manil. 13), they used to hear of him before.
2. [Sōcratēs] ita cēnsēbat itaque disseruit (Tusc. 1.72), Socrates thought so (habitually), and so he spoke (then).
3. prūdēns esse putābātur (Lael. 6), he was (generally) thought wise. [The perfect would refer to some particular case, and not to a state of things.]
4. iamque rubēscēbat Aurōra (Aen. 3.521), and now the dawn was blushing.
5. āra vetus stābat (Ov. M. 6.326), an old altar stood there.

1. Haeduī graviter ferēbant, neque lēgātōs ad Caesarem mittere audēbant (B. G. 5.6), the Hædui were displeased, and did not dare to send envoys to Cæsar. [Here the Imperfects describe the state of things.] But,—
2. id tulit factum graviter Indūtiomārus (id. 5.4), Indutiomarus was displeased at this action. [Here the Perfect merely states the fact.]
3. aedificia vīcōsque habēbant (id. 4.4), they had buildings and villages.

The Imperfect represents a present tense transferred to past time. Hence all the meanings which the Present has derived from the continuance of the action belong also to the Imperfect in reference to past time.

The Imperfect is used in descriptions:—

1. erant omnīnō itinera duo ... mōns altissimus impendēbat (B. G. 1.6), there were in all two ways ... a very high mountain overhung.

With iam diū, iam dūdum, and other expressions of duration of time, the Imperfect denotes an action continuing in the past but begun at some previous time (cf. § 466).

In this construction the Imperfect is rendered by the English Pluperfect:—

1. iam dūdum flēbam (Ov. M. 3.656), I had been weeping for a long time.
2. cōpiās quās diū comparābant (Fam. 11.13.5), the forces which they had long been getting ready.

The Imperfect sometimes denotes an action as begun (Inceptive Imperfect), or as attempted or only intended (Conative Imperfect; cf § 467):—

1. in exsilium ēioiēbam quem iam ingressum esse in bellum vidēbam (Cat. 2.14), was I trying to send into exile one who I saw had already gone into war?
2. hunc igitur diem sibi prōpōnēns Milō, cruentīs manibus ad illa augusta centuriārum auspicia veniēbat (Mil. 43), was Milo coming (i.e. was it likely that he would come), etc.?
3. sī licitum esset veniēbant (Verr. 5.129), they were coming if it had been allowed (they were on the point of coming, and would have done so if, etc.).

The Imperfect is sometimes used to express a surprise at the resent discovery of a fact already existing:—

1. ō tū quoque aderās (Ter. Ph. 858), oh, you are here too!
2. ehem, tūn hīc erās, mī Phaedria (Ter. Eun. 86), what! you here, Phœdria?
3. ā miser! quantā labōrābās Charybdī; (Hor. Od. 1.27.19), unhappy boy, what a whirlpool you are struggling in [and I never knew it]!

The Imperfect is often used in dialogue by the comic poets where later writers would employ the Perfect:—

1. ad amīcum Calliclem quoi rem aībat mandāsse hīc suam (Pl. Trin. 956), to his friend Callicles, to whom, he said, he had intrusted his property.
2. praesāgībat mī animus frūstrā mē īre quom exībam domō; (Pl. Aul. 178), my mind mistrusted when I went from home that I went in vain.

1. at medicī quoque, ita enim dīcēbās, saepe falluntur (N. D. 3.15), but physicians also,—for that is what you were saying just now,—are often mistaken.
2. haec mihi ferē in mentem veniēbant (id. 2.67, 168), this is about what occurred to me, etc. [In a straightforward narration this would be vēnērunt.]

The Imperfect with negative words often has the force of the English auxiliary could or would:—

1. itaque (Dāmoclēs) nec pulchrōs iliōs ministrātōrēs aspiciēbat (Tusc. 5.62), therefore he could not look upon those beautiful slaves. [In this case did not would not express the idea of continued prevention of enjoyment by the overhanging sword.]
2. nec enim dum eram vōbīscum animum meum vidēbātis (Cat. M. 79), for, you know, while I was with you, you could not see my soul. [Here the Perfect would refer only to one moment.]
3. Lentulus satis erat fortis ōrātōr, sed cōgitandī nōn ferēbat labōrem (Brut 268), Lentulus was bold enough as an orator, but could not endure the exertion of thinking hard.

For the Epistolary Imperfect, see § 479; for the Imperfect Indicative in apodosis contrary to fa<*>, see § 517. b. c.

FUTURE TENSE

The Future denotes an action or state that will occur hereafter.

The Future may have the force of an Imperative (§ 449. b).

The Future is often required in a subordinate clause in Latin where in English futurity is sufficiently expressed by the main clause:

1. cum aderit vidēbit, when he is there he will see (cf. § 547).
2. sānābimur sī volēmus (Tusc. 3.13), we shall be healed if we wish (cf. § 516. a).

COMPLETED ACTION: PERFECT TENSE

Perfect Definite and Historical Perfect

The Perfect denotes an action either as now completed (Perfect Definite), or as having taken place at some undefined point of past time (Historical or Aoristic Perfect).

The Perfect Definite corresponds in general to the English Perfect with have; the Historical Perfect to the English Preterite (or Past):

1. (1) ut ego fēcī, quī Graecās litterās senex didicī (Cat. M. 26), as I have done, who have learned Greek in my old age.
2. diūturnī silentī fīnem hodiernus diēs attulit (Marc. 1), this day has put an end to my long-continued silence.
3. (2) tantum bellum extrēmā hieme apparāvit, ineunte vēre suscēpit, mediā aestāte cōnfēcit (Manil. 35), so great a war he made ready for at the end of winter, undertook in early spring, and finished by midsummer.

The Indefinite Present, denoting a customary action or a general truth (§ 465), often has the Perfect in a subordinate clause referring to time antecedent to that of the main clause:—

1. quī in compedibus corporis semper fuērunt, etiam cum solūtī sunt tardius ingrediuntur (Tusc. 1.75), they who have always been in the fetters of the body, even when released move more slowly.
2. simul ac mihi collibitum est, praestō est imāgō; (N. D. 1.108), as soon as I have taken a fancy, the image is before my eyes.
3. haec morte effugiuntur, etiam sī nōn ēvēnērunt, tamen quia possunt ēvenīre (Tusc. 1.86), these things are escaped by death even if they have not [yet] happened, because they still may happen.

The Perfect is sometimes used emphatically to denote that a thing or condition of things that once existed no longer exists:

1. fuit ista quondam in hāc rē pūblicā virtūs (Cat. 1.3), there was once such virtue in this commonwealth.
2. habuit, nōn habet (Tusc. 1.87), he had, he has no longer.
3. fīlium habeō ... immo habuī; nunc habeam necne incertumst (Ter. Haut. 93), I have a son, no, I had one; whether I have now or not is uncertain.
4. fuimus Trōes, fuit īlium (Aen. 2.325), we have ceased to be Trojans, Troy is no more.

Special Uses of the Perfect

The Perfect is sometimes used of a general truth, especially with negatives (Gnomic Perfect):—

1. quī studet contingere mētam multa tulit fēcitque (Hor. A. P. 412), he who aims to reach the goal, first bears and does many things.
2. nōn aeris acervus et aurī dēdūxit corpore febrīs (id. Ep. 1.2.47), the pile of brass and gold removes not fever from the frame.

The Perfect is often used in expressions containing or implying a negation, where in affirmation the Imperfect would be preferred:—

1. dīcēbat melius quam scrīpsit Hortēnsius (Or. 132), Hortensius spoke better than he wrote. [Here the negative is implied in the comparison: compare the use of quisquam, ūllus, etc. (§§ 311, 312), and the French ne after comparatives and superlatives.]

The completed tenses of some verbs are equivalent to the incomplete tenses of verbs of kindred meaning.

Such are the preteritive verbs ōdī, I hate; meminī, I remember; nōvī, I know; cōnsuēvī, I am accustomed,

with others used preteritively, as vēnerat (=aderat, he was at hand, etc.), cōnstitērunt, they stand firm (have taken their stand), and many inceptives (see § 263. 1):—

1. quī diēs aestūs maximōs efficere cōnsuēvit (B. G. 4.29), which day generally makes the highest tides (is accustomed to make).
2. cûius splendor obsolēvit (Quinct. 59), whose splendor is now all faded.

PLUPERFECT TENSE

The Pluperfect is used (1) to denote an action or state completed in past time; or (2) sometimes to denote an action in indefinite time, but prior to some past time referred to:—

1. (1) locī nātūra erat haec, quem locum nostrī castrīs dēlēgerant (B. G. 2.18), this was the nature of the ground which our men had chosen for a camp.
2. Viridovīx summam imperī tenēbat eārum omnium cīvitātum quae dēfēcerant (id. 3.17), Viridovix held the chief command of all those tribes which had revolted.
3. (2) neque vērō cum aliquid mandāverat cōnfectum putābat (Cat. 3.16), but when he had given a thing in charge he did not look on it as done.
4. quae sī quandō adepta est id quod eī fuerat concupītum, tum fert alacritātem (Tusc. 4.15), if it (desire) ever has gained what it had [previously] desired, then it produces joy.

For the Epistolary Pluperfect, see § 479.

FUTURE PERFECT TENSE

The Future Perfect denotes an action as completed in the future:—

1. ut sēmentem fēceris, ita metēs (De Or. 2.261), as you sow (shall have sown), so shall you reap.
2. carmina tum melius, cum vēnerit ipse, canēmus (Ecl. 9.67), then shall we sing our songs better, when he himself has come (shall have come).
3. sī illīus īnsidiae clāriōrēs hāc lūce fuerint, tum dēnique obsecrābō; (Mil. 6), when the plots of that man have been shown to be as clear as daylight, then, and not till then, shall I conjure you.
4. ego certē meum officium praestiterō (B. G. 4.25), I at least shall have done my duty (i.e. when the time comes to reckon up the matter, I shall be found to have done it, whatever the event).

1. quid inventum sit paulō post vīderō (Acad. 2.76), what has been found out I shall see presently.
2. quī Antōnium oppresserit bellum taeterrimum cōnfēcerit (Fam. 10.19), whoever crushes (shall have crushed) Antony will finish (will have finished) a most loathsome war.

EPISTOLARY TENSES

In Letters, the Perfect Historical or the Imperfect may be used for the present, and the Pluperfect for any past tense, as if the letter were dated at the time it is supposed to be received:—

1. neque tamen, haec cum scrībēbam, eram nescius quantīs oneribus premerēre (Fam. 5.12.2), nor while I write this am I ignorant under what burdens you are weighed down.
2. ad tuās omnīs [epistulās] rescrīpseram prīdiē; (Att. 9.10.1), I answered all your letters yesterday.
3. cum quod scrīberem ad tē nihil habērem, tamen hās dedī litterās (Att. 9.16), though I have nothing to write to you, still I write this letter.

The tenses of the Subjunctive in Independent Clauses denote time in relation to the time of the speaker.

The Present always refers to future (or indefinite) time, the Imperfect to either past or present, the Perfect to either future or past, the Pluperfect always to past.

The tenses of the Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses were habitually used in certain fixed connections with the tenses of the main verb.

These connections were determined by the time of the main verb and the time of the dependent verb together. They are known, collectively, as the Sequence of Tenses.

Sequence of Tenses

The tenses of the Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses follow special rules for the Sequence of Tenses.

With reference to these rules all tenses when used in independent clauses are divided into two classes,—Primary and Secondary.

1. PRIMARY.—The Primary Tenses include all forms that express present or futuretime. These are the Present, Future, and Future Perfect Indicative, the Present and Perfect Subjunctive, and the Present and Future Imperative.
2. SECONDARY.—The Secondary Tenses include all forms that refer to past time. These are the Imperfect, Perfect, and Pluperfect Indicative, the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive, and the Historical Infinitive.

The Perfect Definite is sometimes treated as primary (see § 485. a).

For the Historical Present, see § 485. e; for the Imperfect Subjunctive in Apodosis, see § 485. h.

The following is the general rule for the Sequence of Tenses:—

In complex sentences a Primary tense in the main clause is followed by the Present or Perfect in the dependent clause, and a Secondary tense by the Imperfect or Pluperfect:—

PRIMARY TENSES

SECONDARY TENSES

In applying the rule for the Sequence of Tenses, observe—

(1) Whether the main verb is (a) primary or (b) secondary.

(2) Whether the dependent verb is to denote completed action (i.e. past with reference to the main verb) or incomplete action (i.e. present or future with reference to the main verb). Then—

If the leading verb is primary, the dependent verb must be in the Present if it denotes incomplete action, in the Perfect if it denotes completed action.

If the leading verb is secondary, the dependent verb must be in the Imperfect if it denotes incomplete action, in the Pluperfect if it denotes completed action:—

1. (1) He writes [primary] to warn [incomplete action] us, scrībit ut nōs moneat.
2. I ask [primary] what you were doing [now past], rogō quid fēceris.
3. (2) He wrote [secondary] to warn [incomplete] us, scrīpsit ut nōs monēret.
4. I asked [secondary] what you were doing [incomplete], rogāvī quid facerēs.

Notice that the Future Perfect denotes action completed (at the time referred to), and hence is represented in the Subjunctive by the Perfect or Pluperfect:—

1. He shows that if they come (shall have come), many will perish, dēmōnstrat, sī vēnerint, multōs interitūrōs.
2. He showed that if they should come (should have come), many would perish, dēmōnstrāvit, sī vēnissent, multōs interitūrōs.

In the Sequence of Tenses the following special points are to be noted:—

The Perfect Indicative is ordinarily a secondary tense, but allows the primary sequence when the present time is clearly in the writer's mind:—

1. ut satis esset praesidī prōvīsum est (Cat. 2.26), provision has been made that there should be ample guard. [Secondary sequence.]
2. addūxī hominem in quō satisfacere exterīs nātiōnibus possētis (Verr. 1.2), I have brought a man in whose person you can make satisfaction to foreign nations. [Secondary sequence.]
3. est enim rēs iam in eum locum adducta, ut quamquam multum intersit inter eōrum causās quī dīmicant, tamen inter victōriās nōn multum interfutūrum putem (Fam. 5.21.3), for affairs have been brought to such a pass that, though there is a great difference between the causes of those who are fighting, still I do not think there will be much difference between their victories. [Primary sequence.]
4. ea adhibita doctrīna est quae vel vitiōsissimam nātūram excolere possit (Q. Fr. 1.1.7), such instruction has been given as can train even the faultiest nature. [Primary sequence.]

1. quemquamne fuisse tam scelerātum quī hōc fingeret (Phil. 14.14), was any one so abandoned as to imagine this? [Secondary.]
2. adeōn rem redīsse patrem ut extimēscam (Ter. Ph. 153), to think that things have come to such a pass that I should dread my father! [Primary.]

After a primary tense the Perfect Subjunctive is regularly used to denote any past action. This the Perfect Subjunctive may represent—

1. A Perfect Definite:—
   1. nōn dubitō quīn omnēs tuī scrīpserint (Fam. 5.8), I do not doubt that all your friends have written. [Direct statement: scrīpsērunt.]
   2. quā rē nōn īgnōrō quid accidat in ultimīs terrīs, cum audierim in ītaliā querellās cīvium (Q. Fr. 1.1.33), therefore I know well what happens at the ends of the earth, when I have heard in Italy the complaints of citizens. [Direct statement: audīvī.]
2. A Perfect Historical:—
   1. mē autem hīc laudat quod rettulerim, nōn quod patefēcerim (Att. 12.21), me he praises because I brought the matter [before the senate], not because I brought it to light. [Direct statement: rettulit.]
3. An Imperfect:—
   1. sī forte cecidērunt, tum intellegitur quamfuerint inopēs amīcōrum (Lael. 53), if perchance they fall (have fallen), then one can see how poor they were in friends. [Direct question: quam inopēs erant?]
   2. quī status rērum fuerit cum hās litterās dedī, scīre poteris ex C. Titiō Strabōne (Fam. 12.6), what the condition of affairs was when I wrote this letter, you can learn from Strabo. [Direct question: quī status erat?]
   3. quam cīvitātī cārus fueritmaerōre fūneris indicātum est (Lael. 11), how dear he was to the state has been shown by the grief at his funeral. [Direct question: quam cārus erat?]
   4. ex epistulīs intellegī licet quam frequēns fueritPlatōnis audītor (Or. 15), it may be understood from his letters how constant a hearer he was of Plato. [Direct question: quam frequēns erat?]

In clauses of Result, the Perfect Subjunctive is regularly (the Present rarely) used after secondary tenses:—

1. Hortēnsius ārdēbat dīcendī cupiditāte sīc ut in nūllō umquam flagrantius studium vīderim (Brut. 302), Hortensius was so hot with desire of speaking that I have never seen a more burning ardor in any man.
2. [Siciliam Verrēs] per triennium ita vexāvit ac perdidit ut ea restituī in antīquum statum nūllō modō possit (Verr. 1.12), for three years Verres so racked and ruined Sicily that she can in no way be restored to her former state. [Here the Present describes a state of things actually existing.]
3. videor esse cōnsecūtus ut nōn possit Dolābella in ītaliam pervenīre (Fam. 12.14.2), I seem to have brought it about that Dolabella cannot come into Italy.

1. Thorius erat ita nōn superstitiōsus ut illa plūrima in suā et sacrificia et fāna contemneret; ita nōn timidus ad mortem ut in aciē sit ob rem pūblicam interfectus (Fin. 2.63), Thorius was so little superstitious that he despised [contemnēbat] the many sacrifices and shrines in his country; so little timorous about death that he was killed [interfectus est] in battle, in defence of the state.

A general truth after a past tense follows the sequence of tenses:

1. ex hīs quae tribuisset, sibi quam mūtābilis esset reputābat (Q. C. 3.8.20), from what she (Fortune) had bestowed on him, he reflected how inconstant she is. [Direct: mūtābilis est.]
2. ibi quantam vim ad stimulandōs animōs īra habēret appāruit (Liv. 33.37), here it appeared what power anger has to goad the mind. [Direct: habet.]

The Historical Present (§ 469) is sometimes felt as a primary, ometimes as a secondary tense, and accordingly it takes either the primary or the secondary sequence:—

1. rogat ut cūret quod dīxisset (Quinct. 18), he asks him to attend to the thing he had spoken of. [Both primary and secondary sequence.]

1. quō cum vēnisset cōgnōscit (B. C. 1.34), when he had come there he learns.
2. cum esset pūgnātum hōrīs quīnque, nostrīque gravius premerentur, impetum in cohortīs faciunt (id. 1.46), when they had fought for five hours, and our men were pretty hard pressed, they make an attack on the cohorts.

The Historical Infinitive regularly takes the secondary sequence:—

1. interim cotīdiē Caesar Haeduōs frūmentum, quod essent pollicitī, flāgitāre (B. G. 1.16). meanwhile Cæsar demanded of the Hœdui every day the grain which they had promised.

The Imperfect and Pluperfect in conditions contrary to fact (§ 517) and in the Deliberative Subjunctive (§ 444) are not affected by the sequence of tenses:—

1. quia tāle sit, ut vel sī īgnōrārent id hominēs vel sī obmutuissent (Fin. 2.49), because it is such that even if men WERE ignorant of it, or HAD BEEN silent about it.
2. quaerō ā tē cūr C. Cornēlium nōn dēfenderem (Vat. 5), I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cūr nōn dēfenderem?]

The Imperfect Subjunctive in present conditions contrary to fact (§ 517) is regularly followed by the secondary sequence:—

1. sī aliī cōnsulēs essent, ad tē potissimum, Paule, mitterem, ut eōs mihi quam amīcissimōs redderēs (Fam. 15.13.3), if there were other consuls, I should send to you, Paulus, in preference to all, that you might make them as friendly to me as possible.
2. sī sōlōs eōs dīcerēs miserōs quibus moriendum esset, nēminem exciperēs (Tusc. 1.9), if you were to call only those wretched who must d<*> you would except no one.

The Present is sometimes followed by a secondary sequence, seemingly because the writer is thinking of past time:—

1. sed sī rēs cōget, est quiddam tertium, quod neque Seliciō nec mihi displicē bat: ut neque iacēre rem paterēmur, etc. (Fam. 1.5A. 3), but if the case shall demand, there is a third [course] which neither Selicius nor myself disapproved, that we should not allow, etc. [Here Cicero is led by the time of displicēbat.]
2. sed tamen ut scīrēs, haec tibi scrībō (Fam. 13.47), but yet that you may know, I write thus. [As if he had used the epistolary imperfect scrībēbam (§ 479).]
3. cûius praeceptī tanta vīs est ut ea nōn hominī cuipiam sed Delphicō deō tribuerētur (Legg. 1.58), such is the force of this precept, that it was ascribed not to any man, but to the Delphic god. [The precept was an old one.]

When a clause depends upon one already dependent, its sequence may be secondary if the verb of that clause expresses past time, even if the main verb is in a primary tense:—

1. sed tamen quā rē acciderit ut ex meīs superiōribus litterīs id suspicārēre nesciō; (Fam. 2.16), but yet how it happened that you suspected this from my previous letter, I don't know.
2. tantum prōfēcisse vidēmur ut ā Graecīs nē verbōrum quidem cōpiā vincerēmur (N. D. 1.8), we seem to have advanced so far that even in abundance of words we ARE not surpassed by the Greeks.

Except in Indirect Discourse, only the Present and Perfect Infinitives are used.

The Present represents the action of the verb as in progress without distinct reference to time, the Perfect as completed.

For the Tenses of the Infinitive in Indirect Discourse see § 584.

With past tenses of verbs of necessity, propriety, and possibility (as dēbuī, oportuit, potuī), the Present Infinitive is often used in Latin where the English idiom prefers the Perfect Infinitive:—

1. numne, sī Coriolānus habuit amīcōs, ferre contrā patriam arma illī cum Coriolānō dēbuērunt (Lael. 36), if Coriolanus had friends, ought they to have borne arms with him against their fatherland?
2. pecūnia, quam hīs oportuit cīvitātibus prō frūmentō darī (Verr. 3.174), money which ought to have been paid to these states for grain.
3. cōnsul esse quī potuī, nisi eum vītae cursum tenuissem ā pueritiā; (Rep. 1.10), how could I have become consul had I not from boyhood followed that course of life?

With verbs of necessity, propriety, and possibility, the Perfect Infinitive may be used to emphasize the idea of completed action:—

1. tametsī statim vīcisse dēbeō; (Rosc. Am. 73), although I ought to win my case at once (to be regarded as having won it).
2. bellum quod possumus ante hiemem perfēcisse (Liv. 37.19.5), a war which we can have completed before winter.
3. nīl ego, sī peccem, possum nescīsse (Ov. H. 16.47), if I should go wrong, I cannot have done it in ignorance (am not able not to have known).

1. quod iam prīdem factum esse oportuit (Cat. 1.5), (a thing) which ought to have been done long ago.
2. haec facta ab illō oportēbat (Ter. Haut. 536), this ought to have been done by him.
3. tum decuit metuisse (Aen. 10.94), then was the time to fear (then you should have feared).

In archaic Latin and in legal formulas the Perfect Active Infinitive is often used with nōlō or volō in prohibitions:—

1. Chaldaeum nēquem cōnsuluisse velit (Cato R. R. 5.4), let him not venture to have consulted a soothsayer.
2. nōlītō dēvellisse (Pl. Poen. 872), do not have them plucked.
3. nēquis humāsse velit Âiācem (Hor. S. 2.3.187), let no one venture to have buried Ajax.
4. NEIQVIS EORVM BACANAL HABVISE VELET (S. C. de Bac. 1), let no one of them venture to have had a place for Bacchanalian worship.

With verbs of wishing

the Perfect Passive Infinitive (commonly without esse) is often used emphatically instead of the Present:

1. domesticā cūrā tē levātum volō; (Q. Fr. 3.9.3), I wish you relieved of private care.
2. illōs monitōs volō; (Cat. 2.27), I wish them thoroughly warned.
3. quī illam [patriam] exstīnctam cupit (Fin. 4.66), who is eager for her utter destruction.
4. illud tē esse admonitum volō; (Cael. 8), I wish you to be well advised of this.
5. quī sē ab omnibus dēsertōs potius quam abs tē dēfēnsōs esse mālunt (Caecil. 21), who prefer to be deserted by all rather than to be defended by you.

In late Latin, and in poetry (often for metrical convenience), rarely in good prose, the Perfect Active Infinitive is used emphatically instead of the Present, and even after other verbs than those of wishing:—

1. nēmō eōrum est quī nōn perīsse tē cupiat (Verr. 2.149), there is no one of them who is not eager for your death.
2. haud equidem premendō alium mē extulisse velim (Liv. 22.59.10), I would not by crushing another exalt myself.
3. sunt quī nōlint tetigisse (Hor. S. 1.2.28), there are those who would not touch.
4. commīsisse cavet (Hor. A. P. 168), he is cautious of doing.
5. nunc quem tetigisse timērent, anguis erās (Ov. M. 8.733), again you became a serpent which they dreaded to touch.
6. frātrēsque tendentēs opācō Pēlion imposuisse Olympō; (Hor. Od. 3.4.51), and the brothers striving to set Pelion on dark Olympus.

After verbs of feeling the Perfect Infinitive is used, especially by the poets, to denote a completed action.

So also with satis est, satis habeō, melius est, contentus sum, and in a few other cases where the distinction of time is important:—

1. nōn paenitēbat intercapēdinem scrībendī fēcisse (Fam. 16.21), I was not sorry to have made a respite of writing.
2. pudet mē nōn praestitisse (id. 14.3), I am ashamed not to have shown.
3. sunt quōs pulverem Olympicum collēgisse iuvat (Hor. Od. 1.1.3), some delight to have stirred up the dust at Olympia.
4. quiēsse erit melius (Liv. 3.48), it will be better to have kept quiet.
5. ac sī quis amet scrīpsisse (Hor. S. 1.10.60), than if one should choose to have written.
6. id sōlum dīxisse satis habeō; (Vell. 2.124), I am content to have said only this.

The several Noun and Adjective forms associated with the verb are employed as follows:—

The Participle expresses the action of the verb in the form of an Adjective, but has a partial distinction of tense and may govern a case.

Distinctions of Tense in Participles

Participles denote time as present, past, or future with respect to the time of the verb in their clause.

Thus the Present Participle represents the action as in progress at the time indicated by the tense of the verb, the Perfect as completed, and the Future as still to take place.

The Present Participle has several of the special uses of the Present Indicative. Thus it may denote—

1. An action continued in the present but begun in the past (§ 466):
   1. quaerentī mihiiam diū certa rēs nūlla veniēbat in mentem (Fam. 4.13). though I had long sought, no certain thing came to my mind.
2. Attempted action (§ 467):—
   1. C. Flāminiō restitit agrum Pīcentem dīvidentī (Cat. M. 11), he resisted Flaminius when attempting to divide the Picene territory.
3. Rarely (in poetry and later Latin) futurity or purpose, with a verb of motion:—
   1. Eurypylumscītantemōrācula mittimus (Aen. 2.114), we send Eurypylus to consult the oracle. [Cf. § 468.]

The Perfect Participle of a few deponent verbs is used nearly in the sense of a Present.

Such are, regularly, ratus, solitus, veritus; commonly, arbitrātus, fīsus, ausus, secūtus, and occasionally others, especially in later writers:—

1. rem incrēdibilem ratī (Sall. Cat. 48), thinking the thing incredible.
2. īnsidiās veritus (B. G. 2.11), fearing an ambuscade.
3. cohortātus mīlitēs docuit (B. C. 3.80), encouraging the men, he showed.
4. īrātus dīxistī; (Mur. 62), you spoke in a passion.
5. ad pūgnam congressī (Liv. 4.10), meeting in fight.

The Latin has no Present Participle in the passive.

The place of such a form is supplied usually by a clause with dum or cum:—

1. obiēre dum calciantur mātūtīnō duo Caesarēs (Plin. N. H. 7.181), two Cæsars died while having their shoes put on in the morning.
2. mēque ista dēlectant cum Latīnē dīcuntur (Acad. 1.18), those things please me when they are spoken in Latin.

1. dīc, hospes, Spartae nōs tē hīc vīdisse iacentīs, dum sānctīs patriae lēgibus obsequimur (Tusc. 1.101), tell it, stranger, at Sparta, that you saw us lying here obedient to our country's sacred laws. [Here dum obsequimur is a translation of the Greek present participle peiqo/menoi.]
2. dum [Ulixēs] sibi, dum sociīs reditum parat (Hor. Ep. 1.2.21), Ulysses, while securing the return of himself and his companions. [In Greek: a)rnu/menos.]

The Latin has no Perfect Participle in the active voice. The deficiency is supplied—

1. In deponents by the perfect passive form with its regular active meaning:—
   1. nam singulās [nāvīs] nostrīcōnsectātīexpūgnāvērunt (B. G. 3.15), for our men, having overtaken them one by one, captured them by boarding.
2. In other verbs, either by the perfect passive participle in the ablative absolute (§ 420. N.) or by a temporal clause (especially with cum or postquam):—
   1. itaqueconvocātīs centuriōnibusmīlitēs certiōrēs facit (B. G. 3.5), and so, having called the centurions together, he informs the soldiers (the centurions having been called together).
   2. cum vēnisset animadvertit collem (id. 7.44), having come (when he had come), he noticed a hill.
   3. postquam id animum advertit cōpiās suās Caesar in proximum collem subdūcit (B. G. 1.24), having observed this (after he had observed this) Cæsar led his troops to the nearest hill.

Uses of Participles

The Present and Perfect Participles are sometimes used as attributives, nearly like adjectives:—

1. aeger et flagrāns animus (Tac. Ann. 3.54), his sick and passionate mind.
2. cum antīquissimam sententiam tum comprobātam (Div. 1.11), a view at once most ancient and well approved.
3. sīgna numquam ferē mentientia (id. 1.15), signs hardly ever deceitful.
4. auspiciīs ūtuntur coāctīs (id. 1.27), they use forced auspices.

Participles often become complete adjectives, and may be compared, or used as nouns:—

1. quō mulierī esset rēs cautior (Caec. 11), that the matter might be more secure for the woman.
2. in illīs artibus praestantissimus (De Or. 1.217), preëminent in those arts.
3. sibi indulgentēs et corporī dēservientēs (Legg. 1.39), the self-indulgent, and slaves to the body (indulging themselves and serving the body).
4. rēctē facta paria esse dēbent (Par. 22), right deeds (things rightly done) ought to be like in value (see § 321. b).
5. male parta male dīlābuntur (Phil. 2.65), ill got, ill spent (things ill acquired are ill spent).
6. cōnsuētūdō valentis (De Or. 2.186), the habit of a man in health.

Participles are often used as Predicate Adjectives. As such they may be joined to the subject by esse or a copulative verb (see § 283):—

1. Gallia est dīvīsa (B. G. 1.1), Gaul is divided.
2. locus quī nunc saeptus est (Liv. 1.8), the place which is now enclosed.
3. vidētis ut senectūs sit operōsa et semper agēns aliquid et mōliēns (Cat. M. 26), you see how busy old age is, always aiming and trying at something.
4. nēmō adhūc convenīre mē voluit cui fuerim occupātus (id. 32), nobody hitherto has [ever] wished to converse with me, to whom I have been “engaged.”

The perfect participle used with fuī etc. was perhaps originally an intensified expression in the popular language for the perfect, pluperfect, etc.

At times these forms indicate a state of affairs no longer existing:—

1. cōtem quoque eōdem locō sitam fuisse memorant (Liv. 1.36.5), they say that a whetstone was (once) deposited in this same place. [At the time of writing it was no longer there.]
2. arma quae fīxa in parietibus fuerant, humī inventa sunt (Div. 1.74), the arms which had been fastened on the walls were found upon the ground.

But more frequently they are not to be distinguished from the forms with sum etc.

The construction is found occasionally at all periods, but is most common in Livy and later writers.

The Present and Perfect Participles are often used as a predicate, where in English a phrase or a subordinate clause would be more natural.

In this use the participles express time, cause, occasion, condition, concession, characteristic (or description), manner, means, attendant circumstances:—

1. volventēs hostīlia cadāvera amīcum reperiēbant (Sall. Cat. 61), while rolling over the corpses of the enemy they found a friend. [Time.]
2. paululum commorātus, sīgna canere iubet (id. 59), after delaying a little while, he orders them to give the signal. [Time.]
3. longius prōsequī veritus, ad Cicerōnem pervēnit (B. G. 5.52), because he feared to follow further, he came to Cicero. [Cause.]
4. quī scīret laxās dare iussus habēnās (Aen. 1.63), who might know how to give them loose rein when bidden. [Occasion.]
5. damnātum poenam sequī oportēbat (B. G. 1.4), if condemned, punishment must overtake him. [Condition.]
6. salūtem īnspērantibus reddidistī; (Marc. 21), you have restored a safety for which we did not hope (to [us] not hoping). [Concession.]
7. Dardanius caput ecce puer dētēctus (Aen. 10.133), the Trojan boy with his head uncovered. [Description.]
8. nec trepidēs in ūsum poscentis aevī pauca (Hor. Od. 2.11.5), be not anxious for the needs of age that demands little. [Characteristic.]
9. incitātī fugā montīs altissimōs petēbant (B. C. 3.93), in headlong flight they made for the highest mountains. [Manner.]
10. mīlitēs sublevātī aliī ab aliīs māgnam partem itineris cōnficerent (id. 1.68), the soldiers, helped up by each other, accomplished a considerable part of the route. [Means.]
11. hōc laudāns, Pompêius idem iūrāvit (id. 3.87), approving this, Pompey took the same oath. [Attendant Circumstance.]
12. aut sedēns aut ambulāns disputābam (Tusc. 1.7), I conducted the discussion either sitting or walking. [Attendant Circumstance.]

1. īnstrūctōs ōrdinēs in locum aequum dēdūcit (Sall. Cat. 59), he draws up the lines, and leads them to level ground.
2. ut hōs trāductōs necāret (B. G. 5.6), that he might carry them over and put them to death.

A noun and a passive participle are often so united that the participle and not the noun contains the main idea:—

1. ante conditam condendamve urbem (Liv. Pref.), before the city was built or building.
2. illī lībertātem imminūtam cīvium Rōmānōrum nōn tulērunt; vōs ēreptam vītam neglegētis (Manil. 11), they did not endure the infringement of the citizens' liberty; will you disregard the destruction of their lives?
3. post nātōs hominēs (Brut. 224), since the creation of man.
4. iam ā conditā urbe (Phil. 3.9), even from the founding of the city.

The perfect participle with a noun in agreement, or in the neuter as an abstract noun, is used in the ablative with opus, need (cf. § 411. a):—

1. opus factō est viāticō (Pl. Trin. 887), there is need of laying in provision.
2. mātūrātō opus est (Liv. 8.13.17), there is need of haste.

The perfect participle with habeō (rarely with other verbs) has almost the same meaning as a perfect active, but denotes the continued effect of the action of the verb:—

1. fidem quam habent spectātam iam et diū cōgnitam (Caecil. 11), my fidelity, which they have proved and long known.
2. cohortīs in aciē LXXX cōnstitūtās habēbat (B. C. 3.89), he had eighty cohorts stationed in line of battle.
3. nefāriōs ducēs captōs iam et comprehēnsōs tenētis (Cat. 3.16), you have now captured the infamous leaders and hold them in custody.

A verb of effecting or the like may be used in combination with the perfect participle of a transitive verb to express the action of that verb more forcibly:—

1. praefectōs suōs multī missōs fēcērunt (Verr. 3.134), many discharged their officers (made dismissed).
2. hīc trānsāctum reddet omne (Pl. Capt. 345), he will get it all done (restore it finished).
3. adēmptum tibi iam faxō omnem metum (Ter. Haut. 341), I will relieve you of all fear (make it taken away).
4. illam tibi incēnsam dabō (Ter. Ph. 974), I will make her angry with you.

After verbs denoting an action of the senses the present participle in agreement with the object is nearly equivalent to the infinitive of indirect discourse (§ 580), but expresses the action more vividly:

1. ut eum nēmō umquam in equō sedentem vīderit (Verr. 5.27), so that no one ever saw him sitting on a horse. [Cf. Tusc. 3.31.]

Future Participle (Active)

The Future Participle (except futūrus and ventūrus) is rarely used in simple agreement with a noun, except by poets and later writers.

The future participle is chiefly used with the forms of esse (often omitted in the infinitive) in the Active Periphrastic Conjugation (see § 195):—

1. morere, Diagorā, nōn enim in caelum adscēnsūrus es (Tusc. 1.111), die, Diagoras, for you are not likely to rise to heaven.
2. spērat adulēscēns diū sē vīctūrum (Cat. M. 68), the young man hopes to live long (that he shall live long).
3. neque petītūrus umquam cōnsulātum vidērētur (Off. 3.79), and did not seem likely ever to be a candidate for the consulship.

With the past tenses of esse in the indicative, the future participle is often equivalent to the pluperfect subjunctive (§ 517. d). For futūrum fuisse, see § 589. b.

By later writers and the poets the Future Participle is often used in simple agreement with a substantive to express—

1. Likelihood or certainty:—
   1. rem ausus plūs fāmae habitūram (Liv. 2.10), having dared a thing which would have more repute.
2. Purpose, intention, or readiness:—
   1. ēgreditur castrīs Rōmānus vāllum invāsūrus (Liv. 3.60.8), the Roman comes out of the camp with the intention of attacking the rampart.
   2. dispersōs per agrōs mīlitēs equitibus invāsūrīs (id. 31.36), while the horse were ready to attack the soldiers scattered through the fields.
   3. sī peritūrusabīs (Aen. 2.675), if you are going away to perish.
3. Apodosis:—
   1. dedit mihi quantum maximum potuit,datūrus ampliussī potuisset (Plin. Ep. 3.21.6), he gave me as much as he could, ready to give me more if he had been able. [Here datūrus is equivalent to dedisset.]

Gerundive (Future Passive Participle)

(1) Its predicate and attribute use as Participle or Adjective (§ 500).

(2) Its use with the meaning of the Gerund (§ 503). This may be called its gerundive use.

The Gerundive when used as a Participle or an Adjective is always passive, denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety.

In this use of the Gerundive the following points are to be observed:—

1. The gerundive is sometimes used, like the present and perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun:—
   1. fortem etcōnservandum virum (Mil. 104), a brave man, and worthy to be preserved.
   2. gravis iniūria facta est et nōn ferenda (Flacc. 84), a grave and intolerable wrong has been done.
2. The most frequent use of the gerundive is with the forms of esse in the Second (or passive) Periphrastic Conjugation (see § 196):—
   1. nōn agitandarēs erit (Verr. 5.179), will not the thing have to be agitated?
3. The neuter gerundive of both transitive and intransitive verbs may be used impersonally in the second periphrastic conjugation.

   With verbs that take the dative or ablative, an object may be expressed in the appropriate case; with transitive verbs, an object in the accusative is sometimes found:—

   1. temporī serviendum est (Fam. 9.7.2), one must obey the time.
   2. lēgibus pārendum est, the laws must be obeyed.
   3. ūtendum exercitātiōnibus modicīs (Cat. M. 36), we must use moderate exercis<*>
   4. agitandumst vigiliās (Pl. Trin. 869), I have got to stand guard.
   5. via quam nōbīs ingrediendum sit (Cat. M. 6), the way we have to enter.
4. After verbs signifying to give, deliver, agree for, have, receive, undertake, demand, a gerundive in agreement with the object is used to express purpose:—
   1. redēmptor quī columnam illam condūxerat faciendam (Div. 2.47), the contractor who had undertaken to make that column. [The regular construction with this class of verbs.]
   2. aedem Castoris habuit tuendam (Verr. 2.1.150), he had the temple of Castor to take care of.
   3. nāvīs atque oneraadservanda cūrābat (id. 5.146), he took care that the ships and cargoes should be kept.

The Gerund is the neuter of the Gerundive, used substantively in the Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Ablative.

The Gerund expresses an action of the verb in the form of a verbal noun.

As a noun the gerund is itself governed by other words; as a verb it may take an object in the proper case:—

1. ars bene disserendī et vēra ac falsa dīiūdicandī (De Or. 2.157), the art of discoursing well, and distinguishing the true and the false.

The Gerund is the neuter of the gerundive used impersonally, but retaining the verbal idea sufficiently to govern an object. It may therefore be regarded as a noun (cf. mātūrātō opus est, § 497. a) with a verbal force (cf. istanc tāctiō, p. 240, footnote).

When the Gerund would have an object in the Accusative, the Gerundive

is generally used instead. The gerundive agrees with its noun, which takes the case that the gerund would have had:—

1. parātiōrēs ad omnia perīcula subeunda (B. G. 1.5), readier to undergo all dangers. [Here subeunda agrees with perīcula, which is itself governed by ad. The (inadmissible) construction with the gerund would be ad subeundum perīcula; ad governing the gerund, and the gerund governing the accusative perīcula.] For details, see §§ 504-507.

The following examples illustrate the parallel constructions of Gerund and Gerundive:—

1. GEN. cōnsilium urbem capiendī urbis capiendae a design of taking the city.
2. DAT. dat operam agrōs colendō agrīs colendīs he attends to tilling the fields.
3. ACC. veniunt ad mihi pārendum pācem petendam they come to obey me. to seek peace.
4. ABL. terit tempus scrībendō epistulās scrībendīs epistulīs he spends time in writing letters.

1. (1) in forō, in cūriā, in amīcōrum perīculīs prōpulsandīs (Phil. 7.7), in the forum, in the senate-house, in defending my friends in jeopardy.
2. (2) ad rēs dīversissimās, pārendum atque imperandum (Liv. 21.4), for the most widely different things, obeying and commanding.

Genitive of the Gerund and Gerundive

The Genitive of the Gerund and Gerundive is used after nouns or adjectives, either as subjective or objective genitive:—

1. vīvendī fīnis est optimus (Cat. M. 72), it is the best end of living. [Subjective.]
2. neque cōnsilī habendī neque arma capiendī spatiō datō; (B. G. 4.14), time being given neither for forming plans nor for taking arms. [Objective.]
3. nōn tam commūtandārum quam ēvertendārum rērum cupidōs (Off. 2.3), desirous not so much of changing as of destroying the state. [Objective.]

The genitive of the gerund sometimes takes a direct object, especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantively:—

1. nūlla causa iūsta cuiquam esse potest contrā patriam arma capiendī; (Phil. 2.53), no one can have a just cause for taking up arms against his country.
2. artem vēra ac falsa dīiūdicandī; (De Or. 2.157), the art of distinguishing true from false.

1. quae postquam glōriōsa modo neque bellī patrandī cōgnōvit (Iug. 88), when he perceived that these were only brilliant deeds and not likely to end the war.
2. Aegyptum proficīscitur cōgnōscendae antīquitātis (Tac. Ann. 2.59), he sets out for Egypt to study old times.

The genitive of the gerund or gerundive with causā or gratiā expresses purpose (§ 533. b):—

1. pābulandī aut frūmentandī causā prōgressī; (B. C. 1.48), having advanced for the purpose of collecting fodder or supplies.
2. vītandae suspīcionis causā; (Cat. 1.19), in order to avoid suspicion.
3. simulandī grātiā; (Iug. 37), in order to deceive.
4. exercendae memōriae grātiā; (Cat. M. 38), for the sake of training the memory.

The genitive of the gerund is occasionally limited by a noun or pronoun (especially a personal pronoun in the plural) in the objective genitive instead of taking a direct object:—

1. rêiciendī trium iūdicum potestās (Verr. 2.77), the power of challenging three jurors (of the rejecting of three jurors).
2. suī colligendī facultās (B. G. 3.6), the opportunity to recover themselves.

Dative of the Gerund and Gerundive

The Dative of the Gerund and Gerundive is used in a few expressions after verbs:—

1. diem praestitit operī faciendō (Verr. 2.1.148), he appointed a day for doing the work.
2. praeesse agrō colendō (Rosc. Am. 50), to take charge of cultivating the land.
3. esse solvendō, to be able to pay (to be for paying).

The dative of the gerund and gerundive is used after adjectives,

especially those which denote fitness or adaptability:—

1. genus armōrum aptum tegendīs corporibus (Liv. 32.10), a sort of armor suited to the defence of the body.
2. reliqua tempora dēmetendīs frūctibus et percipiendīs accommodāta sunt (Cat. M. 70), the other seasons are fitted to reap and gather in the harvest.
3. perferendīs mīlitum mandātīs idōneus (Tac. Ann. 1.23), suitable for carrying out the instructions of the soldiers.

The dative of the gerund and gerundive is used in certain legal phrases after nouns meaning officers, offices, elections, etc., to indicate the function or scope of the office etc.:—

1. comitia cōnsulibus rogandīs (Div. 1.33), elections for nominating consuls.
2. triumvir colōniīs dēdūcundīs (Iug. 42), a triumvir for planting colonies.
3. triumvirī reī pūblicae cōnstituendae (title of the Triumvirate), triumvirs (a commission of three) for settling the government.

Accusative of the Gerund and Gerundive

The Accusative of the Gerund and Gerundive is used after the preposition ad, to denote Purpose (cf. § 533):—

1. mē vocās ad scrībendum (Or. 34), you summon me to write.
2. vīvis nōn ad dēpōnendam sed ad cōnfīrmandam audāciam (Cat. 1.4), you live not to put off but to confirm your daring.
3. nactus aditūs ad ea cōnanda (B. C. 1.31), having found means to undertake these things.

Ablative of the Gerund and Gerundive

The Ablative of the Gerund and Gerundive is used (1) to express manner,

means, cause, etc.; (2) after Comparatives; and (3) after the propositions ab, dē, ex, in, and (rarely) prō:—

1. (1) multa pollicendō persuādet (Iug. 46), he persuades by large promises.
2. Latīnē loquendō cuivīs pār (Brut. 128), equal to any man in speaking Latin.
3. hīs ipsīs legendīs (Cat. M. 21), by reading these very things.
4. obscūram atque humilem conciendō ad sē multitūdinem (Liv. 1.8), calling to them a mean and obscure multitude.
5. (2) nūllum officium referendā grātiā magis necessārium est (Off. 1.47), no duty is more important than repaying favors.
6. (3) in rē gerendā versārī (Cat. M. 17), to be employed in conducting affairs.

The Supine is a verbal abstract of the fourth declension (§ 94. b), having no distinction of tense or person, and limited to two uses. (1) The form in -um is the Accusative of the end of motion (§ 428. i). (2) The form in -ü is usually Dative of purpose (§ 382), but the Ablative was early confused with it.

The Supine in -um is used after verbs of motion to express purpose. It may take an object in the proper case:—

1. quid est, īmusne sessum? etsī admonitum vēnimus tē, nōn flāgitātum (De Or. 3.17), how now, shall we be seated? though we have come to remind, not to entreat you.
2. nūptum dare (collocāre), to give in marriage.
3. vēnērunt questum iniūriās (Liv. 3.25), they came to complain of wrongs.

1. fuēre cīvēs quī rem pūblicam perditum īrent (Sall. Cat. 36), there were citizens who went about to ruin the republic.
2. sī scīret sē trucīdātum īrī (Div. 2.22), if he (Pompey) had known that he was going to be murdered. [Rare except in Cicero. For the more usual way of expressing the future passive infinitive, see § 569. 3. a.]

The Supine in -ū

is used with a few adjectives and with the nouns fās, nefās, and opus, to denote an action in reference to which the quality is asserted:—

1. rem nōn modo vīsū foedam, sed etiam audītū (Phil. 2.63), a thing not only shocking to see, but even to hear of.
2. quaerunt quid optimum factū sit (Verr. 2.1.68), they ask what is best to do.
3. sī hōc fās est dictū (Tusc. 5.38), if this is lawful to say.
4. vidētis nefās esse dictū miseram fuisse tālem senectūtem (Cat. M. 13), you see it is a sin to say that such an old age was wretched.

1. nec vīsū facilis nec dictū adfābilis ūllī; (Aen. 3.621), he is not pleasant for any man to look at or address.
2. difficilis ad distinguendum similitūdō; (De Or. 2.212), a likeness difficult to distinguish.

The Conditional Sentence differs from other complex sentences in this, that the form of the main clause (APODOSIS) is determined in some degree by the nature of the subordinate clause (PROTASIS) upon the truth of which the whole statement depends. Like all complex sentences, however, the Conditional Sentence has arisen from the use of two independent sentence-forms to express the parts of a thought which was too complicated to be fully expressed by a simple sentence. But because the thoughts thus expressed are in reality closely related, as parts of a single whole, the sentences which represent them are also felt to be mutually dependent, even though the relation is not expressed by any connecting word. Thus, Speak the word: my servant shall be healed is a simpler and an earlier form of expression than If thou speak the word, etc.

The Conditional Particles were originally pronouns without conditional meaning: thus, sī, if, is a weak demonstrative of the same origin as sīc, so (sī-ce like hī-ce, see § 215. 5), and had originally the meaning of in that way, or in some way. Its relative sense (if) seems to have come from its use with sīc to make a pair of correlatives: thus ... thus (see § 512. b).

