Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous SubSect

Next SubSect

10.3. The relation between the various uses of the moods

Above I have already pointed out that the current explanations for the various uses of the moods are based on the alleged semantic value of the individual moods itself and that they do not sufficiently take into account the various sentence types and the illocutionary forces mentioned above. A problem encountered by such an approach is how to distinguish the diverging semantic values of a certain mood in independent sentences and how to explain the relation between them. I first go into these two questions ( crosssection 10.3.1). A second issue is the relation between the use of the moods in independent sentences and in embedded predications. Something has already been said about this in crosssection 7.1.2. (pp. 100 f.). This is elaborated upon in crosssection 10.3.2.

-- 207 --

10.3.1 Distinction and relation between the uses of the moods

Difficulties in explaining the various uses of the moods especially occur in the case of the subjunctive, which, as we have seen, occurs in all three sentence types (declarative, interrogative, imperative). I will limit myself to the subjunctive.

In describing the use of the subjunctive, some linguists take as a starting-point the intepretations of the subjunctive in the contexts in which it occurs. More or less comparable interpretations are organized as much as possible and then labelled as a certain use. This approach resembles the treatment of the cases (see p. 63). A representative of this approach is K.–St. Contextual elements are frequently adduced as evidence, as we have seen above in crosssection 10.2.2. Besides constituents in the context, the translation to the native language of the linguist often plays an important role. Handford, for instance, supports his view that at one stage an element of the meaning of the subjunctive was that of `intention' with the statement that `there are other passages where the translation `I will' gives a perfectly good sense' (1946: 39). [62]

A second group of linguists explains the Latin uses as much as possible from the origins of the subjunctive. A representative of this approach is Sz. I first discuss one such diachronic explanation. Then I return to some synchronic views.

(i) The origin of the Latin subjunctive receives, and has received, much attention (see Sz. 329–30). [63] Scholars agree that the Latin subjunctive is used in situations in which, for example, Greek would use the optative and the subjunctive, while there are also many formal similarities. From this it is concluded that the Latin subjunctive is a merger of the Indo-European optative and subjunctive. [64] This leads Sz. to organize (with some reservations) his chapter on the subjunctive as follows:

(a) uses of the old optative: wish, concession, irrealis (330–5);

(b) uses of the old subjunctive: jussive, prohibitive, deliberative (335–8). [65]

The difference in negation (ne/non), as we have already seen, does not correlate with this classification.

(ii) The views described hereafter do not involve diachronic considerations. K.–St. distinguish there uses of the subjunctive, viz. the `potential' subjunctive (I.176–80), the `volitive' subjunctive (I.180–95) and the `conditional' subjunctive (I. 195, limited to imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive forms). They argue that all these uses can be explained from a common denominator, viz. that all `present something as thought, as imagined' [66] (see Sz. 326: `Modus der Vorstellung'). Opposed to this are the indicative and the imperative as `Modus der Wirklichkeit' (`mood of reality') and `Modus des Befehls' (`mood of orders'), respectively. Others distinguish two uses, viz. the volitive subjunctive (negation ne) and the non-volitive subjunctive (negation non), for

-- 208 --

which no common denominator can be found. [67] A third approach explicitly considers the various uses as contextually determined within a kind of continuum of meanings that cannot very well be captured by a common denominator. [68] The unity of the subjunctive consists in its being opposed to the indicative and the imperative. 68a

To some extent, my own view has already been expressed on p. 194. I observe that in declarative sentences there is a semantic opposition e.g. (non) facio/faciam/facerem. I have described this difference with the terms `factive', `possible', `purely hypothetical', respectively. We find the same difference in interrogative sentences. In imperative sentences there is no semantic opposition (ne) facit/faciat, but there is an opposition (ne) faciat/faceret. In this case there is a contrast between possible and hypothetical. This has been represented in table 10.4 (see also table 10.1 on p. 190.) [69] Table 10.4
Sentence typeIndicativeSubjunctive I (present/perfect)Subjunctive II (imperfect/pluperfect)
Declarative (non)+++
Interrogative (non)+++
Imperative (ne)-+(+)
An indication for the correctness of table 10.4 may be found in a number of properties of interrogative sentences in indirect speech. The subjunctive I and subjunctive II distinguished in table 10.4 are differentiated in indirect speech: indicative → infinitive, subjunctive I → subjunctive, subjunctive II → infinitive construction with -urum fuisse or infinitive + potuisse, see (77) – (79): [70]

