Hi All,
I have a couple questions about using the subjunctive with si and its negative form, nisi.
In Ch. 33 of my textbook, the author uses conditional statements to teach about the pluperfect subjunctive.
1. Si iam tum hoc intellexissem, certe patrem audivissem…
If I had understood this then, I certainly would have listened to father…
The circumstance the character is describing is hypothetical (and in fact contrary to what did happen), so therefore the verbs are subjunctive – is this understanding correct?
2. …etenim malus amicus fuissem, nisi lacrimas effudissem…
…for in fact I would have been a bad friend, unless I had shed tears…
The first part of this makes sense, but I am a little confused about the second part – nisi lacrimas effudissem.
The character narrating this really did shed tears, so the circumstance is not contrary to fact.
Why then do we need the subjunctive? Why not instead effuderam?
What also confuses me is that sometimes si does not appear with subjunctive verbs.
For example, in an earlier chapter a character states:
3. …omnem pecuniam meam praedonibus dabo, si libertatem mihi reddent.
I will give all my money to the pirates, if they will return to me [my] liberty.
The verb reddent is future tense indicative (and now that I think of it there is no future tense subjunctive).
Why do some tenses “escape” the subjunctive – even when coupled with si – while others (like the pluperfect examples I gave above) do not?
I appreciate your insights!
Cornelius
I have a couple questions about using the subjunctive with si and its negative form, nisi.
In Ch. 33 of my textbook, the author uses conditional statements to teach about the pluperfect subjunctive.
1. Si iam tum hoc intellexissem, certe patrem audivissem…
If I had understood this then, I certainly would have listened to father…
The circumstance the character is describing is hypothetical (and in fact contrary to what did happen), so therefore the verbs are subjunctive – is this understanding correct?
2. …etenim malus amicus fuissem, nisi lacrimas effudissem…
…for in fact I would have been a bad friend, unless I had shed tears…
The first part of this makes sense, but I am a little confused about the second part – nisi lacrimas effudissem.
The character narrating this really did shed tears, so the circumstance is not contrary to fact.
Why then do we need the subjunctive? Why not instead effuderam?
What also confuses me is that sometimes si does not appear with subjunctive verbs.
For example, in an earlier chapter a character states:
3. …omnem pecuniam meam praedonibus dabo, si libertatem mihi reddent.
I will give all my money to the pirates, if they will return to me [my] liberty.
The verb reddent is future tense indicative (and now that I think of it there is no future tense subjunctive).
Why do some tenses “escape” the subjunctive – even when coupled with si – while others (like the pluperfect examples I gave above) do not?
I appreciate your insights!
Cornelius