Part 42

1762. When the leading verb is a subjunctive, the present is regarded as primary, and the imperfect and pluperfect as secondary: as,

(_a._) #exspectō eius modī litterās ex quibus nōn quid fīat, sed quid futūrum sit sciam#, _Att._ 5, 12, 2, _I am expecting a letter of a kind to let me know not what is going on, but what will be going on_. #quid prōfēcerim faciās mē velim certiōrem#, _Fam._ 7, 10, 3, _how far I have succeeded I wish you would let me know_. (_b._) #quālis esset nātūra montis quī cōgnōscerent mīsit#, 1, 21, 1, _he sent some scouts to find out what the character of the mountain was_. #quid mē prohibēret Epicūrēum esse, sī probārem quae dīceret#, _Fin._ 1, 27, _what would prevent me from being an Epicurean, if I accepted what he said?_ #quae sī bis bīna quot essent didicisset Epicūrus, certē nōn dīceret#, _DN._ 2, 49, _Epicurus would certainly not say this, if he had ever been taught how much twice two is_ (1748).

1763. An imperfect subjunctive of action non-occurrent at the present time has occasionally the present sequence: as, #mīrārēris, sī interessēs, quā patientiā valētūdinem toleret#, Plin. _Ep._ 1, 22, 7, _you would be amazed to find, if you were with him, with what dogged endurance he bears up under his illness_. But the secondary sequence is far more common.

1764. (1.) The perfect subjunctive in independent main sentences of prohibition (1551) or of action conceivable (1558) is regarded as a primary tense: as,

#nē dubitārīs quīn id mihī̆ futūrum sit antīquius#, _Att._ 7, 3, 2, _don’t entertain any doubt that this course will be preferable in my eyes_. #quid nōn sit citius quam quid sit dīxerim#, _DN._ 1, 60, _I could sooner tell what is not, than what is_.

1765. (2.) In subordinate sentences, the perfect subjunctive has the main sequence when it represents the indicative perfect definite, and the secondary when it represents the indicative historical perfect or the imperfect: as,

(_a._) #nēmō ferē vestrūm est, quīn, quem ad modum captae sint Syrācūsae saepe audierit#, _V._ 4, 115, _there is hardly a man of your number but has heard over and over again how Syracuse was taken_. (_b._) #quā rē acciderit ut id suspicārēre quod scrībis nesciō#, _Fam._ 2, 16, 1, _how it came to pass that you suspected what you write, I can’t imagine_.

TENSE SUBORDINATE TO A NOUN OF THE VERB.

1766. (1.) A subjunctive subordinate to one of the nouns of the verb, except the perfect infinitive or the perfect participle, follows the sequence of the verb: as,

#dēsinō quaerere cūr ēmerīs#, _V._ 4, 10, _I cease to ask why you bought_. #nēminem tam āmentem fore putāvērunt, ut emeret argentum#, _V._ 4, 9, _they did not dream anybody would be crazy enough to buy plate_. #secūrī percussī, adeō torpentibus metū quī aderant, ut nē gemitus quidem exaudīrētur#, L. 28, 29, 11, _they were beheaded, everybody there being so completely paralyzed with fear that not even a groan could be heard_. #Q. Fabius Pīctor Delphōs missus est scīscitātum, quibus precibus deōs possent plācāre#, L. 22, 57, 5, _Fabius Pictor was sent to Delphi to find out by what sort of prayers they could get the ear of the gods_. #cupīdō incessit animōs iuvenum scīscitandī ad quem eōrum rēgnum esset ventūrum#, L. 1, 56, 10, _the youths were possessed with a desire to find out to which one of their number the throne was to fall_.

1767. (2.) With a perfect infinitive or perfect participle, the subordinate subjunctive may be in the imperfect or pluperfect, even with a primary leading verb: as,

#satis mihī̆ multa verba fēcisse videor, quā rē esset hoc bellum necessārium#, _IP._ 27, _I fancy I have said enough to show why this war is unavoidable_. #hunc istī aiunt, cum taurum immolāvisset, mortuum concidisse#, _Br._ 43, _your gentlemen say that this man, after sacrificing a bull, tumbled down dead_. #viātor bene vestītus causa grassātōrī fuisse dīcētur cūr ab eō spoliārētur#, _Fat._ 34, _a well-dressed traveller will be said to have been a temptation for a footpad to rob him_. #versābor in rē saepe quaesītā, suffrāgia clam an palam ferre melius esset#, _Leg._ 3, 33, _I shall be working on a question that has often been put, whether it was better to vote secretly or openly_.

1768. The sequence with a perfect infinitive is, however, often primary: as, #hīc sī fīnem faciam dīcendī, satis iūdicī fēcisse videar cūr secundum Rōscium iūdicārī dēbeat#, _RC._ 14, _if I should stop speaking here, I should feel I had made it plain enough to the court why a judgement should be rendered for Roscius_.

1769. The secondary sequence is used with #meminī#, _remember_, even when it has the present infinitive (2220): as, #L. Metellum meminī ita bonīs esse vīribus extrēmō tempore aetātis, ut adulēscentiam nōn requīreret#, _CM._ 30, _I can remember Metellus’s being so good and strong in the very last part of his life that he did not feel the want of youth_.

1770. Sentences with a subjunctive due to another subjunctive or to an infinitive are put as follows:

1771. (1.) Sentences of relative time express contemporaneous, antecedent, and subsequent action like corresponding indicative sentences, with the appropriate sequence: as,

#vereor, nē, dum minuere velim labōrem, augeam#, _Leg._ 1, 12, _I am afraid that while I wish to make the work less, I may make it more_. #crocodīlōs dīcunt, cum in terrā partum ēdiderint, obruere ōva#, _DN._ 2, 129, _they say that the crocodile, after laying on land, buries her eggs_. #dīcēbam quoad metuerēs, omnia tē prōmissūrum: simul ac timēre desīssēs, similem tē futūrum tuī#, _Ph._ 2, 89, _I said that as long as you were afraid, you would promise everything; the moment you ceased to fear, you would be just like yourself_. #cōnstituērunt ea, quae ad proficīscendum pertinērent, comparāre#, 1, 3, 1, _they resolved to get such things ready as were necessary for the march_. #erat scrīptum: nisi domum reverterētur, sē capitis eum damnātūrōs#, N. 4, 3, 4, _it stood written that, if he did not come back home, they would condemn him to death_ (direct form #nisi revertēris, damnābimus#). #lēgātī vēnērunt, quī sē ea, quae imperāsset, factūrōs pollicērentur#, 4, 22, 1, _some envoys came, to engage to do what he ordered_ (direct form #quae imperāris, faciēmus#). #Venetī cōnfīdēbant Rōmānōs neque ūllam facultātem habēre nāvium, neque eōrum locōrum ubī̆ bellum gestūrī essent portūs nōvisse#, 3, 19, 6, _the Venetans felt assured that the Romans had not any proper supply of ships, and were not acquainted with the ports in the places where they were to fight_.

1772. (2.) Sentences with independent time retain the independent time in the subjunctive in primary sequence (1744); in secondary sequence the present becomes imperfect, and the perfect becomes pluperfect: as,

(_a._) #quamquam opīniō est, eum quī multīs annīs ante hōs fuerit, Pīsistratum, multum valuisse dīcendō#, _Br._ 27, _though there is an impression that the man who lived years and years before these people, Pisistratus, was a very telling orator_ (direct form, #quī fuit#, 1738). #dīcitur, posteā quam vēnerit, paucīs diēbus esse mortuus#, _Clu._ 175, _he is said to have died a few days after he came_ (1739). (_b._) #cōgnōvit Suēbōs, posteā quam pontem fierī comperissent, nūntiōs in omnēs partēs dīmīsisse#, 4, 19, 2, _he ascertained that after the Suebans had learned of the building of the bridge, they had sent out messengers in every direction_.

THE INDIRECT QUESTION.

1773. The subjunctive is used in indirect questions or exclamations.

Thus, when the direct question, #quī scīs#, _how do you know?_ is subordinated to a main sentence, such as #quaerō#, _I ask_, the #scīs# becomes #sciās#: #quaerō quī sciās#, _RA._ 59, _I ask how you know_. Questions or exclamations thus subordinated are called _Indirect_ (1723). In English, indirect questions are usually characterized simply by the position of the words, the subject standing before the verb.

