So far, we have
looked at the subjunctive in independent clauses — sentences that can
stand on their own, for example:
Veniat │ Let him / her come.
Requiēscat in pāce │ May he rest in peace.
Utinam vēnisset │ If only he had come.
Vivāmus, mea Lesbia, atque amēmus │ Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us
love.
Now we are going
to look at the subjunctive in dependent clauses.
A dependent clause
(also called a subordinate clause) has a subject and a verb but does not
express a complete thought. It cannot stand alone as a sentence and depends on
a main (independent) clause to make sense. Subordinate clauses are most often
introduced by a conjunction e.g. ‘because’, ‘when’, ‘although’ etc.
(1) I am going to ask
her for money ¦ (2) so that I can buy a present.
(1) Let’s go to
the seaside ¦ (2) even though it’s raining.
(1) is the
principal / main clause; it could stand alone as a separate sentence and still
be understood.
(2) is a
subordinate clause; it cannot stand alone and is dependent upon the main
clause to make sense.
There are many
different types of subjunctive use and, as with the independent uses, each type
has its own name. Sometimes, the modern English translation does not convey
these distinctions. However, slightly older forms of English do convey these
distinctions, so we will also use them to make the meaning clear.
the subjunctive
of purpose
[1]
(1) John went to
the baker’s ¦ (2) (in order) to buy a cake.
(1) John went out
of the room ¦ (2) (in order) to avoid her.
French, German and
Russian can express (2) in the same way i.e. Fr. pour + infinitive; Gmn. um …
zu + infinitive; Russ: chtoby + infinitive
Latin does not
express the idea in that way, and, in now rather ‘old fashioned’ English, it can
be matched:
(1) John went to
the baker’s ¦ (2) in order that / so that he might buy a
cake. Yes, it sounds stilted, but it isn’t wrong.
(1) John went out
of the room ¦ (2) in order that / so that he might avoid
her.
Latin uses the
conjunction ut (in order that) + the subjunctive, and the thinking
behind both the Latin and the somewhat archaic English equivalent is the same.
John went to the
baker’s ¦ (2) to buy a cake.
At the moment
statement (2) was made,
had John bought the cake? The answer is, of course, no. Whether John did buy a
cake, or bought doughnuts instead has nothing to do with it.
The subjunctive
expresses an action viewed as intended or anticipated, not asserted as fact.
In other words:
(1) John went to the baker’s (2) to buy a cake. (3) The cake which he bought
was very expensive. In grammatical terms, (3) is irrelevant. Yes, John
did buy a cake, but when statement (2) was made, he hadn’t yet bought it, and
Latin would express (2) with the subjunctive.
Mīlitēs
pugnant ¦ ut patriam dēfendant. │ The soldiers fight in order to / so that
they may defend the homeland.
Imagine that, at
the moment the statement is made, a “door” shuts — you cannot see what comes
next, because all that matters is that defending the homeland was the purpose,
the intention.
[2] The word to look out for is ut (or: utī); while ut has other meanings, it is often the ‘sign’ that a purpose clause is to follow.
With the present
subjunctive: future intention
Mīlitēs veniunt ¦
(1) ut oppidum (2) capiant.
Literally: The
soldiers are coming ¦ (1) in order that / so that (2) they may capture
the town.
> The soldiers
are coming to capture the town.
Rōmam īs ¦ (1) ut
cīvēs (2) dēfendās.
Literally: You are
going to Rome ¦ (1) in order that (2) you may defend the citizens.
> You are going
to Rome to defend the citizens.
[ii] A negative
purpose i.e. in order not to do something is expressed either with nē
alone or with ut … nē … + the subjunctive:
Librum cēlat ¦ (1)
nē puerī eum (2) videant.
Literally: He
hides the book ¦ (1) in order that (2) the boys may not see it.
> He hides the
book so (that) the boys won’t see it.
Some books on
Latin grammar use the English word ‘lest’ to illustrate this idea, which,
although it means the same, is rather archaic and a little confusing. I only
refer to it here since you may come across it:
He hides the book
¦ lest the boys (may) see it [ = so that they don’t see it]
[iii] Examples
from Cicero:
Lēgum idcircō
servī sumus, ut līberī sīmus. │ For this reason we are subject to
the laws, so that / in order that we may be free.
Tusculānum
vēnditat, ut … emat Paciliānam domum │ He is selling his place at Tusculum (in
order) to buy Pacilius’ house.
[iv] negative
purpose clauses
In Catullus 5, the
author, talking about how many kisses he and Lesbia should ‘steal’, suggests it
should be thousands:
conturbābimus
illa, nē sciāmus, │ we shall shake them into confusion in
order that we may not know,
aut nē quis
malus invidēre possit │ and so that nobody evil (no wicked
person) may be able to envy us,
scālās parārī
iubet, nē quam facultātem dīmittat (Caesar)│ he orders ladders to
be prepared in order not to let any opportunity slip [literally: in order that
he may not let slip …]
A key point to
remember – which will become more apparent in later posts – is that subjunctive
of purpose does not express what was done, but why it was done.
No comments:
Post a Comment