Long vowels and accents in perfect subjective

[Gregorius Textor]

Nearing the end of my second reading of Familia Romana, I am getting ready to make study cards for the perfect subjunctive, but I have run into a dilemma. Some authorities show a long vowel in some syllables, and others do not. Thus

Bennett's New Latin Grammar: amāverim, I may have loved; amāverīs, you may have loved; amāverit, he may have loved; amāverīmus, we may have loved; amāverītis, you may have loved; amāverint, they may have loved;

and Wheelock's Latin: laudāverim, laudāverīs, laudāverit, laudāverīmus, laudāverītis, laudāverint;

but on the contrary,

Allen and Greenough: amāverim, amāveris, amāverit, amāverimus, amāveritis, amāverint;

and Ørberg, Familia Romana: recitāverim, recitāveris, recitāverit, recitāverimus, recitāveritis, recitāverint.

There seems to be some disagreement among scholars about this, and Aurifex's post tells me that "Key's Latin Grammar gives a good summary of the position", but although I have found an 1871 edition of that grammar, I have not been able to find where he discusses that.

My inclination is to go with Wheelock and Bennett. But I would just like to ask here for some practical advice about which form to study, without getting into details of scholarly debate that might be over my head. It won't make much difference for my writing or reading prose; it could matter in poetry. Ideally, my choice should also have these outcomes:

(1) that in the (highly unlikely) event of my attending a convention of Latin speakers, I would be more easily understood;

(2) that the implications for accent would agree with modern Italianate Ecclesiastical Latin.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Of course I wouldn't mind hearing a wee bit of the scholarly issues too.

 

[Clemens]

There seems to be some disagreement among scholars about this, and Aurifex's post tells me that "Key's Latin Grammar gives a good summary of the position", but although I have found an 1871 edition of that grammar, I have not been able to find where he discusses that.

I had a look at the 1870 edition and Aurifex quotes the exact passage on page 75; namely that the future perfect indicative should have a short vowel and the perfect subjunctive should have long, but that they were often confused. Wheelock seems to maintain this distinction but a couple other grammars I have don't.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Oh, thanks for finding that! It is also p. 75 in the 1871 edition, paragraph 476. I somehow missed the fact that Aurifex was quoting the passage, and thought there was more to be found in the book.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

And, on re-reading the passage, I find the that the perfect subjunctive endings are derived from sim, sīs, sit, etc., very illuminating. Knowing that will help me to keep the endings of that tense distinct from those of the future perfect indicative.

 

[Dumnorix]

Does the similarity of forms indicate that the Romans thought of the perfect subjunctive as related in some way to the future perfect indicative on a deeper level?

 

[Clemens]

Does the similarity of forms indicate that the Romans thought of the perfect subjunctive as related in some way to the future perfect indicative on a deeper level?

Seems doubtful. Most people don’t think about language much; they just talk. The average American’s inability to distinguish your and you’re in writing doesn’t imply any connection between the two concepts. It’s just a phonetic similarity.

 

[Dantius]

Does the similarity of forms indicate that the Romans thought of the perfect subjunctive as related in some way to the future perfect indicative on a deeper level?

I just came across this question — it might be interesting to note that the Romans didn't actually seem to conceive of future perfect as a tense that exists in the indicative at all. Donatus has a really weird scheme for explaining tenses/moods that differentiates between "conjunctive" and "optative," and classifies the future perfect (in the context of a clause like cum legero) as a future conjunctive. (There are other strange things, e.g. the present subjunctive is classified as a present conjunctive in cum legam, but a future optative in utinam legam).

I feel like there are some instances I've come across where it's been hard for me to tell if a particular form in an independent clause (especially in a poet like Vergil) is intended as futperf indicative or perf subj. If I could resurrect Vergil and ask him "if this sentence were in the first person, would you say -ero or -erim," I wonder if he'd have a confident answer or say that either one would be fine.

 

[Godmy]

In Czech, the term "subjunctive" (subjunktiv) is absolutely non-existent and never used for anything. We call the mood "konjunktiv" (I think Germans as well) and sometimes use the term "optativ" as well for exactly the cases stated by Donatus (utinam...), sometimes also using terms as "jussiv" or "hortativ" for the independent subjunctive used as a weak command. But we consider future perfect existing in indicative on the other hand...

I think it is the Western Europe school which preferred the Greek grammar translation(?) that spawned the term "subjunctīvus" later on. The rest stuck with Donatus... we also use the traditional case order (nom, gen. dat. acc, voc. abl/loc. inst.) favoured by Donatus, both for Czech and Latin.

 

[Iacobinus]

I may be wrong, but in French, the subjunctive (subjonctif) is a mood, like in Latin, while the conjonctive (conjonctif) is a clause.

In je veux que tu viennes, « I want you to come », que tu viennes is a conjonctive clause (here introduced by the conjonction que) and a subjonctive mood (here of the 2nd person, singular number, active voice, present tense)... so I think that French grammars would use conjonctive to analyse the syntax, and subjonctive to analyse the conjugation.

The French understanding of the optative (that doesn't exist as a mood in French) is that it is reserved for wishes.

In French the Jussive or injonctive is used to express the order, either through the imperative, the subjunctive or the infinitive mood (the verb being explicit or implicit: la porte !, « the door ! » is considered being a jussive.
When using a verb, the 2nd person singular is called imperative (viens !).
The 1st person plural of the imperative mood is called hortative (venons !).