Implied/partial condition

[RobertusSitiens]

I was thinking of the statement:

He would have loved this.

My intuition says that this should translate as:

Hoc amavisset.

I asked myself why, and it seems to be like a contrary to fact (past) condition without an explicit protasis. Does that make sense? When we make a statement like this in English, it does suggest circumstances that make the statement contrary to fact, which are perhaps obvious to the audience. For example, perhaps "he" is dead.

 

[Aurifex]

I was thinking of the statement:

He would have loved this.

My intuition says that this should translate as:

Hoc amavisset.

Does that make sense?

Yes, this makes perfect sense.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

Yes, this makes perfect sense.

Cue very bad pun about pluperfect...

 

[dandyman1]

Not wrong. However, a better translation would be "hoc amaret."

This is called "potential subjunctive." If you want to express something which could have occurred in the past but didn't, the verb should be in imperfect (or less frequently, pluperfect) subjunctive.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

Not wrong. However, a better translation would be "hoc amaret."

This is called "potential subjunctive." If you want to express something which could have occurred in the past but didn't, the verb should be in imperfect (or less frequently, pluperfect) subjunctive.

"Hoc amaret" means "He would love this" - the imperfect subjunctive has a present meaning here; only the progressive aspect of the imperfect indicative is preserved. This is clearer in a verb that regularly takes a participial construction if you're doing it right now:

hoc faceret - "he would be doing this."
hoc amaret - I suppose you can say "he would be loving this," but it's rather crappy English, since "love" describes a state, so generally we say "he would love this." But even in a verb like this, there's a difference between "hoc amet" and "hoc amaret" even though they both can translate as "he would love this." The first is saying he would love this if something (the condition) were to happen in the future, whereas the second is saying that he would love this if things were somehow different right now (the condition). "Hoc amavisset" says he would have loved this if things had somehow been different (the condition) at some point in the past.

tl;dr: the imperfect subjunctive in the apodosis of a conditional has a present meaning, while the pluperfect is the only subjunctive truly to have a past meaning in this context. Both future indicative and present subjunctive have, in effect, a future meaning, but carry different implications about the likelihood that the condition will come true. "Hoc amaret" can't mean "he would have loved this."

 

[Pacifica]

That's right, nothing to add.

 

[dandyman1]

What you've said makes sense to me. But the 3 grammar books I've just fetched out of my library beg to differ!
"He would have loved this" may look like the apodosis of a conditional with an implicit protasis. But remember that it belongs to another category of subjunctive, i.e. potential main clauses as opposed to the conditionals which are dependent.

Example in the books:
crederes eum hominem bonum esse. (You would have believed that he was a good man.)
eum fortem esse putares. (You would have thought him to be brave.)
putāret frāter meus gladiātōrēs fēlīcēs esse. (My brother would have thought gladiators were
lucky. (Past))

What is it I'm missing here? Aren't these examples counterfactual?

I would appreciate any comment.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, right, I wasn't thinking of that kind of thing. Look, there's a difference between "she was once very beautiful, you would have thought she was a goddess" = olim pulcherrima erat, eam deam esse putares and "if she were now as beautiful as she used to be, you would think you're seeing a goddess" = si nunc tam pulchra esset quam olim fuit, te deam videre putares or "if she had then been as beautiful as she is now, you would have thought she was a goddess" = si tunc tam pulchra fuisset quam nunc est, eam deam esse putavisses. The thing is that in the first one olim pulcherrima erat, eam deam esse putares that's as if there was an ut implied.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

I think the key is in that last point of yours - the clause containing the imperfect subjunctive is a result clause, not an apodosis. There's no condition. In English, we structure this particular sort of sentence as a condition: "You would have believed that he was a good man [if you had met him]." "You would have thought she was a goddess [if you had seen her]." But I don't think that's what the Latin's doing. "[talis erat ut] crederes eum hominem bonum esse." "[tam pulchra erat ut] eam deam esse putares."

I think in most cases, you can't recast the OP's sentence like this, because there's a clear condition here. "He would have loved this [if he had been alive]."

 

[malleolus]

Crederes eum hominem bonum esse. (You would have believed that he was a good man.)
eum fortem esse putares. (You would have thought him to be brave.)
putāret frāter meus gladiātōrēs fēlīcēs esse. (My brother would have thought gladiators were
lucky. (Past)).