(77) quonam haec omnia nisi ad suam perniciem pertinere? (`To what did all this lead, apart from his own downfall?', Caes. Civ. 1.9.4) [cf. quonam haec pertinent]

(78) quis hoc sibi persuaderet sine certa spe Ambiorigem ad eiusmodi consilium descendisse (`Who would make himself believe that A. had developed this plan without certain expectations?', Caes. Gal. 5.29.5) [cf. quis persuadeat]

(79) quid illum facturum fuisse si … adversa pugna evenisset (`What he would have done if the fight had finished badly', Liv. 8.31.5) [cf. quid fecisset]

-- 209 --

10.3.2 The moods in independent sentences and in subordinate clauses

In chapter 7 we have discussed restrictions on controllability and tense of predications with an imperative modality, both embedded and independent predications. This was also pointed out in this chapter (p. 197). In imperative embedded predications with a finite verb from the mood is, as we have seen, the subjunctive (and the negation is ne). An example of such an embedded predication is (80):

(80) hortatus sum ut ea quae sciret sine timore indicaret (`I have encouraged him to set forth what he knew without fear', Cic. Catil. 3.8)

I start with argument clauses, where the mood is fixed and can usually be explained. Then I discuss satellite clauses where the mood is generally also fixed. Finally clauses are treated where a `choice' is involved.

(i) With all kinds of verbs meaning `to take care of', `to strive after', `to advise', `to order', `to decide', `to allow', `to wish', the embedded predication required by the verb (an argument in the sentence, therefore) cannot possibly be factive. It is, therefore, in a way `consistent' [71] that-besides the similarity in terms of restrictions mentioned above-also in terms of mood there is a correlation between subordinate clauses and independent imperative sentences: there, too, the `non-factive' mood is common. With verbs such as gaudere and dolere, on the other hand, where the embedded predications does refer to something that is actually the case, the indicative is what one expects in the quod-clause. See example (81):

(81) sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi (`I am certainly happy to have interrupted you', Cic. Leg. 3.1)

Note that in embedded predications with verbs like gaudere the negation is, again, non and that restrictions of the kind mentioned above do not exist. Note also the difference in subordinator (ut/quod). But the `consistency' mentioned just now is lacking with other classes of verbs, e.g. verbs meaning `to realize' and `to happen'. With the former class of verbs, we find in the embedded predication both ne and non as negation (See K.-St. II.212–3; 234–5). With the verbs meaning `to happen' the subjunctive is normal (with non as negation), although the embedded predication frequently contains a state of affairs that has really taken place. An example is (82):

(82) mihi … valde optanti … cecidit ut in istum sermonem … delaberemini (`To my pleasure it so happened that you ended up in this discussion', Cic. de Orat. 1.96) [72]

Note that in none of the examples given above can the subjunctive be replaced by the indicative or vice versa.

