Combinations of past and present tenses

[Gregorius Textor]

Here are some sentences from W. G. Most "Latin by the Natural Method" which have, as it seems to me, weird and possibly ungrammatical combinations of tenses. I've been wondering if continuing with this book might lead me to form some bad habits.

I've searched the grammar books for rules about such combinations, but all I could find were the "sequence of tenses" rules (A&G #482, https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/sequence-tenses; Bennett, #266 ff., https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect266), which, if I understand right, apply only to a main clause with a dependent clause in the subjunctive mood (e.g., rogo quid facias), so they are irrelevant to these examples.

In each of the following list of examples, the numbers refer to chapter and (roughly) sentence within the chapter, the Latin is by W. G. Most, the English is my interpretation of what he said or was trying to say, followed by my comment on what seems to be the problem with the sentence.

26 18
Sed postquam Sulla discéssit ex hac vita, Pompéius fécerat nomen suum magnum multis bellis.
But after Sulla (has) departed from this life, Pompey had made his name great through many wars.
-- Action in pluperfect tense occurs AFTER action in perfect tense; doesn't make sense?

25 16
In urbe, dum Sulla erat in Oriénte, bellum civíle fúerat inter amícos Mari et senátum.
In the city, while Sulla was (being) in the East, there was (had been) a civil war between 《 the friends of Marius》 and the senate.
-- Action in pluperfect tense takes place WHILE action in imperfect tense is going on.

19 34
Ille dixit quod illa est agna parva.
He said that she is (was) a little lamb.
-- Should it be 'erat' or 'fuit' instead of 'est'?

23 21
Ítaque plebs creávit novum imperatórem: facit Márium imperatórem.
And so the plebs (it) has created a new general: it makes Marius a general.
-- the same action in both perfect and present tenses?

 

[Notascooby]

I think that the rigid tense distinctions of classical Latin are not observed to the same level in ecclesiastical Latin.

Your example of 19.34 seems to be following the later form of indirect statement, probably imitating Greek in which the words being reported are the 'exact' words of the original statement.

Usual caveat though, I may be wrong, wait for Pacifica.

 

[Avunculus H]

26 18
Sed postquam Sulla discéssit ex hac vita, Pompéius fécerat nomen suum magnum multis bellis.
But after Sulla (has) departed from this life, Pompey had made his name great through many wars.
-- Action in pluperfect tense occurs AFTER action in perfect tense; doesn't make sense?

My sources say that for one-time action (and AFAIK Sulla died only once ;.) ), the perfect or praesens historicum is often used instead of the pluperfect after postquam; the second pluperfect must then express priorness to some subsequent action.

25 16
In urbe, dum Sulla erat in Oriénte, bellum civíle fúerat inter amícos Mari et senátum.
In the city, while Sulla was (being) in the East, there was (had been) a civil war between 《 the friends of Marius》 and the senate.
-- Action in pluperfect tense takes place WHILE action in imperfect tense is going on.

Well, the imperfect expresses the simultaneousness of Sulla being in the East while the civil war had happened; dum normally takes only imperfect or present tense when meaning "while". The pluperfect in the main clause must again express priorness to a follwing clause.

23 21
Ítaque plebs creávit novum imperatórem: facit Márium imperatórem.
And so the plebs (it) has created a new general: it makes Marius a general.
-- the same action in both perfect and present tenses?

The second is just praesens historicum, making the description more lively / immediate.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

My sources say that for one-time action (and AFAIK Sulla died only once ;.) ), the perfect or praesens historicum is often used instead of the pluperfect after postquam; the second pluperfect must then express priorness to some subsequent action.

Interesting. This sentence and the next in this reading are

Sed postquam Sulla discéssit ex hac vita, Pompéius fécerat nomen suum magnum multis bellis. Pompéius étiam factus est consul anni septuagésimi.

Likely he was made consul after he made his name famous, so that fits.

Well, the imperfect expresses the simultaneousness of Sulla being in the East while the civil war had happened; dum normally takes only imperfect or present tense when meaning "while". The pluperfect in the main clause must again express priorness to a follwing clause.

In this case I have to look ahead four sentences to see that Sulla's coming into the city and a new civil war are the following events, but that also seems to work.

In urbe, dum Sulla erat in Oriénte, bellum civíle fúerat inter amícos Mari et senátum.
Multi Románi interfécti erant, Márius enim vénerat in urbem cum exércitu.
Per quinque dies, trucidátio fúerat in urbe.
Decem mília interfécti erant.
Ergo quando Sulla venit in urbem, rursus bellum civíle venit.

The second is just praesens historicum, making the description more lively / immediate.

Okay.

So I guess one conclusion I should draw from this, is that I need to look at the larger context, not just a single sentence

My sources say

And by the way, what are your sources?

Thanks for your explanations!

 

[Avunculus H]

And by the way, what are your sources?

My good old Langenscheidt Latin-German dictionary (I'm German) from way back in school.