These sentences , as given by your book , could also be examples of the potential subjunctive of the past , especially if used in the 2nd person singular.
Crederes eum hominem bonum esse.You might have believed he was a good man. (Past potentiality )

 

[dandyman1]

These sentences , as given by your book , could also be examples of the potential subjunctive of the past , especially if used in the 2nd person singular.
Crederes eum hominem bonum esse.You might have believed he was a good man. (Past potentiality )

Yes, exactly. That is what I said in my first post. Both "would" and "might" are acceptable translations. But, pray tell, are you distinguishing between "would" and "might," between what I said and what you said - an implication your "also" carries? I agree there is a difference between "might" and "would" in the degree of likelihood they express. But their functions, it seems to me, are the same, i.e. past potentiality.

 

[malleolus]

Yes, exactly. That is what I said in my first post. Both "would" and "might" are acceptable translations. But, pray tell, are you distinguishing between "would" and "might," between what I said and what you said - an implication your "also" carries? I agree there is a difference between "might" and "would" in the degree of likelihood they express. But their functions, it seems to me, are the same, i.e. past potentiality.

As confirmed by Allen & Greenough's NEW LATIN GRAMMAR you are basically right. Still, the context would also have to be taken into consideration.

Hoc amavisset (sed mortuus est) IMHO would be a past condition contrary to fact and read he would have loved this (but , alas, the chap died - )

or , as you said in your post,

Hoc amaret might also be correct and read he might/could have/would have loved this (if you take this to be a subjunctive to express past potentiality)

As I see it , it would all depend on the context.

Still, given that the verbs or your sentences are 2nd person singular I would lean to past potentiality.
as given in Greenough's grammar

crederes victos (Liv. 2.43.9), you would have thought them conquered.

reos diceres (id. 2.35.5), you would have said they were culprits.

 

[dandyman1]

I think the key is in that last point of yours - the clause containing the imperfect subjunctive is a result clause, not an apodosis. There's no condition. In English, we structure this particular sort of sentence as a condition: "You would have believed that he was a good man [if you had met him]." "You would have thought she was a goddess [if you had seen her]." But I don't think that's what the Latin's doing. "[talis erat ut] crederes eum hominem bonum esse." "[tam pulchra erat ut] eam deam esse putares."

I think in most cases, you can't recast the OP's sentence like this, because there's a clear condition here. "He would have loved this [if he had been alive]."

Your solution is problematic, because it would completely change the meaning. The imperfect subjunctive in a result clause cannot mean "would have pp." As for your last statement, I think you went the wrong way. When someone says "He would have/might have loved this," the general meaning is that judging from the qualities found in "this," "he" was likely to have loved this. It is past potentiality. His death is an implication which, if important, must be stated as a protasis, in which case, the potential subjunctive must be recast as an apodosis.

As confirmed by Allen & Greenough's NEW LATIN GRAMMAR you are basically right. Still, the context would also have to be taken into consideration.

Hoc amavisset (sed mortuus est) IMHO would be a past condition contrary to fact and read he would have loved this (but , alas, the chap died - )

or , as you said in your post,

Hoc amaret might also be correct and read he might/could have/would have loved this (if you take this to be a subjunctive to express past potentiality)

As I see it , it would all depend on the context.

Still, given that the verbs or your sentences are 2nd person sigular I would lean to past potentiality.
as given in Greenough's grammar

crederes victos (Liv. 2.43.9), you would have thought them conquered.

reos diceres (id. 2.35.5), you would have said they were culprits.

Your point that any translation should take the context into consideration is right. From what I understood, you seem to be saying that those three examples could also be translated as conditionals. I believe otherwise.

"Hoc amavisset" would mean the same whether you consider it a past contrary-to-fact conditional or a past potential main clause: "He would have loved this". And since there is no protasis, it is, I believe, the latter. (See above in this post).

"Hoc amaret" must mean "he might have/could have/would have loved this," as it stands. I venture to say, with some trepidation, that as long as there is no protasis, it could not mean "he would love" in any context. I think it's better to go with the "no protasis, no conditional" motto. Or at least, we could consider potential subjunctive and contrary-to-fact conditional two completely separate categories.

There remains other independent subjunctive clauses, like the optative subjunctive, which can be chosen or ruled out as the context suggests. Thus, "veniret" could mean either "He would have come" or "Would that he were coming," among other things.

What do you think?

 

[Aurifex]

"And since there is no protasis, it is, I believe, the latter. (See above in this post).

Except that the way the OP has explicitly contextualised it ("it seems to be like a contrary to fact (past) condition without an explicit protasis") points the way to how he wishes us to interpret it. I suppose all you're going off is that the fragment "as it stands" is a main clause, so to speak, with no accompanying conditional.