In indirect questions Classical Latin uses the subjunctive. In Plautus, on the other hand, the same governing verbs seem to allow also the indicative. Closer

-- 210 --

examination shows, however, that in the instances with the indicative the governing verbs are rather used parenthetically, so that the questions are direct questions, where the indicative is normal. There is, however, no semantic motivation for the occurrence of the subjunctive in real indirect questions. [73]

(ii) Also in most satellite clauses the mood is fixed. It is closely connected with the subordinator that is chosen (or, in the case of very frequent subordinators, with certain meanings of the subordinator). In the majority of satellite clauses the negation is non (in Purpose clauses it is ne): [74]

(83) quam (provinciam) iste … ita vexavit ac perdidit ut ea restitui in antiquum statum nullo modo possit (`He has destroyed and ruined this province in such a way that it cannot in any way be restored to its original state', Cic. Ver. 1.12)

As in (83), the content of the embedded predication is in many cases `fa–ctive', so that–on the basis of the semantic value of the subjunctive given above–the subjunctive cannot be explained. Nor can it be explained in instances such as (84)–(85):

(84) nec eorum quisquam adhuc inventus est cui quod haberet esset satis (`And among them nobody has as yet been found for whom what he had was enough', Cic. Parad. 52)

(85) est oratoris, quaecumque res infinite posita sit, de ea posse dicere (`An orator must be capable of speaking about any general subject that is put before him', Cic. de Orat. 2.66)

In (84) we find a so-called second-degree subordinate clause, with attraction of the mood as a result of the mood of the governing clause (esset). (85) is an example of the rule that in subordinate clauses with infinitive and AcI constructions the subjunctive is often used. In the same connection, the subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses in indirect speech (`oratio obliqua') (negation non). All these instances ((82)–(85)), where the subjunctive cannot be accounted for on the basis of its alleged semantic value in independent sentences, must be explained in a different way: at least for some time the subjunctive developed into a formal means to mark subordinate clauses as such; in other words, it was a morpho-syntactic rather than a morpho-semantic means. [75]

Above, on p. 194, I have pointed out that in independent sentences the difference between present subjunctive and imperfect subjunctive is in a sense `atemporal'. In embedded clauses, however, there is generally a temporal difference, visible in, among other things, the so-called sequence of tenses. [76]

(iii) Up to here we have discussed subordinate clauses where no opposition between subjunctive and indicative is possible. In a certain number of

-- 211 --

subordinate clauses (satellite clauses and relative clauses), however, there is a semantic difference between clauses in the indicative and in the subjunctive. I first deal with satellite clauses, then with relative clauses.

In a limited number of subordinate clauses, viz. those introduced by the subordinators quod, priusquam, dum we find both the indicative (the (a)-examples) and the subjunctive (the (b)-examples). See (86)–(88):

(86a) urbs quae, quod in ea parte Fortunae fanum … fuit, Tycha nominata est (`A city that is called tycha, because nearby there was once a temple of Fortuna', Cic. Ver. 4. 119)

(86b) Aristides … nonne ob eam causam expulsus est patria, quod praeter modum iustus esset (`Hasn't A. been expelled from his country, because–according to his fellow-countrymen–he was excessively just?' Cic. Tusc. 5.105)

(87a) quod ego … priusquam loqui coepisti … sensi (`As I noticed before you began to speak', Cic. Vat. 4)

(87b) saepe magna indoles virtutis, priusquam rei publicae prodesse potuisset, extincta est (`Often great innate talents are destroyed before the state could benefit by them', Cic. Phil. 5.47)

(88a) perpaucos dies, dum pecunia accipitur … commorabor (`I shall stay for a few days, until the money has arrived', Cic. Fam. 3.5.4)

(88b) subsedi in ipsa via dum haec … summatim tibi perscriberem (`I am sitting in the street while briefly writing this to you', Cic. Att. 5.16.1)

For examples see K.–St. (quod: II.383 ff.; priusquam: II.366 ff.; dum: II. 380 ff.). The subjunctive in (86b) and (87b) can be explained because the predications are clearly non-factive, while in the corresponding examples with the indicative, on the other hand, the predication is factive. But the subjunctive in (88b) is more difficult. The dum-clause seems interchangeable with a Purpose ut-clause and indicates the intention of the Subject of subsedi. Presumably, Cicero is writing at that very moment.

