Might be subjunctive

[john abshire]

Vir regem interfecit = the man killed the king.
Vir regem interfecerit = the man may have killed the king?
Vir regem interfecisset = the man might had killed the king?

I think I understand correctly that the translation of the subjunctive depends on context, but are the above sentences correct?
That is; the subjunctive is supposed to be for statements of uncertainty; would, should, could, may have, might be, etc.
The subjunctive verbs would not have to be translated this way, but could they be?
e.g. the second sentence; vir regem interfecerit could be “the man may have killed the king”, or “the man should have killed, or/ could have killed the king?

 

[Pacifica]

Vir regem interfecerit = the man may have killed the king?
Vir regem interfecisset = the man might had killed the king?

No. As stand-alone sentences, they wouldn't normally have those meanings.

"The man may have killed the king" is equivalent to "Perhaps the man killed the king" and could translate to fortasse vir regem interfecit, for instance.

"The man might have killed the king" is equivalent to "Perhaps the man would have killed the king (if such and such had been the case)" and could translate to something like fortasse vir regem interfecisset. In a less strict register, "The man might have killed the king" can also mean the same as "The man may have killed the king", in which case it would translate the same way.

As a stand-alone sentence, vir regem interfecerit would be interpreted literally as "Let the man have killed the king", which would usually mean idiomatically something like "Let's assume that the man killed the king". You'll often find that sort of wording where an argument is being made.

Vir regem interfecisset on its own means "The man would have killed the king (if such and such had been the case)".

 

[Dantius]

and "the man might had killed the king" is just not grammatical.

 

[john abshire]

No. As stand-alone sentences, they wouldn't normally have those meanings.

"The man may have killed the king" is equivalent to "Perhaps the man killed the king" and could translate to fortasse vir regem interfecit, for instance.

"The man might have killed the king" is equivalent to "Perhaps the man would have killed the king (if such and such had been the case)" and could translate to something like fortasse vir regem interfecisset. In a less strict register, "The man might have killed the king" can also mean the same as "The man may have killed the king", in which case it would translate the same way.

As a stand-alone sentence, vir regem interfecerit would be interpreted literally as "Let the man have killed the king", which would usually mean idiomatically something like "Let's assume that the man killed the king". You'll often find that sort of wording where an argument is being made.

Vir regem interfecisset on its own means "The man would have killed the king (if such and such had been the case)".

Thanks for this.
I’m finding that my textbook is a “crash course” in Latin. It may be thorough enough for someone who is not “grammatically challenged”.
I also have a copy of Wheelock’s Latin. Referring to that is taking some of the mystery out of the subjunctive.
I will revisit this (post) if I need more help.
Thanks again

 

[cinefactus]

I think your strategy of reading Pugio Bruti is a good one. I find it a lot easier to pick up usage from examples than from just reading rules.

 

[Pacifica]

I too think reading Pugio Bruti was a good idea. Reading rules is often necessary, of course, but you need Latin reading to internalize the rules. Reading will also, at length, give you a feel for the things that can't easily be formulated in rules.