It has to be said that "the range of expressions in which the imperfect potential is used without a condition being expressed or implied is very limited" - E.C. Woodcock, New Latin Syntax. Indefinite and generalizing 2nd person singulars (such as crederes victos) are common enough, as are expressions with vellem, mallem, cuperem, nollem. The third person is common in questions.

It's also worth pointing out perhaps that the pluperfect too rarely occurs in an independent potential sense, i.e. in a main clause with no attendant condition expressed or implied.

On the other hand, both imperfects and pluperfects are, as I'm sure you know, very common in the apodosis of past unreal conditions:
Ter. Ad. 103: haec non sivit egestas facere nos, nam si esset unde id fieret, faceremus. - "It was poverty that did not allow us to do these things, for if the means for doing them had existed, we would have done them."

 

[dandyman1]

Let me

Except that the way the OP has explicitly contextualised it ("it seems to be like a contrary to fact (past) condition without an explicit protasis") points the way to how he wishes us to interpret it. I suppose all you're going off is that the fragment "as it stands" is a main clause, so to speak, with no accompanying conditional.

It has to be said that "the range of expressions in which the imperfect potential is used without a condition being expressed or implied is very limited" - E.C. Woodcock, New Latin Syntax. Indefinite and generalizing 2nd person singulars (such as crederes victos) are common enough, as are expressions with vellem, mallem, cuperem, nollem. The third person is common in questions.

It's also worth pointing out perhaps that the pluperfect too rarely occurs in an independent potential sense, i.e. in a main clause with no attendant condition expressed or implied.

On the other hand, both imperfects and pluperfects are, as I'm sure you know, very common in the apodosis of past unreal conditions:
Ter. Ad. 103: haec non sivit egestas facere nos, nam si esset unde id fieret, faceremus. - "It was poverty that did not allow us to do these things, for if the means for doing them had existed, we would have done them."

Let me try again to explain what I think to be true regarding the matter in question. There is no such thing as a contrary-to-fact conditional without an explicit protasis. There is however something quite similar called potential subjunctive which follows its own slightly different rules, one of which is when referring to past, use imperfect or (less frequently) pluperfect tenses. The original poster's sentence need not be a past contrary-to-fact conditional with an implicit protasis to carry the implication he intended. Past potentiality does that for us very well. Therefore, "Hoc amaret" is as good as "Hoc amavisset" - if not better because it's relatively more frequent. The benefit of this distinction (between conditional and potential subjunctives) is that we would not consider "Hoc amaret" as a contrary-to-fact conditional without an explicit protasis and erroneously translate it "He would love this."

 

[Aurifex]

There is no such thing as a contrary-to-fact conditional without an explicit protasis.

Since the condition is itself in the protasis, only a fool would deny the truth of your assertion.

The benefit of this distinction (between conditional and potential subjunctives) is that we would not consider "Hoc amaret" as a contrary-to-fact conditional without an explicit protasis and erroneously translate it "He would love this."

The benefit of the distinction is clear enough, but the relative scarcity in literature of true imperfect or pluperfect third person potentials (without protasis) in statements, together with the lack of further context except that provided by the OP, makes your insistence here upon the imperfect a little futile.

 

[dandyman1]

Since the condition is itself in the protasis, only a fool would deny the truth of your assertion.


The benefit of the distinction is clear enough, but the relative scarcity in literature of true imperfect or pluperfect third person potentials (without protasis) in statements, together with the lack of further context except that provided by the OP, makes your insistence here upon the imperfect a little futile.

My attempt at clarification, I understand not without good reason, seemed to you to be obstinate insistence.
Thank you all

 

[Pacifica]

I think that what works against the imperfect in our case, is that, as far as I know, things like crederes victos are found when you're talking about the past. Say, tam miserabiles videbantur; crederes victos. You're not talking about something that's happening now and that, if it had happened during the life of someone who's now dead for example, that person would have loved it. That's different.

EDIT: Also, all examples of that kind of second pers. imperfect subjunctive I've seen so far are something like impersonal. Crederes... I think it's a little like "you would have tought=one would have thought."

 

[Pacifica]

Miserabiles videbantur, victos crederes.
Miserabiles videntur, victos credas.

I really think it's comparable to an ut clause, so following the sequence of tenses. They look(ed) pityful in such a way that as a consequence you would have thought/think them defeated. At that/this time. So the sequence of tenses is to be respected as in an ut clause. (As subjunctive is always used in consecutive clauses, there is no other way than context to find out whether the consequence is actual or of the "would" kind actually - comment in passing.)

 

[RobertusSitiens]

Wow. I just want to say thank you for this very interesting discussion on the topic!