clarum poema Roberti Gelus

[Dantius]

Livy's indirect-discourse sentence "Invitum se dicere hominis causa, nec dicturum fuisse ni caritas rei publicae vinceret" feels pretty present-time to me, giving that he is in fact speaking at the moment. But you could also interpret it as like "nor would he have decided to speak, if..."

Regardless, what I would do for "would suffice" is to just say "glaciem ad perditionem magnam esse et sufficere posse." Because the sense of "would suffice" is that, if the world were theoretically going to be destroyed, ice would be capable of doing it. So I'm not sure a present contrary-to-fact conditional is appropriate in the first place.

 

[syntaxianus]

Another thought for the ending:

ut opiner ad perdendum glaciem
etiam optime valere
et sufficientem.

to say that for destroying ice
is also great (= is excellently powerful)
And would suffice.

To say something is "great" for doing something ("great for removing rust," for example), we probably would not use magnus but valde efficiens, or something like what I have here.

 

[Laurentius]

@Petrus Cotoneus The first example doesn't have an hypothetical period and the other in set in the past, as we can conclude from concessum est. The hypothesis in set in the present because it talks about philosophical concepts in general so the statement still holds value at the time of Cicero writing it.
Too bad I only have basic grammar volumes at home so they don't have a section about hypothetical periods in the oratio obliqua, but when a friend of mine will respond I will tell you.

 

[Petrus Cotoneus]

Regardless, what I would do for "would suffice" is to just say "glaciem ad perditionem magnam esse et sufficere posse." Because the sense of "would suffice" is that, if the world were theoretically going to be destroyed, ice would be capable of doing it. So I'm not sure a present contrary-to-fact conditional is appropriate in the first place.

Here is how I am parsing the nested clause structure of the English (lines 5-9):

I think (I know enough of hate [to say (that [if the world had to perish twice] ice is also great and would suffice for destruction)])

where noun clauses are indicated (in parentheses) and adverbial clauses are indicated [in square brackets]. The outer three clauses are fairly straightforward to translate. That leaves the innermost adverbial clause. I think we are in agreement that it is a conditional clause of some kind. I think it is a contrary-to-fact condition because it seems to me impossible for the world to perish twice (so, a fortiori, to have to perish twice). Perhaps I am reading too literally - I could also see the argument for a future less vivid condition, if one accepts that "if [the world] had to perish twice" is really just another way of saying "if the world should perish in a different manner." However, I am struggling to understand the argument for a simple condition (corresponding to a present infinitive in the apodosis). Even in your answer, Danti (@Dantius), you emphasized the theoretical nature of the scenario in question. Can you help me to understand why the verb should be posse and not, e.g., futurum fuisse/esse ut posset?

 

[Dantius]

posse is inherently theoretical and thus doesn't need any other sort of conditional structure — this is true even outside of indirect discourse ("I could have died if you hadn't saved me" –> "potui mori nisi me servavisses"). Same with esse in some phrases (melius est = "it would be better"; melius erat/fuit = "it would've been better"). Also same with passive periphrastics ("Even if he had not been a nobleman, he would still have been the one to choose" —> "etiam si nobilis non fuisset, tamen erat deligendus").

 

[Petrus Cotoneus]

posse is inherently theoretical and thus doesn't need any other sort of conditional structure — this is true even outside of indirect discourse ("I could have died if you hadn't saved me" –> "potui mori nisi me servavisses"). Same with esse in some phrases (melius est = "it would be better"; melius erat/fuit = "it would've been better"). Also same with passive periphrastics ("Even if he had not been a nobleman, he would still have been the one to choose" —> "etiam si nobilis non fuisset, tamen erat deligendus").

Multas gratias tibi pro hac explanatione clarissima, Danti!