In its origin the Conditional Sentence assumed one of two forms. The condition was from the first felt to be a condition, not a fact or a command; but, as no special sentence-form for a condition was in use, it employed for its expression either a statement of fact (with the Indicative) or a form of mild command (the Subjunctive). From the former have come all the uses of the Indicative in protasis; from the latter all the uses of the Subjunctive in protasis. The Apodosis has either (1) the Indicative, expressing the conclusion as a fact, and the Present and Perfect Subjunctive, expressing it originally as future—and hence more or less doubtful—or (2) the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive expressing it as futūrum in praeteritō,

and so unfulfilled in the present or past. Thus,rīdēs, mâiōre cachinnō concutitur, you laugh, he shakes with more boisterous laughter, is the original form for the Indicative in protasis and apodosis; sī rīdēs originally means merely you laugh in some way or other, and so, later, IF you laugh. So rogēs Aristōnem, neget, ask Aristo, he would say no, is the original form of the subjunctive in protasis and apodosis; sī rogēs would mean ask in some way or other. In sī rogāres, negāret, the Imperfect rogārēs transfers the command of rogēs to past time,

with the meaning suppose you had asked, and sī would have the same meaning as before; while negāret transfers the future idea of neget to past time, and means he was going to deny. Now the stating of this supposition at all gives rise to the implication that it is untrue in point of fact,—because, if it were true, there would ordinarily be no need to state it as a supposition: for it would then be a simple fact, and as such would be put in the indicative.

Such a condition or conclusion

was originally past, meaning suppose you had asked [yesterday], he was going to deny) it came to express an unfulfilled condition in the present: suppose (or if) you were now asking, he would [now] deny—just as in English ought, which originally meant owed,

has come to express a present obligation.

For the classification of Conditional Sentences, see § 513.

A complete Conditional Sentence consists of two clauses the Protasis and the Apodosis.

The clause containing the condition is called the PROTASIS the clause containing the conclusion is called the APODOSIS:—

1. sī quī exīre volunt [PROTASIS], cōnīvēre possum [APODOSIS] (Cat. 2.27), if any wish to depart, I can keep my eyes shut.
2. sī est in exsiliō [PROTASIS], quid amplius postulātis [APODOSIS] (Lig. 13), if he is in exile, what more do you ask?

It should be carefully noted that the Apodosis is the main clause and the Protasis the dependent clause.

The Protasis is regularly introduced by the conditional particle sī, if, or one of its compounds.

The Apodosis is often introduced by some correlative word or phrase: as, ita, tum (rarely sīc), or eā condiciōne etc.:—

1. ita enim senectūs honesta est, sī sē ipsa dēfendit (Cat. M. 38), on this condition is old age honorable, if it defends itself.
2. sī quidem mē amāret, tum istuc prōdesset (Ter. Eun. 446), if he loved me, then this would be profitable.
3. sīc scrībēs aliquid, sī vacābis (Att. 12.38.2), if you are (shall be) at leisure, then you will write something.

The Apodosis is the principal clause of the conditional sentence, but may at the same time be subordinate to some other clause, and so appear in the form of a Participle, an Infinitive, or a Phrase:—

1. sepultūrā quoque prohibitūrī, nī rēx humārī iussisset (Q. C. 8.2.12), intending also to deprive him of burial, unless the king had ordered him to be interred.
2. quod sī praetereā nēmō sequātur, tamen sē cum sōlā decimā legiōne itūrum [esse] (B. G. 1.40.14), but if no one else should follow, he would go with the tenth legion alone.
3. sī quōs adversum proelium commovēret, hōs reperīre posse (id. 40.8), if the loss of a battle alarmed any, they might find, etc.

Conditions are either (1) Particular or (2) General.

1. A Particular Condition refers to a definite act or series of acts occurring at some definite time.
2. A General Condition refers to any one of a class of acts which may occur (or may have occurred) at any time.

The principal or typical forms of Conditional Sentences may be exhibited as follows:—

PARTICULAR CONDITIONS

A. SIMPLE CONDITIONS (nothing implied as to fulfilment)

Present Time

Present Indicative in both clauses:—

1. sī adest, bene est, if he is [now] here, it is well.

Past Time

Imperfect or Perfect Indicative in both clauses:—

1. sī aderat, bene erat, if he was [then] here, it was well.
2. sī adfuit, bene fuit, if he has been [was] here, it has been [was] well.

B. FUTURE CONDITIONS (as yet unfulfilled)

More Vivid

a. Future Indicative in both clauses:—

1. sī aderit, bene erit, if he is (shall be) here, it will be well.

b. Future Perfect Indicative in protasis, Future Indicative in apodosis:—

1. sī adfuerit, bene erit, if he is (shall have been) here, it will [then] be well

Less Vivid

a. Present Subjunctive in both clauses:—

1. sī adsit, bene sit, if he should be (or were to be) here, it would be well.

b. Perfect Subjunctive in protasis, Present Subjunctive in apodosis:—

1. sī adfuerit, bene sit, if he should be (should have been) here, it would [then] be well.

C. CONDITIONS CONTRARY TO FACT

Present Time

Imperfect Subjunctive in both clauses:—

1. sī adesset, bene esset, if he were [now] here, it would be well (but he is NOT here).

Past Time

Pluperfect Subjunctive in both clauses:—

1. sī adfuisset, bene fuisset, if he had [then] been here, it would have been well (but he was NOT here).

D. GENERAL CONDITIONS

General Conditions do not usually differ in form from Particular Conditions (A, B, and C), but are sometimes distinguished in the cases following:—

Present General Condition (Indefinite Time)

a. Present Subjunctive second person singular (Indefinite Subject) in protasis, Present Indicative in apodosis:—

1. sī hōc dīcās, crēditur, if any one [ever] says this, it is [always] believed.

b. Perfect Indicative in protasis, Present Indicative in apodosis:

1. sī quid dīxit, crēditur, if he [ever] says anything, it is [always] believed.

Past General Condition (Repeated Action in Past Time)

a. Pluperfect Indicative in protasis, Imperfect Indicative in apodosis:—

1. sī quid dīxerat, crēdēbātur, if he [ever] said anything, it was [always] believed.

b. Imperfect Subjunctive in protasis, Imperfect Indicative in apodosis:—

1. sī quid dīceret, crēdēbātur, if he [ever] said anything, it was [always] believed (= whatever he said was always believed).

Cf. the Greek forms corresponding to the various types of conditions:—

Simple Present and Past Conditions—Nothing Implied

In the statement of Present and Past conditions whose falsity is NOT implied, the Present and Past tenses of the Indicative are used in both Protasis and Apodosis:—

1. sī tū exercitusque valētis, bene est (Fam. 5.2), if you and the army are well, it is well. [Present Condition.]
2. haec igitur, sī Rōmae es; sīn ades, aut etiam sī ades, haec negōtia sīc sē habent (Att. 5.18), this, then, if you are at Rome; but if you are away—or even if you are there—these matters are as follows. [Present Condition.]
3. sī Caesarem probātis, in mē offenditis (B. C. 2.32.10), if you favor Cæsar, you find fault with me. [Present Condition.]
4. sī quī māgnīs in eō genere exstitērunt, nōn satis Graecōrum glōriae respondērunt (Tusc. 1.3), if any have shown themselves of great genius in that department, they have failed to compete with the glory of the Greeks. [Past General Condition, not distinguished in form from Particular.]
5. accēpī Rōmā sine epistulā tuā fasciculum litterārum in quō, sī modo valuistī et Rōmae fuistī, Philotīmī dūcō esse culpam nōn tuam (Att. 5.17), I have received from Rome a bundle of letters without any from you, which, provided you have been well and at Rome, I take to be the fault of Philotimus, not yours. [Mixed: Past condition and Present conclusion.]
6. quās litterās, sī Rōmae es, vidēbis putēsne reddendās (id. 5.18), as to this letter, if you are at Rome, you will see whether in your opinion it ought to be delivered. [Mixed: Present and Future.]
7. sī nēmō impetrāvit, adroganter rogō (Lig. 30), if no one has succeeded in obtaining it, my request is presumptuous. [Past and Present.]

In these conditions the apodosis need not always be in the Indicative, but may assume any form, according to the sense:—

1. sī placet ... videāmus (Cat. M. 15), if you please, let us see. [Hortatory Subjunctive, § 439.]
2. sī nōndum satis cernitis, recordāminī (Mil. 61), if you do not yet see clearly, recollect. [Imperative.]
3. sī quid habēs certius, velim scīre (Att. 4.10), if you have any trustworthy information, I should like to know it. [Subjunctive of Modesty, § 447. 1.]

1. nōlīte, sī in nostrō omnium flētū nūllam lacrimam aspexistis Milōnis, hōc minus ei parcere (Mil. 92), do not, if amid the weeping of us all you have seen no tear [in the eyes] of Milo, spare him the less for that.
2. petimus ā vōbīs, iūdicēs, sī qua dīvīna in tantīs ingeniīs commendātiō dēbet esse, ut eum in vestram accipiātis fidem (Arch. 31), we ask you, judges, if there ought to be anything in such genius to recommend it to us as by a recommendation of the gods, that you receive him under your protection.

In these two passages, the protasis really expresses cause: but the cause is put by the speaker in the form of a non-committal condition. His hearers are to draw the inference for themselves. In this way the desired impression is made on their minds more effectively than if an outspoken causal clause had been used.

Future Conditions

Future Conditions may be more vivid or less vivid.

1. In a more vivid future condition the protasis makes a distinct supposition of a future case, the apodosis expressing what will be the logical result.
2. In a less vivid future condition, the supposition is less distinct, the apodosis expressing what would be the result in the case supposed.

In the more vivid future condition the Future Indicative is used in both protasis and apodosis:—

1. sānābimur, sī volēmus (Tusc. 3.13), we shall be healed if we wish.
2. quod sī legere aut audīre volētis, ... reperiētis (Cat. M. 20), if you will [shall wish to] read or hear, you will find.

1. sī vincimus, omnia nōbīs tūta erunt; sīn metū cesserimus, eadem illa advorsa fīent (Sall. Cat. 58), if we conquer, all things will be safe for us; but if we yield through fear, those same things will become hostile.
2. sī pereō, hominum manibus perlisse iuvābit (Aen. 3.606), if I perish, it will be pleasant to have perished at the hands of men.

In the less vivid future condition the Present Subjunctive is used in both protasis and apodosis:—

1. haec sī tēcum patria loquātur, nōnne impetrāre dēbeat (Cat. 1.19), if your country should thus speak with you, ought she not to prevail?
2. quod sī quis deus mihi largiātur, ... valdē recūsem (Cat. M. 83), but if some god were to grant me this, I should stoutly refuse.

1. sī dīligenter attendāmus, intellegēmus (Inv. 2.44), if we attend (should attend) carefully, we shall understand.
2. nisi hōc dīcat, “iūre fēcī,” nōn habet dēfēnsiōnem (id. 1.18), unless he should say this, “I acted justifiably,” he has no defence.

If the conditional act is regarded as completed before that of the apodosis begins, the Future Perfect is substituted for the Future Indicative in protasis, and the Perfect Subjunctive for the Present Subjunctive:—

1. sīn cum potuerō nōn vēnerō, tum erit inimīcus (Att. 9.2A. 2), but if I do not come when I can, he will be unfriendly.
2. sī ā corōnā relictus sim, nōn queam dīcere (Brut. 192), if I should be deserted by the circle of listeners, I should not be able to speak.

Any form denoting or implying future time may stand in the apodosis of a future condition. So the Imperative, the participles in -dus and -rus, and verbs of necessity, possibility, and the like:—

1. alius fīnis cōnstituendus est, sī prius quid maximē reprehendere Scīpiō solitus sit dīxerō; (Lael. 59), another limit must be set, if I first state what Scipio was wont most to find fault with.
2. sī mē praecēperit fātum, vōs mandāsse mementō (Q. C. 9.6.26), if fate cuts me off too soon, do you remember that I ordered this.
3. nisi oculīs vīderitis īnsidiās Milōnī ā Clōdiō factās, nec dēprecātūrī sumus nec postulātūrī (Mil. 6), unless you see with your own eyes the plots laid against Milo by Clodius, I shall neither beg nor demand, etc.
4. nōn possum istum accūsāre, sī cupiam (Verr. 4.87), I cannot accuse him, if I should (so) desire

Rarely the Perfect Indicative is used in apodosis with a Present or even a Future (or Future Perfect) in protasis, to represent the conclusion rhetorically as already accomplished:—

1. sī hōc bene fīxum in animō est, vīcistis (Liv. 21.44), if this is well fixed in your minds, you have conquered. [For you will have conquered.]
2. sī eundem [animum] habueritis, vīcimus (id. 21.43), if you shall have kept the same spirit, we have conquered.

A future condition is frequently thrown back into past time, without implying that it is contrary to fact (§ 517). In such cases the Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive may be used:—

1. nōn poterat, nisi dēcertāre vellet (B. C. 3.44), he was not able, unless he wished to fight.
2. tumulus appāruit, ... sī lūce palam īrētur hostis praeventūrus erat (Liv. 22.24), a hill appeared ... if they should go openly by daylight, the enemy would prevent. [The first two appear like Indirect Discourse, but are not. An observer describing the situation in the first example as present would say nōn potest nisi velit (see d), and no indirect discourse would be thought of.]
3. Caesar sī peteret, ... nōn quicquam prōficeret (Hor. S. 1.3.4), if even Cæsar were to ask, he would gain nothing. [Here the construction is not contrary to fact, but is simply sī petat, nōn prōficiat, thrown into past time.]

Conditions Contrary to Fact

In the statement of a supposition impliedly false, the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive are used in both protasis and apodosis.

The Imperfect refers to present time, the Pluperfect to past:—

1. sī vīveret, verba êius audīrētis (Rosc. Com. 42), if he were living, you would hear his words. [Present.]
2. nisi tū āmīsissēs, numquam recēpissem (Cat. M. 11), unless you had lost it, I should not have recovered it. [Past.]
3. sī meum cōnsilium valuisset, tū hodiē egērēs, rēs pūblica nōn tot ducēs āmīsisset (Phil. 2.37), if my judgment had prevailed [as it did not], you would this day be a beggar, and the republic would not have lost so many leaders. [Mixed Present and Past.]

In conditions contrary to fact the Imperfect often refers to past time, both in protasis and apodosis, especially when a repeated or continued action is denoted, or when the condition if true would still exist:

1. sī nihil litterīs adiuvārentur, numquam sē ad eārum studium contulissent (Arch. 16), if they had not been helped at all by literature, they never would have given their attention to the study of it. [Without the condition, adiuvābantur.]
2. hīc sī mentis esset suae, ausus esset ēdūcere exercitum (Pison. 50), if he were of sane mind, would he have dared to lead out the army? [Here esset denotes a continued state, past as well as present.]
3. nōn concidissent, nisi illud receptāculum classibus nostrīs patēret (Verr. 2.3), [the power of Carthage] would not have fallen, unless that station had been [constantly] open to our fleets. [Without the condition, patēbat.]

In the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact the past tenses of the Indicative may be used to express what was intended, or likely, or already begun. In this use, the Imperfect Indicative corresponds in time to the Imperfect Subjunctive, and the Perfect or Pluperfect Indicative to the Pluperfect Subjunctive:—

1. sī licitum esset, mātrēs veniēbant (Verr. 5.129), the mothers were coming if it had been allowed.
2. in amplexūs fīliae ruēbat, nisi līctōrēs obstitissent (Tac. Ann. 16.32), he was about rushing into his daughter's arms, unless the lictors had opposed.
3. iam tūta tenēbam, nī gēns crūdēlis ferrō invāsisset (Aen. 6.358), I was just reaching a place of safety, had not the fierce people attacked me.

Verbs and other expressions denoting necessity, propriety, possibility, duty, when used in the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact, may be put in the Imperfect or Perfect Indicative.

Such are oportet, decet, dēbeō, possum, necesse est, opus est, and the Second Periphrastic Conjugation:—

1. nōn potuit fierī sapiēns, nisi nātus esset (Fin. 2.103), he could not have become a sage, if he had not been born.
2. sī prīvātus esset hōc tempore, tamen is erat dēligendus (Manil. 50), if he were at this time a private citizen, yet he ought to be appointed.
3. quod esse caput dēbēbat, sī probārī posset (Fin. 4.23), what ought to be the main point, if it could be proved.
4. sī ita putāsset, certē optābilius Milōnī fuit (Mil. 31), if he had thought so, surely it would have been preferable for Milo.

For pār erat, melius fuit, and the like, followed by the infinitive, see § 521. N.

The participle in -ūrus with eram or fuī may take the place of an Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive in the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact:—

1. quid enim futūrum fuit [=fuisset], sī ... (Liv. 2.1), what would have happened if, etc.
2. relictūrī agrōs erant, nisi ad eōs Metellus litterās mīsisset (Verr. 3.121), they would have abandoned their fields, if Metellus had not sent them a letter.
3. neque ambigitur quīn ... id factūrus fuerit, sī ... (Liv. 2.1), nor is there any question that he would have done it, if, etc. [Direct: fēcisset.]
4. adeō parāta sēditiō fuit ut Othōnem raptūrī fuerint, nī incerta noctis timuissent (Tac. H. 1.26), so far advanced was the conspiracy that they would have seized upon Otho, had they not feared the hazards of the night. [In a main clause: rapuissent, nī timuissent.]

The Present Subjunctive is sometimes used in poetry in the protasis and apodosis of conditions contrary to fact:—

1. nī comes admoneat, inruat (Aen. 6.293), had not his companion warned him, he would have rushed on. [Cf. tū sī hīc sīs, aliter sentiās (Ter. And. 310), if you were in my place, you would think differently.]

In Plautus and Terence absque mē (tē, etc.) is sometimes used to introduce conditions contrary to fact:—

1. absque tē esset, hodiē nusquam vīverem (Pl. Men. 1022), if it were not for you, I should not be alive to-day.
2. absque eō esset, rēctē ego mihi vīdissem (Ter. Ph. 188), if it had not been for him, I should have looked out for myself.

General Conditions (§ 513. 2) have usually the same forms as Particular Conditions. But they are sometimes distinguished in the following cases:—

The Subjunctive is often used in the second person singular, to denote the act of an indefinite subject (you = any one). Here the Present Indicative of a general truth may stand in the apodosis:—

1. vīta hūmāna prope utī ferrum est: sī exerceās, conteritur; sī nōn exerceās, tamen rōbīgō interficit (Cato de M.), human life is very like iron: if you use it, it wears away; if you don't use it, rust still destroys it.
2. virtūtem necessāriō glōria, etiamsī tū id nōn agās, cōnsequitur (Tusc. 1.91), glory necessarily follows virtue, even if that is not one's aim.
3. sī prohibita impūne trānscenderis, neque metus ultrā neque pudor est (Tac. Ann. 3.54), if you once overstep the bounds with impunity, there is no fear or shame any more.

In a general condition in present time, the protasis often takes the Perfect Indicative, and the apodosis the Present Indicative. For past time, the Pluperfect is used in the protasis, and the Imperfect in the apodosis:—

1. sī quōs aliquā parte membrōrum inūtilīs nōtāvērunt, necārī iubent (Q. C. 9.1.25), if they [ever] mark any infirm in any part of their limbs, they [always] order them to be put to death. [Present.]
2. sī ā persequendō hostīs dēterrēre nequīverant, ab tergō circumveniēbant (Iug. 50), if [ever] they were unable to prevent the enemy from pursuing, they [always] surrounded them in the rear. [Past.]

In later writers (rarely in Cicero and Cæsar), the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive are used in protasis, with the Imperfect Indicative in apodosis, to state a repeated or customary action in past time (Iterative Subjunctive):—

1. sī quis ā dominō prehenderētur, concursū mīlitum ēripiēbātur (B. C. 3.110), if any (runaway) was arrested by his master, he was (always) rescued by a mob of soldiers.
2. accūsātōrēs, sī facultās incideret, poenīs adficiēbantur (Tac. Ann. 6.30), the accusers, whenever opportunity offered, were visited with punishment.
3. sī quis collēgam appellāsset, ab eō ita discēdēbat ut paenitēret nōn priōris dēcrētō stetisse (Liv. 3.36.8), if any one appealed to a colleague, he [always] came off in such case that he repented not having submitted to the decree of the former decemvir. [Cf. Sōcratēs, quam sē cumque in partem dedisset, omnium fuit facile prīnceps (De Or. 3.60), in whatever direction Socrates turned himself, he was (always) easily the foremost (if in any. etc.).]

Conditional Relative Clauses

A clause introduced by a Relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb may express a condition and take any of the constructions of Protasis

(§ 514):—

1. quī enim vitiīs modum adpōnit, is partem suscipit vitiōrum (Tusc. 4.42), he who [only] sets a limit to faults, takes up the side of the faults. [=sī quis adpōnit. Present, nothing implied.]
2. quī mentīrī solet, pēierāre cōnsuēvit (Rosc. Com. 46), whoever is in the habit of lying, is accustomed to swear falsely. [=sī quis solet. Present, nothing implied.]
3. quicquid potuit, potuit ipsa per sē; (Leg. Agr. 1.20), whatever power she had, she had by herself. [=sī quid potuit. Past, nothing implied.]
4. quod quī faciet, nōn aegritūdine sōlum vacābit, sed, etc. (Tusc. 4.38), and he who does (shall do) this, will be free not only, etc. [=sī quis faciet. Future, more vivid.]
5. quisquis hūc vēnerit, vāpulābit (Pl. Am. 309), whoever comes here shall get a thrashing. [=sī quis vēnerit. Future, more vivid.]
6. quō volēs, sequar (Clu. 71), whithersoever you wish (shall wish), I will follow. [=sī quō volēs. Future, more vivid.]
7. philosophia, cui quī pāreat, omne tempus aetātis sine molestiā possit dēgere (Cat. M. 2), philosophy, which if any one should obey, he would be able to spend his whole life without vexation. [=sī quis pāreat. Future, less vivid.]
8. quaecumque vōs causa hūc attulisset, laetārer (De Or. 2.15), I should be glad whatever cause had brought you here (i.e. if any other, as well as the one which did). [=sī ... attulisset. Contrary to fact.]

The relative in this construction is always indefinite in meaning, and very often in form.

The special constructions of General Conditions are sometimes found in Conditional Relative Clauses:—

1. The Second Person Singular of the Subjunctive in the protasis with the Indicative of a general truth in the apodosis (§ 518. a):—
   1. bonus tantum modo sēgniorfit ubi neglegās, at malus improbior (Iug. 31.28), a good man merely becomes less diligent when you don't watch him, but a bad man becomes more shameless. [Present General Condition.]
2. The Perfect or Pluperfect Indicative in the protasis and the Present or Imperfect Indicative in the apodosis (§ 518. b):—
   1. cum hūcvēnī, hōc ipsum nihil agere mē dēlectat (De Or. 2.24), whenever I come here, this very doing nothing delights me (whenever I have come, etc.). [Present General Condition.]
   2. cum rosamvīderat, tum incipere vēr arbitrābātur (Verr. 5.27), whenever he saw (had seen) a rose, then he thought spring was beginning. [Past General Condition.]
3. In later writers (rarely in Cicero and Cæsar) the Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive in the protasis and the Imperfect Indicative in the apodosis (§ 518. c):—
   1. ubiimbēcillitās māteriae postulārevidērētur, pīlae interpōnuntur (B. C. 2.16), wherever the weakness of the timber seemed to require, piles were put between. [Past General Condition: interpōnuntur = interpōnēbantur.]
   2. quōcumque sēintulisset, victōriam sēcum trahēbat (Liv. 6.8), wherever he advanced, he carried victory with him. [Past General Condition.]

Condition Disguised

The Protasis is often wholly omitted, but may be inferred from the course of the argument:—

1. poterat Sextilius impūne negāre: quis enim redargueret (Fin. 2.55), Sextilius might have denied with impunity; for who would prove him wrong (if he had denied)?

In expressions signifying necessity, propriety, and the like, the Indicative may be used in the apodosis of implied conditions, either future or contrary to fact:—

1. quod contrā decuit ab illō meum [corpus cremārī] (Cat. M. 84), whereas on the other hand mine ought to have been burnt by him.
2. nam nōs decēbat domum lūgēre ubi esset aliquis in lūcem ēditus (Tusc. 1.115), for it were fitting for us to mourn the house where a man has been born (but we do not).
3. quantō melius fuerat (Off. 3.94), how much better it would have been.
4. illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concēdere (Fin. 4.2), it would be more fitting to yield each one his rights.
5. ipsum enim exspectāre māgnum fuit (Phil. 2.103), would it have been a great matter to wait for the man himself?
6. longum est ea dīcere, sed ... (Sest. 12), it would be tedious to tell, etc. [Future.]

Complex Conditions

Either the Protasis or the Apodosis may be a complex idea in which the main statement is made with expressed or implied qualifications. In such cases the true logical relation of the parts is sometimes disguised:—

1. sī quis hōrum dīxisset ... sī verbum dē rē pūblicā fēcisset ... multa plūra dīxisse quam dīxisset putārētur (Rosc. Am. 2), if any of these had spoken, in case he had said a word about politics he would be thought to have said much more than he did say. [Here the apodosis of dīxisset is the whole of the following statement (sī ... putārētur), which is itself conditioned by a protasis of its own: sī verbum, etc.].
2. quod sī in hōc mundō fierī sine deō nōn potest, nē in sphaerā quidem eōsdem mōtūs sine dīvīnō ingeniō potuisset imitārī; (Tusc. 1.63), now if that cannot be done in this universe without divine agency, no more could [Archimedes] in his orrery have imitated the same revolutions without divine genius. [Here sī potest (a protasis with nothing implied) has for its apodosis the whole clause which follows, but potuisset has a contraryto-fact protasis of its own implied in sine ... ingeniō.]
3. peream male sī nōn optimum erat (Hor. S. 2.1.6), confound me (may 1 perish wretchedly) if it would n't be better. [Here peream is apodosis to the rest of the sentence, while the true protasis to optimum erat, contrary to fact, is omitted.]

Clauses of Comparison (Conclusion Omitted)

Conditional Clauses of Comparison take the Subjunctive, usually in the Present or Perfect unless the sequence of tenses requires the Imperfect or Pluperfect.

Such clauses are introduced by the comparative particles tamquam, tamquam sī, quasi, ac sī, ut sī, velut sī (later velut), poetic ceu (all meaning as if), and by quam sī (than if):—

1. tamquam clausa sit Asia (Fam. 12.9), as if Asia were closed.
2. tamquam sī claudus sim (Pl. Asin. 427), just as if I were lame.
3. ita hōs [honōrēs] petunt, quasi honestē vīxerint (Iug. 85), they seek them (offices) just as if they had lived honorably.
4. quasi vērō nōn speciē vīsa iūdicentur (Acad. 2.58), as if forsooth visible things were not judged by their appearance.
5. similiter facis ac sī mē rogēs (N. D. 3.8), you do exactly as if you asked me.
6. crūdēlitātem horrērent velut sī cōram adesset (B. G. 1.32), they dreaded his cruelty (they said), as if he were present in person.
7. hīc ingentem pūgnam cernimus ceu cētera nusquam bella forent (Aen. 2.438), here we saw a great battle, as if there were no fighting elsewhere. [But sometimes with the indicative in poetry, as id. 5.88.]
8. magis ā mē abesse vidēbāre quam sī domī essēs (Att. 6.5), you seemed to be absent from me more than if you were at home.

Even after a primary tense, the Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive (contrary to fact) is often used in conditional clauses of comparison:—

1. aequē ā tē petō ac sī mea negōtia essent (Fam. 13.43), I entreat you as much as if it were my own business.
2. êius negōtium sīc velim suscipiās ut sī esset rēs mea (id. 7.20.1), I would have you undertake his business as though it were my affair.

Use of sī and its Compounds

The uses of some of the more common Conditional Particles may be stated as follows:—

Sī is used for affirmative, nisi (nī) and sī nōn for negative conditions.

1. With nisi (generally unless) the apodosis is stated as universally true except in the single case supposed, in which case it is (impliedly) not true:—
   1. nisi Conōn adest, maereō, unless Conon is here, I mourn (i.e. I am always in a state of grief except in the single case of Conon's presence, in which case I am not).
2. With sī nōn (if not) the apodosis is only stated as true in the (negative) case supposed, but as to other cases no statement is made:—
   1. sī Conōnnōn adest, maereō, if Conon is not here, I mourn (i.e. I mourn in the single case of Conon's absence, nothing being said as to other cases in which I may or may not mourn).
3. Sometimes nisi sī, except if, unless, occurs:—
   1. nōlī putāre mē ad quemquam longiōrēs epistulās sorībere, nisi sī quis ad mē plūra scrīpsit (Fam. 14.2), ... except in case one writes more to me.

Nisi vērō and nisi forte regularly introduce an objection or exception ironically, and take the Indicative:—

1. nisi vērō L. Caesar crūdēlior vīsus est (Cat. 4.13), unless indeed Lucius Cæsar seemed too cruel.
2. nisi forte volumus Epicūrēōrum opīniōnem sequī; (Fat. 37), unless, to be sure, we choose to follow the notion of the Epicureans.

Sīve (seu) ... sīve (seu), whether ... or, introduce a condition in the form of an alternative. They may be used with any form of condition, or with different forms in the two members. Often also they are used without a verb:—

1. nam illō locō libentissimē soleō ūtī, sīve quid mēcum ipse cōgitō, sīve quid scrībō aut legō; (Legg. 2.1), for I enjoy myself most in that place, whether I am thinking by myself, or am either writing or reading.

Sīn, but if, often introduces a supposition contrary to one that precedes:—

1. accūsātor illum dēfendet sī poterit; sīn minus poterit, negābit (Inv. 2.88), the accuser will defend him if he can; but if he cannot, he will deny.

Nisi is often used loosely by the comic poets in the sense of only when a negative (usually nesciō) is expressed, or easily understood, in the main clause:—

1. nesciō: nisi mē dīxisse nēminī certō sciō; (Ter. Ph. 952), I don't know: only I am sure that I have n't told anybody.

The concessive idea is rather vague and general, and takes a variety of forms, each of which has its distinct history. Sometimes concession is expressed by the Hortatory Subjunctive in a sentence grammatically independent (§ 440), but it is more frequently and more precisely expressed by a dependent clause introduced by a concessive particle. The concessive force lies chiefly in the Conjunctions (which are indefinite or conditional in origin), and is often made clearer by an adversative particle (tamen, certē) in the main clause. As the Subjunctive may be used in independ ent clauses to express a concession, it is also employed in concessive clauses, and somewhat more frequently than the indicative.

The Particles of Concession (meaning although, granting that) are quamvīs, ut, licet, etsī, tametsī, etiam sī, quamquam, and cum.

Some of these take the Subjunctive, others the Indicative, according to the nature of the clause which each introduces.

Quamvīs and ut take the Subjunctive:—

1. quamvīs ipsī īnfantēs sint, tamen ... (Or. 76), however incapable of speaking they themselves may be, yet, etc.
2. quamvīs scelerātī illī fuissent (De Or. 1.230), however guilty they might have been.
3. quamvīs cōmis in amīcīs tuendīs fuerit (Fin. 2.80), amiable as he may have been in keeping his friends.
4. ut nēminem alium rogāsset (Mil. 46), even if he had asked no other.
5. ut enim nōn efficiās quod vīs, tamen mors ut malum nōn sit efficiēs (Tusc. 1.16), for even if you do not accomplish what you wish, still you will prove that death is not an evil.
6. ut ratiōnem Platō nūllam adferret (id. 1.49), though Plato adduced no reasons.

Licet, although, takes the Present or Perfect Subjunctive:—

1. licet omnēs mihi terrōrēs perīculaque impendeant (Rosc. Am. 31), though all terrors and perils should menace me.

Etsī, etiam sī, tametsī, even if, take the same constructions as sī (see § 514):—

1. etsī abest mātūritās, tamen nōn est inūtile (Fam. 6.18.4), though ripeness of age is wanting, yet it is not useless, etc.
2. etsī numquam dubium fuit, tamen perspiciō; (id. 5.19), although it has never been doubtful, yet I perceive, etc.
3. etsī statueram (id. 5.5), though I had determined.
4. etsī nihil aliud abstulissētis, tamen contentōs vōs esse oportēbat (Sull. 90), even if you had taken away nothing else, you ought to have been satisfied.
5. etiam sī quod scrībās nōn habēbis, scrībitō tamen (Fam. 16.26), even if you [shall] have nothing to write, still write.
6. sed ea tametsī vōs parvī pendēbātis (Sall. Cat. 52.9), but although you regarded those things as of small account.

Quamquam, although, introduces an admitted fact and takes the Indicative:—

1. omnibus—quamquam ruit ipse suīs clādibus—pestem dēnūntiat (Phil. 14.8), though he is breaking down under his disasters, still he threatens all with destruction.

The poets and later writers frequently use quamvīs and quamquam like etsī, connecting them with the Indicative or the Subjunctive, according to the nature of the condition:—

1. quamquam movērētur (Liv. 36.34), although he was moved.
2. Polliō amat nostram, quamvīs est rūstica, mūsam (Ecl. 3.84), Pollio loves my muse, though she is rustic.
3. quamvīs pervēnerās (Liv. 2.40), though you had come.

Ut, as, with the Indicative, may be equivalent to a concession:

1. vērum ut errāre potuistī, sīc dēcipī tē nōn potuisse quis nōn videt (Fam. 10.20.2), suppose you could have been mistaken, who does not see that you cannot have been deceived in this way?

For cum concessive, see § 549; for quī concessive, see § 535. e. For concession expressed by the Hortatory Subjunctive (negative nē), see § 440.

Dum, modo, dummodo, and tantum ut, introducing a Proviso, take the Subjunctive. The negative with these particles is nē:

1. ōderint dum metuant (Off. 1.97), let them hate, if only they fear.
2. valētūdō modo bona sit (Brut. 64), provided the health be good.
3. dummodo inter mē atque tē mūrus intersit (Cat. 1.10), provided only the wall (of the city) is between us.
4. tantum ut sciant (Att. 16.11.1), provided only they know.
5. modo nē sit ex pecudum genere (Off. 1.105), provided [in pleasure] he be not of the herd of cattle.
6. id faciat saepe, dum nē lassus fīat (Cato R. R. 5.4), let him do this often, provided he does not get tired.
7. dummodo ea (sevēritās) nē variētur (Q. Fr. 1.1.20), provided only it (strictness) be not allowed to swerve.
8. tantum nē noceat (Ov. M. 9.21), only let it do no harm.

The Hortatory Subjunctive without a particle sometimes expresses a proviso:—

1. sint Maecēnātēs, nōn deerunt Marōnēs (Mart. 8.56.5 ), so there be Mœcenases, Virgils will not be lacking.

The Subjunctive with ut (negative nē) is sometimes used to denote a proviso, usually with ita in the main clause:—

1. probāta condiciō est, sed ita ut ille praesidia dēdūceret (Att. 7.14.1), the terms were approved, but only on condition that he should withdraw the garrisons.

For a clause of Characteristic expressing Proviso, see § 535. d.

The Subjunctive in the clause of Purpose is hortatory in origin, coming through a kind of indirect discourse construction (for which see § 592). Thus, mīsit lēgātōs quī dīcerent means he sent ambassadors who should say, i.e. who were directed to say; in the direct orders the verb would be dīcite, which would become dīcant in the Indirect Discourse of narrative (§ 588) or dīcerent in the past (cf. hortatory subjunctive in past tenses, § 439. b). The Subjunctive with ut and nē is, in general, similar in origin.

A clause expressing purpose is called a Final Clause.

Final Clauses take the Subjunctive introduced by ut (utī), negative nē (ut nē), or by a Relative Pronoun or Adverb.—

1. Pure Clauses of Purpose, with ut (utī) or nē (ut nē), express the purpose of the main verb in the form of a modifying clause:—
   1. ab arātrō abdūxērunt Cincinnātum, utdictātor esset (Fin. 2.12), they brought Cincinnatus from the plough that he might be dictator.
   2. ut sint auxiliō suīs, subsistunt (B. C. 1.80), they halt in order to support (be an aid to) their own men.
   3. nē mīlitēs oppidum inrumperent, portās obstruit (id. 1.27), he barricaded the gates, in order that the soldiers might not break into the town.
   4. scālās parārī iubet,nē quam facultātem dīmittat (id. 1.28), he orders scalingladders to be got ready, in order not to let slip any opportunity.
   5. ut nē sit impūne (Mil. 31), that it be not with impunity.
   1. lēgumidcircō servī sumus,ut līberī sīmus (Clu 146), for this reason we are subject to the laws, that we may be free.
   2. cōpiās trānsdūxit eō cōnsiliō, utcastellum expūgnāret (cf. B. G. 2.9), he led the troops across with this design—to storm the fort.
2. Relative Clauses of Purpose are introduced by the relative pronoun quī or a relative adverb (ubi, unde, quō, etc.). The antecedent is expressed or implied in the main clause:—
   1. mittitur L. Dēcidius Saxaquī locī nātūram perspiciat (B. C. 1.66), Lucius Decidius Saxa is sent to examine the ground (who should examine, etc.).
   2. scrībēbat ōrātiōnēsquās aliī dīcerent (Brut. 206), he wrote speeches for other men to deliver.
   3. eō exstīnctō fore unde discerem nēminem (Cat. M. 12), that when he was dead there would be nobody from whom (whence) I could learn.
   4. huic nē ubi cōnsisteret quidem contrā tē locum relīquistī; (Quinct. 73), you have left him no ground even to make a stand against you.
   5. habēbam quō cōnfugerem (Fam. 4.6.2), I had [a retreat] whither I might flee.

The ablative quō (= ut eō) is used as a conjunction in final clauses which contain a comparative:—

1. comprimere eōrum audāciam, quō facilius cēterōrum animī frangerentur (Fam. 15.4.10), to repress their audacity, that the spirit of the others might be broken more easily (by which the more easily).
2. lībertāte ūsus est, quō impūnius dicāx esset (Quinct. 11), he took advantage of liberty, that he might bluster with more impunity.

For quōminus (=ut eō minus) after verbs of hindering, see § 558. b.

The principal clause, on which a final clause depends, is often to be supplied from the context:—

1. ac nē longum sit ... iussimus (Cat. 3.10), and, not to be tedious, we ordered, etc. [Strictly, in order not to be tedious, I say we ordered.]
2. sed ut ad Dionȳsium redeāmus (Tusc. 5.63), but to return to Dionysius.
3. sed ut eōdem revertar, causa haec fuit timōris (Fam. 6.7.3), but, to return to the same point, this was the cause of fear.
4. satis incōnsīderātī fuit, nē dīcam audācis (Phil. 13.12), it was the act of one rash enough, not to say daring.

1. nēdum salvī esse possīmus (Clu. 95), much less could we be safe.
2. nēdum istī nōn statim conquīsītūrī sint aliquid sceleris et flāgitī; (Leg. Agr. 2.97), far more will they hunt up at once some sort of crime and scandal.
3. nēdum in marī et viā sit facile (Fam. 16.8), still less is it easy at sea and on a journey.
4. quippe secundae rēs sapientium animōs fatīgant; nē illī corruptīs mōribus victōriae temperārent (Sall. Cat. 11), for prosperity overmasters the soul even of the wise; much less did they with their corrupt morals put any check on victory.

For Substantive Clauses involving purpose, see §§ 563-566.

The Purpose of an action is expressed in Latin in various ways; but never (except in idiomatic expressions and rarely in poetry) by the simple Infinitive as in English (§ 460).

The sentence, they came to seek peace, may be rendered—

1. (1) vēnērunt ut pācem peterent. [Final clause with ut (§ 531. 1).]
2. (2) vēnērunt quī pācem peterent. [Final clause with Relative (§ 531. 2).]
3. (3) [vēnērunt ad petendum pācem.] Not found with transitive verbs (§ 506, N.2), but cf. ad pārendum senātuī. [Gerund with ad (§ 506).]
4. (4) vēnērunt ad petendam pācem. [Gerundive with ad (§ 506).]
5. (5) vēnērunt pācem petendī causā (grātiā). [Gen. of Gerund with causā (§ 504. b).]
6. (6) vēnērunt pācis petendae causā (grātiā). [Gen. of Gerundive with causā (§ 504. b).]
7. (7) vēnērunt pācem petītūrī. [Future participle (§ 499. 2); in later writers.]
8. (8) vēnērunt pācem petītum. [Supine in -um (§ 509).]

These forms are not used indifferently, but—

The usual way of expressing purpose is by ut (negative nē), unless the purpose is closely connected with some one word, in which case a relative is more common:—

1. lēgātōs ad Dummnorīgem mittunt, ut eō dēprecātōre ā Sēquanīs impetrārent (B. G. 1.9), they send envoys to Dumnorix, in order through his intercession to obtain (this favor) from the Sequani.
2. mīlitēs mīsit ut eōs quī fūgerant persequerentur (id. 5.10), he sent the soldiers to follow up those who had fled.
3. Cūriō praemittit equitēs quī prīmum impetum sustineant (B. C. 2.26), Curio sends forward cavalry to withstand the first attack.

The Gerund and Gerundive constructions of purpose are usually limited to short expressions, where the literal translation, though not the English idiom, is nevertheless not harsh or strange.

The Supine is used to express purpose only with verbs of motion, and in a few idiomatic expressions (§ 509).

The Future Participle used to express purpose is a late construction of inferior authority (§ 499. 2).

For the poetical Infinitive of Purpose, see § 460. c. For the Present Participle in a sense approaching that of purpose, see § 490. 3.

The relative clause of Characteristic with the Subjunctive is a development peculiar to Latin. A relative clause in the Indicative merely states something as a fact which is true of the antecedent; a characteristic clause (in the Subjunctive) defines the antecedent as a person or thing of such a character that the statement made is true of him or it and of all others belonging to the same class. Thus,—nōn potest exercitum is continēre imperātor quī sē ipse nōn continet (indicative) means simply, that commander who does not (as a fact) restrain himself cannot restrain his army; whereas nōn potest exercitum is continēre imperātor quī sē ipse nōn contineat (subjunctive) would mean, that commander who is not such a man as to restrain himself, etc., that is, who is not characterized by self-restraint.

This construction has its origin in the potential use of the subjunctive (§ 445) Thus, in the example just given, quī sē ipse nōn contineat would mean literally, who would not restrain himself (in any supposable case), and this potential idea passes over easily into that of general quality or characteristic. The characterizing force is most easily felt when the antecedent is indefinite or general. But this usage is extended in Latin to cases which differ but slightly from statements of fact, as in some of the examples below.

The use of the Subjunctive to express Result comes from its use in Clauses of Characteristic. Thus, nōn sum ita hebes ut haec dīcam means literally, I am not dull in the manner (degree) in which I should say this, hence, I am not so dull as to say this. Since, then, the characteristic often appears in the form of a supposed result, the construction readily passes over into Pure Result, with no idea of characteristic; as,—tantus in cūriā clāmor factus est ut populus concurreret (Verr. 2.47), such an outcry was made in the senate-house that the people hurried together.

A Relative Clause with the Subjunctive is often used to indicate a characteristic of the antecedent, especially where the antecedent is otherwise undefined:—

1. neque enim tū is es quī nesciās (Fam. 5.12.6), for you are not such a one as not to know. [Here is is equivalent to such, and is defined only by the relative clause that follows.]
2. multa dīcunt quae vix intellegam (Fin. 4.2), they say many things which (such as) I hardly understand.
3. pācī quae nihil habitūra sit īnsidiārum semper est cōnsulendum (Off. 1.35), we must always aim at a peace which shall have no plots.

A Relative Clause of Characteristic is used after general expressions of existence or non-existence, including questions which imply a negative.

So especially with sunt quī, there are [some] who; quis est quī, who is there who?—

1. sunt quī discessum animī ā corpore putent esse mortem (Tusc. 1.18), there are some who think that the departure of soul from body constitutes death.
2. erant quī cēnsērent (B. C. 2.30), there were some who were of the opinion, etc.
3. erant quī Helvidium miserārentur (Tac. Ann. 16.29), there were some who pitied Helvidius. [Cf. est cum (N.3, below).]
4. quis est quī id nōn maximīs efferat laudibus (Lael. 24), who is there that does not extol it with the highest praise?
5. nihil videō quod timeam (Fam. 9.16.3), I see nothing to fear.
6. nihil est quod adventum nostrum extimēscās (Fam. 9.26.4), there is no reason why you should dread my coming.
7. unde agger comportārī posset nihil erat reliquum (B. C. 2.15), there was nothing left from which an embankment could be got together.

1. sunt bēstiae quaedam in quibus inest aliquid simile virtūtis (Fin. 5.38), there are certain animals in which there is something like virtue.
2. But,—inventī multī sunt quī vītam prōfundere prō patriā parātī essent (Off. 1.84), many were found of such a character as to be ready to give their lives for their country.

A Relative Clause of Characteristic may follow ūnus and sōlus:

1. nīl admīrārī prope rēs est ūna sōlaque quae possit facere et servāre beātum (Hor. Ep. 1.6.1), to wonder at nothing is almost the sole and only thing that can make and keep one happy.
2. sōlus es cûius in victōriā ceciderit nēmō nisi armātus (Deiot. 34), you are the only man in whose victory no one has fallen unless armed.

A clause of Result or Characteristic with quam ut, quam quī (rarely with quam alone), may be used after comparatives:—

1. Canachī sīgna rigidiōra sunt quam ut imitentur vēritātem (Brut. 70), the statues of Canachus are too stiff to represent nature (stiffer than that they should).
2. mâiōrēs arborēs caedēbant quam quās ferre mīles posset (Liv. 33.5), they cut trees too large for a soldier to carry (larger than what a soldier could carry).

A relative clause of characteristic may express restriction or proviso (cf. § 528. b):—

1. quod sciam, so far as I know (lit. as to what I know).
2. Catōnis ōrātiōnēs, quās quidem invēnerim (Brut. 65), the speeches of Cato, at least such as I have discovered.
3. servus est nēmō, quī modo tolerābilī condiciōne sit servitūtis (Cat. 4.16), there is not a slave, at least in any tolerable condition of slavery.

A Relative Clause of Characteristic may express cause or concession:—

1. peccāsse mihi videor quī ā tē discesserim (Fam. 16.1), I seem to myself to have done wrong because I have left you. [Causal.]
2. virum simplicem quī nōs nihil cēlet (Or. 230), O guileless man, who hides nothing from us! [Causal.]
3. egomet quī sērō Graecās litterās attigissem, tamen complūrēs Athēnīs diēs sum commorātus (De Or. 1.82), I myself, though I began Greek literature late, yet, etc. (lit. [a man] who, etc.). [Concessive.]

1. nec cōnsul, ut quī id ipsum quaesīsset, moram certāminī fēcit (Liv. 42.7), nor did the consul delay the fight, since he had sought that very thing (as [being one] who had sought, etc.).
2. Lūcius, frāter êius, utpote quī peregrē dēpūgnārit, familiam dūcit (Phil. 5.30), Lucius, his brother, leads his household, inasmuch as he is a man who has fought it out abroad.
3. convīvia cum patre nōn inībat, quippe qui nē in oppidum quidem nisi perrārō venīret (Rosc. Am. 52), he did not go to dinner parties with his father, since he did not even come to town except very rarely.

Dīgnus, indīgnus, aptus, idōneus take a subjunctive clause with a relative (rarely ut). The negative is nōn:—

1. dīgna in quibus ēlabōrārent (Tusc. 1.1), (things) worth spending their toil on (worthy on which they should, etc.).
2. dīgna rēs est ubi tū nervōs intendās tuōs (Ter. Eun. 312), the affair is worthy of your stretching your sinews (worthy wherein you should, etc.).
3. idōneus quī impetret (Manil. 57), fit to obtain.
4. indīgnī ut redimerēmur (Liv. 22.59.17), unworthy to be ransomed.

1. fōns rīvō dare nōmen idōneus (Hor. Ep. 1.16.12), a source fit to give a name to a stream.
2. aetās mollis et apta regī (Ov. A. A. 1.10), a time of life soft and easy to be guided.
3. vīvere dīgnus erās (Ov. M. 10.633), you were worthy to live.

The Subjunctive in Consecutive Clauses is a development of the use of that mood in Clauses of Characteristic (as explained in § 534).

Clauses of Result take the Subjunctive introduced by ut, so that (negative, ut nōn), or by a relative pronoun or relative adverb.

1. Pure Clauses of Result, with ut or ut nōn, express the result of the main verb in the form of a modifying clause:—
   1. tanta vīs probitātis est ut eam in hoste dīligāmus (Lael. 29), so great is the power of goodness that we love it even in an enemy.
   2. pūgnātur ācriter ad novissimum agmen, adeō ut paene terga convertant (B. C. 1.80), there is sharp fighting in the rear, so (to such a degree) that they almost take flight.
   3. multa rūmor adfingēbat, ut paene bellum cōnfectum vidērētur (id. 1.53), rumor added many false reports, so that the war seemed almost ended.
2. Relative Clauses of Result are introduced by the relative pronoun quī or a relative adverb (ubi, unde, quō, etc.). The antecedent is expressed or implied in the main clause.

The Relative in this construction is equivalent to ut with the corre sponding demonstrative:quī = ut is (etc.), ubi = ut ibi, and so on:

1. nam est innocentia affectiō tālis animī quae noceatnēminī; (Tusc. 3.16), for innocence is such a quality of mind as to do harm to no one.
2. sunt aliae causae quaeplānē efficiant (Top. 59), there are other causes such as to bring to pass.
3. nūlla est celeritāsquae possit cum animī celeritāte contendere (Tusc. 1.43), there is no swiftness which can compare with the swiftness of the mind.
4. quis nāvigāvitquī nōn sē mortis perīculō committeret (Manil. 31), who went to sea who did not incur the peril of death?

A Negative Result is introduced by ut nōn, ut nēmō, quī nōn, etc., not by nē:—

1. multīs gravibusque volneribus cōnfectus ut iam sē sustinēre non posset (B. G. 2.25), used up with many severe wounds so that he could no longer stand.
2. tantā vī in Pompêī equitēs impetum fēcērunt ut eōrum nēmō cōnsisteret (B. C. 3.93), they attacked Pompey's cavalry with such vigor that not one of them stood his ground.
3. nēmō est tam senex quī sē annum nōn putet posse vīvere (Cat. M. 24), nobody is so old as not to think that he can live a year.