1774. The indirect question is one of the commonest of constructions. It depends on verbs or expressions meaning not only _ask_, but also _tell_, _inform_, _ascertain_, _see_, _hear_, _know_, _consider_, _deliberate_, _doubt_, _wonder_, _fear_, &c., &c.

YES OR NO QUESTIONS.

1775. Indirect Yes or No questions are introduced by the same interrogative particles that are used in direct questions (1503). But in indirect questions, #num# and #-ne# are used without any essential difference, in the sense of _whether_, _if_. #nōnne# is used thus only by Cicero, and by him only with #quaerō#: as,

#quaeris num disertus sit?# _Planc._ 62, _do you ask whether he is a good speaker?_ #quaesīvī cōgnōsceretne sīgnum#, _C._ 3, 10, _I asked if he recognized the seal_. #quaerō nōnne tibī̆ faciendum idem sit#, _Fin._ 3, 13, _I ask whether you ought not to do the same_. #vidēte num dubitandum vōbīs sit#, _IP._ 19, _consider whether you ought to have any hesitation_.

1776. The combinations #-ne . . . -ne#, and #an . . . an#, introducing two separate questions, are rare; #-ne . . . -ne# is mostly confined to poetry. In a few instances such questions can hardly be distinguished from alternatives.

1777. A conditional protasis with #sī#, _if_, _to see if_, or #sī forte#, _if perchance_, sometimes takes the place of an indirect question in expressions or implications of trial, hope, or expectation: as, #ībō, vīsam sī domīst#, T. _Hau._ 170, _I’ll go and see if he’s at home_. Usually with the subjunctive: as, #exspectābam, sī quid scrīberēs#, _Att._ 16, 2. 4, _I was waiting to see whether you would write anything_. #circumfunduntur hostēs, sī quem aditum reperīre possent#, 6, 37, 4, _the enemy came streaming round, to see if they could find any way of getting in_.

ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS.

1778. Indirect alternative questions are introduced like direct questions (1519). But when the second member is negative, it has oftener #necne# than #an nōn#: as,

#hoc quaerāmus, vērum sit an falsum#, _Clu._ 124, _let us ask this question, whether it is true or false_. #quaesīvī ā Catilīnā in conventū fuisset, necne#, _C._ 2, 13, _I asked Catiline whether he had been at the meeting or not_. #permultum interest utrum perturbātiōne animī, an cōnsultō fīat iniūria#, _Off._ 1, 27, _it makes a vast difference whether wrong be done in heat of passion, or with deliberate intent_. #quaerō, eum Brūtīne similem mālīs an Antōniī#, _Ph._ 10, 5, _I ask whether you would rather have him like Brutus or like Antony_.

1779. An introductory #utrum# preceding an alternative question with #-ne# and #an# occurs a few times in Plautus and Cicero; #utrumne . . . an# occurs once in Cicero, and twice in Horace and Tacitus each; compare 1522. After #utrum#, a second alternative is sometimes suppressed, as in the direct question (1523).

1780. #-ne# in the second member only of an alternative question is rare, and not used by Caesar or Sallust: as, #sine sciam captīva māterne sim#, L. 2, 40, 5, _let me know whether I am a captive or a mother_.

1781. (1.) A few times in Plautus and Terence, the second member only of an alternative question is expressed with #quī sciō an?# or #quī scīs an?# equivalent to _perhaps_: as, #quī scīs an quae iubeam faciat?# T. _Eu._ 790, _perhaps she’ll do as I direct_. Horace has once #quī scīs an#, _AP._ 462, in the sense of _perhaps_, and once #quis scit an#, 4, 7, 17, in the sense of _perhaps not_.

1782. (2.) The second member only of an alternative question is often expressed after #haud sciō an#, _I don’t know but_, _possibly_, _perhaps_, with #nōn#; #nēmō#, #nūllus#, &c., if the sentence is negative: as,

#haud sciō an fierī possit#, _V._ 3, 162, _I don’t know but it is possible_. Similarly, though not often, with #nesciō an#, #haud sciam an#, #dubitō an#, #dubitārim an#, #dubium an#, #incertum an#, &c.: as, #ēloquentiā nesciō an habuisset parem nēminem#, _Br._ 126, _in oratory I fancy he would have had no peer_. This use, in which #haud sciō an# becomes adverbial, and the subjunctive approaches closely that of modest assertion, is principally confined to Cicero. In later Latin, #haud sciō an#, &c., sometimes has a negative sense, _I don’t know whether_, with #ūllus#, &c.

1783. From Curtius on, #an# is used quite like #num# or #-ne#, in a single indirect question, without implication of alternatives.

1784. Two alternatives are rarely used without any interrogative particles at all: as, #velit nōlit scīre difficile est#, _QFr._ 3, 8, 4, _will he nill he, it is hard to know_, i.e. whether he will or not. Compare 1518.

[Errata: 1778 ... _Off._ 1, 27 . invisible 1782 ... #ēloquentiā nesciō an habuisset parem nēminem#, . for ,]

PRONOUN QUESTIONS.

1785. Indirect pronoun questions are introduced by the same pronominal words that are used in direct pronoun questions (1526): as,

#cōgnōscit, quae gerantur#, 5, 48, 2, _he ascertains what is going on_. #vidētis ut omnēs dēspiciat#, _RA._ 135, _you can see how he looks down on everybody_. #quid agās et ut tē oblectēs scīre cupiō#, _QFr._ 2, 3, 7, _I am eager to know how you do and how you are amusing yourself_.

ORIGINAL SUBJUNCTIVES.

1786. Questions already in the subjunctive may also become indirect.

Thus, #quō mē vertam?# _V._ 5, 2, _which way shall I turn?_ (1563) becomes indirect in #quō mē vertam nesciō#, _Clu._ 4, _I don’t know which way I am to turn_. #quid faciam?# H. _S._ 2, 1, 24, _what shall I do?_ (1563) becomes indirect in #quid faciam, praescrībe#, H. _S._ 2, 1, 5, _lay down the law, what I’m to do_. #neque satis cōnstābat quid agerent#, 3, 14, 3, _and it was not at all clear what they had best do_. #dubitāvī hōsce hominēs emerem an nōn emerem#, Pl. _Cap._ 455, _I had my doubts, whether to buy these men or not to buy_ (1564).

INDICATIVE QUESTIONS APPARENTLY INDIRECT.

1787. In old Latin, the indicative occurs often in connections where the subjunctive would be used in classical Latin: as,

#dīc, quis est#, Pl. _B._ 558, _say, who is it?_ whereas #dīc quis sit# would mean _say who it is_. In such cases the question is not subordinate, but coordinate, usually with an imperative (1697), or with some such expression as #tē rogō#, #volō scīre#, #scī̆n#, or the like. Such coordination occurs exceptionally in the classical period: as, #et vidē, quam conversa rēs est#, _Att._ 8, 13, 2, _and observe, how everything is changed_. #adspice, ut ingreditur#, V. 6, 856, _see, how he marches off_.

1788. The indicative is used with #nesciō# followed by a pronominal interrogative, when this combination is equivalent to an indefinite pronoun or adverb: as,

#prōdit nesciō quis#, T. _Ad._ 635, _there’s some one coming out_. This is a condensed form for #prōdit nesciō quis sit#, _there’s coming out I don’t know who it is_, the real question, #sit#, being suppressed, and #nesciō quis# acquiring the meaning of #aliquis#, _somebody_. Similarly #nesciō# with #unde#, #ubī̆#, #quandō#, #quot#, &c., in writers of all ages. Plautus uses #sciō quid#, #sciō ut#, &c., somewhat in this way once or twice with the indicative: as, #scio quid agō#, _B._ 78, _I’m doing I know what_.

1789. This combination often expresses admiration, contempt, or regret: as, #contendō tum illud nesciō quid praeclārum solēre existere#, _Arch._ 15, _I maintain that in such a combination the beau ideal of perfection always bursts into being_. #paulum nesciō quid#, _RA._ 115 _an unconsidered trifle_. #dīvīsa est sententia, postulante nesciō quō#, _Mil._ 14. _the question was divided, on motion of what’s his name_. #nesciō quō pactō#, _C._ 31, _unfortunately_.

1790. The indicative is used in like manner with many expressions, originally exclamatory, which have become adverbs: such are #immāne quantum#, _prodigiously_, #mīrum quantum#, _wonderfully_, #sānē quam#, _immensely_, &c., &c. See 712 and the dictionary.

1791. Relative constructions often have the appearance of indirect questions, and care must be taken not to confound the two. Thus, #ut# is a relative in #hanc rem, ut factast, ēloquar#, Pl. _Am._ 1129, _I’ll tell this thing as it occurred_, i.e. not _how it occurred_. #nōstī quae sequontur#, _TD._ 4, 77, _you know the things that follow_, i.e. not _what follows_.

THE RELATIVE SENTENCE.

1792. Relative sentences are introduced by relative words, the most important of which is the pronoun #quī#, _who_, _which_, or _that_. The relative pronoun may be in any case required by the context, and may represent any of the three persons.

1793. The relative adverbs, #ubī̆#, #quō#, #unde#, often take the place of a relative pronoun with a preposition, chiefly in designations of place, and regularly with town and island names. Less frequently of persons, though #unde# is not uncommonly thus used.

1794. In a wider sense, sentences introduced by any relative conjunctive particle, such as #ubī̆#, _when_, are sometimes called relative sentences. Such sentences, however, are more conveniently treated separately, under the head of the several conjunctive particles.

1795. (1.) The relative pronoun, like the English relative _who_, _which_, was developed from the interrogative. Originally, the relative sentence precedes, and the main sentence follows, just as in question and answer.

Thus, #quae mūtat, ea corrumpit#, _Fin._ 1, 21, _what he changes, that he spoils_, is a modification of the older question and answer: #quae mūtat? ea corrumpit#, _what does he change? that he spoils_. With adjective relatives, the substantive is expressed in both members, in old or formal Latin: as, #quae rēs apud nostrōs nōn erant, eārum rērum nōmina nōn poterant esse ūsitāta#, Cornif. 4, 10, _what things did not exist among our countrymen, of those things the names could not have been in common use_.

1796. (2.) The relative sentence may also come last. As early as Plautus, this had become the prevalent arrangement, and the substantive of the main sentence is called the _Antecedent_: as,

#ultrā eum locum, quō in locō Germānī cōnsēderant, castrīs idōneum locum dēlēgit#, 1, 49, 1, _beyond the place in which place the Germans had established themselves, he selected a suitable spot for his camp_. The three words #diēs#, #locus#, and #rēs#, are very commonly expressed thus both in the antecedent and the relative sentence. This repetition is rare in Livy, and disappears after his time.

1797. In old Latin, rarely in classical poetry, a sentence sometimes begins with an emphasized antecedent put before the relative, and in the case of the relative: as, #urbem quam statuō vostra est#, V. 1, 573, _the city which I found is yours_; for #quam urbem statuō, ea vostra est#. In the main sentence, #is#, #hīc#, #iste#, or #ille#, is often used; less frequently, as in this example, an appellative.

1798. The main sentence often has the determinative or demonstrative, or the substantive, or both omitted: as,

(_a._) #ubī̆ intellēxit diem īnstāre, quō diē frūmentum mīlitibus mētīrī oportēret#, 1, 16, 5, _when he saw the day was drawing nigh, on which day the grain was to be measured out to his men_. (_b._) #quōs āmīsimus cīvīs, eōs Mārtis vīs perculit#, _Marc._ 17, _what fellow-citizens we have lost, those the fury of the War-god smote down_. (_c._) #Sabīnus quōs tribūnōs mīlitum circum sē habēbat, sē sequī iubet#, 5, 37, 1, _Sabinus ordered what tribunes of the soldiers he had about him, to follow him_.

1799. The antecedent is often omitted when it is indefinite, or is obvious from the context: as,

#sunt quī mīrentur#, _V_. 1, 6, _there be who wonder_. #dēlēgistī quōs Rōmae relinquerēs#, _C._ 1, 9, _you picked out people to leave in Rome_. #quod periīt, periīt#, Pl. _Cist._ 703, _gone is gone_. #Caesar cōgnōvit Cōnsidium, quod nōn vīdisset, prō vīsō sibī̆ renūntiāvisse#, 1, 22, 4, _Caesar ascertained that Considius had reported to him as seen what he had not seen_.

1800. An ablative or nominative abstract in the relative sentence sometimes represents an ablative of manner or quality omitted from the main sentence: as, #quā prūdentiā es, nihil tē fugiet#, _Fam._ 11, 13, 1, _with what sense you have, nothing will elude you_, i.e. #eā quā es prūdentiā, nihil tē fugiet. spērō, quae tua prūdentia est, tē valēre#, _Att._ 6, 9, 1, _I hope that, with your characteristic caution, you are well_. #at Āiāx, quō animō trāditur, mīlliēs oppetere mortem quam illa perpetī māluisset#, _Off._ 1, 113, _Ajax, on the contrary, with his traditional vehemence, would have chosen rather to die a thousand deaths than to submit to such indignities_. This ellipsis begins with Cicero, and is found a few times only in later writers.

AGREEMENT OF THE RELATIVE.

1801. The agreement of the relative has already been spoken of in a general way (1082-1098). For convenience, however, it may be set forth here more explicitly.

1802. A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case depends on the construction of the sentence in which it stands: as,

#Hippiās glōriātus est ānulum quem habēret, pallium quō amictus, soccōs quibus indūtus esset, sē suā manū cōnfēcisse#, _DO._ 3, 127, _Hippias prided himself that he had made with his own hand the ring that he wore, the cloak in which he was wrapped, and the slippers that he had on_. This holds of all relatives with inflected form, such as #quīcumque#, #quālis#, #quantus#, &c., &c.

1803. When the relative refers to two or more antecedents of different gender, its gender is determined like that of a predicate adjective (1087): as,

#mātrēs et līberī, quōrum aetās misericordiam vestram requīrēbat#, _V._ 5, 129, _mothers and babies, whose years would appeal to your sympathy_ (1088). #ōtium atque dīvitiae, quae prīma mortālēs putant#, S. _C._ 36, 4, _peace and prosperity, which the sons of men count chiefest of blessings_ (1089). #fortūna, quam nēmō ab incōnstantiā et temeritāte sēiunget, quae digna nōn sunt deō#, _DN._ 3, 61, _fortune, which nobody will distinguish from caprice and hazard, qualities which are not befitting god_ (1089). Sometimes the relative agrees with the nearest substantive: as, #eās frūges atque frūctūs, quōs terra gignit#, _DN._ 2, 37, _the crops, and the fruits of the trees that earth produces_.

1804. The relative is sometimes regulated by the sense, and not by the form of the antecedent: as,

#equitātum praemittit quī videant#, 1, 15, 1, _he sends the cavalry ahead, for them to see_ (1095). #ūnus ex eō numerō, quī ad caedem parātī erant#, S. _I_. 35, 6, _one of the number that were ready to do murder_ (1095). #duo prōdigia, quōs improbitās tribūnō cōnstrictōs addīxerat#, _Sest._ 38, _a pair of monstrosities, whom their depravity had delivered over in irons to the tribune_. #scrība pontificis, quōs nunc minōrēs pontificēs appellant#, L. 22, 57, 3, _a clerk of the pontiff, which clerks they call nowadays lesser pontiffs_, i.e. #quōs scrībās. Vēiēns bellum exortum, quibus Sabīnī arma coniūnxerant#, L. 2, 53, 1, _a Vejan war broke out, with whom the Sabines had allied themselves_, i.e. #bellum cum Vēientibus.#

1805. A relative referring to a proper name and explanatory appellative combined, may take the gender of either: as, #flūmine Rhēnō, quī agrum Helvētium ā Germānīs dīvidit#, 1, 2, 3, _by the river Rhine, which is the boundary between Helvetians and Germans_. #ad flūmen Scaldem quod īnfluit in Mosam#, 6, 33, 3, _to the river Scheldt, that empties itself into the Maas_.

1806. With verbs of indeterminate meaning (1035), the relative pronoun sometimes agrees with the predicate substantive: as, #Thēbae ipsae, quod Boeōtiae caput est#, L. 42, 44, 3, _Thebes itself, which is the capital of Boeotia_. Often, however, with the antecedent: as, #flūmen quod appellātur Tamesis#, 5, 11, 8, _the river which is called the Thames_.

1807. When the relative is subject, its verb agrees with the person of the antecedent: as,