Conditional Rules

[QMF]

I kind of like trying to think my thoughts throughout the day in Latin; I think it helps to improve fluency. Today I noticed that although I could understand a conditional clause in print, I don't really understand it in speech. That is, I don't know all the rules. The one I was thinking was:
Dormiam sed si dormirem facienda non fiant.
"I would sleep but if I were to sleep, the things which need to be done would not get done." (On a side note, it's amazing how compact Latin is compared to English sometimes.)

I'm not sure...I think dormiam is subjunctive of its own accord (I would do something, I don't flat out do something) dormirem is a condition contrary-to-fact and so imp. subjunctive, and fiant is the conditional verb here (in Spanish it would be in the conditional tense) as it is the result of the si clause.

Is this correct?

 

[Iynx]

I like that, qmf; it's very poetic.

I'm no expert, but your conditional doesn't feel to me like a condition-contrary-to-fact, but rather a future-condition-as-yet unfulfilled. That would permit any of four mood /tense combinations:

More vivid:

Protasis and apodosis future indicative.
Protasis future perfect indicative and apodosis future indicative.

Less vivid:

Protasis and apodosis both present subjunctive.
Protasis perfect subjunctive and apodosis perfect subjunctive.

I could be wrong. You might want to check out Allen-&-Greenough 511ff, and see what you think.

I think that your freestanding dormiam is fine

 

[QMF]

Ah...it seems like the one that would fit best would be the double present subjunctive, although I'm not sure. Only problem is that two "dormiam"s in a row doesn't sound very good Note that this was just going through my head one afternoon on my way home; I was really tired but I had a lot of homework. So it'd be nice if, on any occasion when I'm like that (of which there are quite a few per month) I had a nice-sounding little Latin motto to pick me up.

Possibly change the first one to imperfect and then have "Dormirem sed si dormiam facienda non fiant"? Doesn't sound quite as good but it's better than two dormiam's.

 

[Cato]

Iynx correctly distinguishes the more/less vivid conditional (fut. ind. vs. pres. subj.), but I've always preferred to distinguish these as "logically true" vs. "possibly true".

In this particular example this doesn't help you with the repetition, since the fut. ind. and pres. subj. are the same form for 1st pers. sing. dormire, but let me illustrate with the 3rd pers. form:

Si dormiet, non fiet - this is literally "If he shall sleep, it will not be done," but in English we often use the present inside the protasis to indicate the future: "If he sleeps, it won't be done." The implication is that this is a 100% true conclusion.

Si dormiat, non fiat - "If he should sleep, it wouldn't/might not get done." The implication is less certain here; it allows for the possibility that the task could get completed even if the subject slept (e.g. like the story of Psyche, who fell asleep at the task of sorting beads, but was miraculously helped by ants while she dozed).

Iynx is right about dormirem - This is not contrary-to-fact; you really are conceding that you could fall asleep (via the first dormiam).

 

[QMF]

Ah, I see. I can understand what you said better than what Iynx said, Cato. (Sorry Iynx!) Well then that answers my question. It's unfortunate that the forms are the same, as what I would think would be optimal is the following:
Dormiam (pres subj.) sed si dormiam (fut. ind.) facienda non fient.

Perhaps I could change dormire to cubitare? Then it would be:
Cubitem sed si cubitabo facienda non fient.

Not nearly as poetic sounding though...perhaps I could just claim a weird poetic "grammar doesn't really matter here" like the poets do at times.