The relative clauses with the subjunctive can be subdivided into various types. [77] First, the so-called final relative clauses. Examples are (89)–(91):

(89) delegisti quos Romae relinqueres, quos tecum educeres (`You chose people that were to be left at Rome and people to take with you', Cic. Catil. 1.9)

(90) praeterea se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret … (`That, moreover, he had been sent by M.C. in order to report to C. … ', Sal. Cat. 48.4)

(91) oriens incendium qui restinguerent summos viros misimus (`We have

-- 212 --

sent very important men in order to extinguish the rising fire', Cic. Phil. 13.48)

In these instances, the events described in the relative clauses are posterior to those described in the main predication, and are to be brought about by certain persons. The states of affairs of the main predication and the relative clause are Actions (controllable and dynamic). In those cases where the antecedent of the relative pronoun is present in the main predication the relative clause could be replaced by an ut-clause. [78]

The following instances would (presumably) be regarded as `generic' or `consecutive' by the grammars: [79]

(92) ego enim suscipiam et, ut spero, reperiam qui id quod salutis omnium causa statueritis, non pute <n> t esse suae dignitatis recusare (`For I shall undertake this and hope to find many people who regard it as undignified to refuse what you have decided in the interest of all', Cic. Catil. 4.8)

(93) multa … e corpore existunt, quae acuant mentem (`In the body many things occur that sharpen the mind', Cic. Tusc. 1.80)

(94) cum haec essent ita constituta, Verres tot annis atque adeo saeculis tot inventus est, qui haec non commutaret sed everteret (`When things had been arranged in this way, years, even centuries later (a) Verres appeared, not simply to change the arrangement, but to overturn it', Cic. Ver. 3.21)

In these examples, the state of affairs of the main predication is non-controllable. The relative clauses contain states of affairs that will possibly or probably obtain. A common element in both groups of examples (the so-called final and consecutive relative clauses) is the non-factivity of the predications of the relative clauses.

This is not the case in the following group of examples:

(95) Paetus … omnes libros quos frater suus reliquisset mihi donavit (`P. has given to me all the books that his brother-as he said-had left him', Cic. Att. 2.1.12)

(96) illi autem, qui omnia de republica praeclara atque egregia sentirent, sine recusatione … negotium susceperunt (`But they, endowed with excellent and extraordinary feelings with regard to the public interest, accepted the task without hesitation', Cic. Catil. 3.5)

In (95) Cicero does not express himself as to the truth of the fact that `all books were left by P.'s brother', but presents this as P.'s view. In (96) Cicero does not doubt the good faith of illi, but indicates by means of the subjunctive that their behaviour was a logical outcome of their feelings. Sentiebant, indicating that they had those feelings at that moment, would be either trivial or even

-- 213 --

insulting, since it would suggest that they no longer had those feelings. So, while the first group (the final and consecutive relative clauses) involves non-factivity, here a factive expression is, as it were, avoided.

The following instances are related to these:

(97) vehementer Sullam probo, qui tribunis plebis sua lege iniuriae faciendae potestatem ademerit (`I appreciate Sulla very much, since by his law he has deprived the tribunes of the possibility of committing acts of injustice', Cic. Leg. 3.22)

(98) egomet qui sero ac leviter Graecas litteras attigissem tamen cum … venissem Athenas, complures tum ibi dies sum … commoratus (`Even though I had come to know Greek literature relatively late in life and in a superficial manner, I nevertheless stayed in Athens for a few days after my arrival', Cic. de Orat. 1. 82)

(97) and (98) are examples of a so-called causal relative clause and a so-called concessive relative clause, respectively. In the former case, the context contains indications as to the interpretation, e.g. the evaluative verb probo; [80] in (98) the concessive interpretation is supported by tamen. In both instances the indicative would also be possible. [81] Yet, the subjunctive gradually becomes more frequent. Note that the clauses are non-restrictive (the antecedents are definite). This was not (always) the case in the previous instances. Note that (97) and (98) involve events that have in fact taken place. Here, too, a lot of research remains to be done.

Previous SubSect

Next SubSect

Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic