Salvete!
As I move deeper into Latin, I try to be more aware of the moods of the verbs, especially subjunctive vs. indicative.
Personally, I find subjunctive verbs relatively easy to translate.
The difficulty comes in understanding why a subjunctive is used instead of an indicative, or vice-versa.
Sometimes though I can't quite reason out the logic.
Take these two sentences from Ch. 34 of Lingua Latina –
1. Ego quoque ludis et certaminibus studeo, dummodo alios certantes spectem!
(I also am eager for games and fights, provided that I am watching others fighting!)
Dummodo sets off a hypothetical condition ("provided that..."), so I think that is why the subjunctive (spectem) is used here.
The next sentence, which comes from a description of the gladiatorial battles in the amphitheater, is a little less clear to me:
2. ...qui reti implicitus est non potest se defendere et sine mora interficitur, nisi tam fortiter pugnavit ut spectatores eum vivere velint.
(...he who is wrapped in a net is unable to defend himself and is killed without delay, unless he has fought so bravely that the fans want him to live.)
The tam... ut construction makes velint subjunctive.
But why is pugnavit indicative? How is this any less of a hypothetical condition than the dummodo example above?
I appreciate your insights,
Cornelius
As I move deeper into Latin, I try to be more aware of the moods of the verbs, especially subjunctive vs. indicative.
Personally, I find subjunctive verbs relatively easy to translate.
The difficulty comes in understanding why a subjunctive is used instead of an indicative, or vice-versa.
Sometimes though I can't quite reason out the logic.
Take these two sentences from Ch. 34 of Lingua Latina –
1. Ego quoque ludis et certaminibus studeo, dummodo alios certantes spectem!
(I also am eager for games and fights, provided that I am watching others fighting!)
Dummodo sets off a hypothetical condition ("provided that..."), so I think that is why the subjunctive (spectem) is used here.
The next sentence, which comes from a description of the gladiatorial battles in the amphitheater, is a little less clear to me:
2. ...qui reti implicitus est non potest se defendere et sine mora interficitur, nisi tam fortiter pugnavit ut spectatores eum vivere velint.
(...he who is wrapped in a net is unable to defend himself and is killed without delay, unless he has fought so bravely that the fans want him to live.)
The tam... ut construction makes velint subjunctive.
But why is pugnavit indicative? How is this any less of a hypothetical condition than the dummodo example above?
I appreciate your insights,
Cornelius
Last edited: