The Latin Tutorial videos (from Youtube) have a good
series concerning the subjunctive. At times, however, the presenter moves into
other areas and so the videos uploaded here may be edited to focus only on the
point being discussed at this stage, in this case a brief overview of
subjunctive usage and the forms of the present subjunctive. The full video is
available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HARMeEMRsAg&t=2s
Change the indicative forms of the verb to the present subjunctive forms. Remember: we fear a liar i.e. the letters in bold tell you the changes in the stems for all the conjugations. The answers are given at the end of the post.
1st:
-e/ē-
2nd:
-ea/eā-
3rd:
-a/ā-
3rd-iō
/ 4th: -ia/iā-
[1] 1st conjugation:
[2] 2nd conjugation:
[3] 3rd conjugation:
[4] 3rd-iō conjugation:
[5] 4th conjugation
____________________
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The subjunctive
has different tenses and those tenses are not confined to specific uses
i.e. you will see them operating in a range of contexts. We will begin with the
present subjunctive before looking at some uses where it frequently occurs.
[1] All forms of
the present subjunctive have the same personal endings as other verb forms:
-m
-s
-t
-mus
-tis
-nt
[2] Image #1: the
stems to which those endings are added are different, and the most common way
of remembering them is the phrase wE fEAr A lIAr.
Note the vowel lengthening in the 2nd person singular and the 1st
/ 2nd person plural:
1st
conjugation: -E- (-ē-)
“wE”: amEm,
amēs, amet, amēmus, amētis, ament
2nd
conjugation: -ea- (-eā-)
“fEAr”: habEAm,
habeās, habeat, habeāmus, habeātis, habeant
3rd
conjugation: -a- (-ā-)
“A”: vīvAm,
vīvās, vīvat, vīvāmus, vīvātis, vīvant
3rd-iō
/ 4th conjugation -ia- (-iā-)
“lIAr”: capIAm,
capiās, capiat, capiāmus, capiātis, capiant
“lIAr”: audIAm,
audiās, audiat, audiāmus, audiātis, audiant
[3] Image #2:
Irregular verbs also form their present subjunctives from a single stem + the
personal endings:
[i] eō, īre: go
eām, eās, eat, eāmus, eātis, eant
And compounds will
be formed in the same way:
[ii] sum, esse: be
sim, sīs, sit,
sīmus, sītis, sint
[iii] possum,
posse: be able (i.e. formed from sum, esse)
possim, possīs, possit, possīmus, possītis, possint
As in English, Latin can have different ways in which to
describe the material from which an object is made. We will take aurum
(gold) to show these:
[i] noun
aurum, -ī [2/n]: gold (the precious metal)
aurum mundum: pure gold
mundus, -a, -um: pure
[ii] ē / ex (+ ablative) + noun
dē + ablative may also be used in this sense although
ē / ex is more common and will be the one listed in examples:
08.03.24: the ablative of source / material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/04/080324-ablative-of-source-material.html
21.05.25: Level 3; summary of the uses of the ablative case
[5]: the ablative of source / material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/02/210525-level-3-summary-of-of-uses-of_25.html
[iii] adjective; -eus, suffix used to from adjectives from
nouns
aurum (noun) + -eus > aureus, -a, -um: golden; (made of)
gold
Further examples are listed in the separate entries e.g.
08.03.24: adjectives of material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/04/080324-adjectives-of-material.html
[iv] aurum (noun) + -ātus, -a, -um; the use of this suffix
indicates that the object (or person) has the feature of the noun rather than
it being made from the raw material:
aurātus, -a, -um: gilded; gold-coloured
Examples:
Veterēs scrībēbant in tabellīs cērātīs (Comenius) │ The
Ancients writ in tables (tablets) done over with wax
Aethiopia generat multaque alia mōnstrīs similia, pinnātōs
equōs et cornibus armātōs, quōs pēgasōs vocant, (Pliny the Elder) │ Ethiopia
produces many other creatures similar to monsters, winged horses armed
with horns, which they call Pegasi
The following quotation, from the Satyricon by
Petronius, depicts the ostentatious Trimalchio; the impression the latter tries
to create is superficial, hence the description of the ring:
Habēbat etiam in minimō digitō sinistrae manūs ānulum
grandem subaurātum (Petronius) │On the little finger of his left hand he had an
enormous gilt / somewhat gilded ring (sub- indicates
that it was ‘slightly’ gilded) i.e. “All that glisters is not gold”
[v] fiō, fierī, factus sum [3-iō/deponent]: become; be made
focus on the participle: factus, -a, -um i.e. (having been)
made
Metals │ metalla
Lead, 1. is soft, and heavy. │ plumbum,
1. est molle & grave.
Iron, 2. is hard, and steel, 3.
harder. │ ferrum, 2. est dūrum, & c(h)alybs, 3. dūrior.
They make tankards
(or cans), 4. of tin. │ faciunt cantharōs, 4. ē stannō.
Kettles, 5. of copper, │ ahēna, 5. ē cuprō,
Candlesticks, 6. of latten*, │ candēlābra,
6. ex orichalcō,*
Dollers, 7. of silver, │ thalerōs, 7.
ex argentō,
Ducats and
crown-pieces, 8. of gold. │ scūtātōs et corōnātōs, 8. ex aurō.
Quick-silver is always liquid, and eateth thorow (through)
metals. │ argentum vīvum, semper liquet, & corrōdit metalla.
[1]
*orichalcum, -ī [2/n]: the translator actually used the word ‘Latin’ to
describe this metal (maybe a 17th century auto-correct!), but I’ve changed it
to what it should be i.e. latten; in Roman times it referred to yellow
copper ore, or an alloy of gold and copper; Late / Mediaeval Latin: brass
argentum, -ī [2/n]:
silver
aurum, -ī [2/n]: gold
chalybs, chalybis
[3/m]: steel
cuprum,
-ī [2/n]: (Late Latin)
copper
ferrum, -ī [2/n]:
iron
metallum, -ī [2/n]: metal; in Classical Latin it most often referred to a
mine from where the metals were quarried
plumbum, -ī [2/n]:
lead
stannum, -ī [2/n]:
tin
[2]
ahēnum:
alternative spelling of aēnum, -ī [2/n]: copper vessel, cauldron (i.e. not the
kettles we envisage today; see #5 in the original image); in Roman times it was
hung over a fire and used in boiling
The text refers to
contemporary coinage (not, of course, from the Roman period):
[i] thalerus, -ī
[2/m]: thaler, monetary unit used in central and northern European countries
> Gmn: T(h)aler > Engl. dollar
[ii] an important
feature of Latin appears in two references to coins in the text (which will be
discussed more in the next post):
(1) scūtātus,
-a, -um: (literally) armed with a shield < scūtum, -ī [2/n]: shield
(2) coronātus,
-a, -um: (literally) crowned < corona, -ae [1/f]: crown
i.e. these terms
describe features of several different coins
in Mediaeval and
later texts:
(1) any coin whose
obverse showed a coat of arms or shield
nummus scutātus =
a coin with a shield on it > Fr. écu; Port. escudo
(2) any coin with
the design of a crown on it: nummus coronātus
(3) the term
‘ducat’ used as the translation: ducātus, -ūs [4/m]: (Late / Mediaeval)
leadership; duchy. The coin originated in Venice in 1284 and although Venice
was never a duchy, the coin acquired that name and was one of the most trusted
trade coins in Europe
[3]
dūrus, -a, -um:
hard
gravis, -e: heavy
mollis, -e: soft
[4] Apart from the
abbreviations of the chemical elements, bear in mind the great number of
English derivatives. While these
derivatives may have had ‘journeys’ through, for example, Old French – and
their meanings may have changed – those meanings have never deviated so far
that you cannot identify the origin.
An interesting
feature is the co-existence of Latin and Germanic words in English where Latin
did not replace the original Old English word, but is used in words related to
it even if some of them are not common:
Old English: heard
La: dūrus, -a,
-um: hard > durable; endure
Old English: hefiġ
La: gravis, -e:
heavy > grave (serious)
Old English: sēfte
(sōfte)
La: mollis, -e:
soft > mollify (soften)
Old English:
(various spellings) īsern
La: ferrum, -ī:
iron > ferrous; ferric
Old English: gold
La: aurum, -ī
[2/n]: gold > aurous (containing gold)
Old English: lēad
La: plumbum, -ī:
lead > plumber c.f. plumbārius, -ī [2/m], but we also use leadworker;
plumb line; plummet
Old English: tin
La: stannum, -ī [2/m]: tin > stannic (containing tin)
Before
moving on to the next (lengthy) topic, it is worth pausing to reflect on whose
voices we usually hear when we study the ancient world.
At
university I read Bertolt Brecht’s poem Fragen eines lesenden Arbeiters
(Questions from a Worker Who Reads), a text that repeatedly challenges
how history is written and remembered. The poem opens with a deceptively simple
question:
Brecht immediately
contrasts the reality of labour with the way history is recorded:
The poem presses
the point further. Cities are destroyed and rebuilt, empires rise and fall, and
yet the people who physically made this happen are absent from the narrative:
Triumphs are
commemorated in stone, but the builders remain invisible:
Brecht’s questions
become increasingly pointed, even ironic:
The poem ends with
a relentless accumulation of victories — and questions:
There
is no doubt where Brecht’s sympathies lie. He condemns a historical narrative
that celebrates the “great and the good” while ignoring the labour that enabled
their achievements. From a modern perspective we may feel that this is obvious,
but the poem exposes how strongly historical writing — ancient and modern —
directs our attention toward certain individuals and away from others.
At
the same time, Brecht’s position is itself not without bias. Societies do
require leaders, and ancient authors are capable of recognising more than just
elite heroics. Caesar, for example, praises not only the bravery and endurance
of his own soldiers, but also the determination of the enemy. Roman culture
itself did not solely glorify gods and emperors; it also acknowledged the
realities of daily life, work and production.
This
tension is particularly relevant to the study of Latin. When we read Classical
Latin literature, we overwhelmingly read the voices of senators, generals and
intellectuals: Catullus, Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus — figures who dominate
politics, war and philosophy. These authors are essential, but they do not
represent the whole of Roman experience.
Beyond
the battlefield and the senate lies another world: the world of cooking,
shopping, farming, building, medicine and manufacturing — the world the Romans
talked about every day. These voices are quieter, but they survive. They appear
in Apicius’ cookbook, in Celsus’ medical writings, in Vitruvius’ detailed
descriptions of building materials and techniques, in agricultural treatises,
and in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, which attempts to catalogue
almost everything.
The
Romans were not only politicians and philosophers. They were stonemasons and
shipbuilders, chefs and launderers; they sold meat and pillows; they built
ships, aqueducts and roads. They worked with brick, marble, clay, lead and
concrete. When we explore this area of language, we acquire not only a wide and
practical vocabulary, but also a clearer understanding of ordinary Roman life —
not just their victories.
The
next topic therefore focuses on describing objects and materials: the
many terms Latin uses to describe what things are made of, how they are
constructed, and how they are used. In doing so, we move closer to the people
who built Rome — even if their names were never written in the books.
[1] Boadicea
Claudius, quī in
Britanniam vēnerat, paucōs diēs sōlōs manēbat, quod, ut Tacitus nārrat, caelum
imbribus et nebulīs erat foedum. Plautius, quī cōpiās in Cantium exposuit,
legiōnem vīcēsimam Virocōnium, secundam Iscam, nōnam Lindum mīsit. Posteā
Boudicca, rēgīna Icēnōrum, rebelliōnem magnam contrā Rōmānōs, quī bellum in
Ordovicēs gerēbant, subitō parāvit. Boudicca oppida multa et castra expugnāvit
atque numerum maximum Rōmānōrum necāvit.
[1] Comprehension
[i] For how long
did Claudius stay in Britannia and why? (3)
[ii] What did
Plautius do? (2)
[iii] To what do
the three ordinal numbers in the text refer? (1)
[iv] Translate: Posteā
Boudicca, rēgīna Icēnōrum, rebelliōnem magnam contrā Rōmānōs, quī bellum in
Ordovicēs gerēbant, subitō parāvit. Boudicca oppida multa et castra expugnāvit
atque numerum maximum Rōmānōrum necāvit. (12)
[2] The Roman Advance
Rōmānī, postquam
Boudiccam superāvērunt, cōpiās Dēvam et Ebūracum dūxērunt. Hōc tempore Rōmānī Ebūracum
caput Britanniae fēcērunt. Legiōnēs Rōmānae oppida maxima, Iscam, Devam, Ebūracum
tenēbant; cōpiae auxiliārēs, quae erant minōrēs numerō, castra tenēbant. Rōmānī
viās multās fēcērunt; per illās cōpiae Rōmānae iter celeriter faciēbant atque
auxilium ad suōs mīlitēs celerrimē mittere poterant. Hōc tempore Rōmānī magnam
partem īnsulae superāverant.
[2] Comprehension
[i] In what order are the following
statements made?
troops sent to York _____
towns occupied by the Romans _____
the capital of Britannia _____
small number of auxiliary forces _____
defeat of Boudicca _____
[ii] Translate: Rōmānī viās multās fēcērunt; per
illās cōpiae Rōmānae iter celeriter faciēbant atque auxilium ad suōs mīlitēs
celerrimē mittere poterant. Hōc tempore Rōmānī magnam partem īnsulae
superāverant. (12)
Background:
People
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovices
Places
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent
Claimed to be the
oldest recorded place name still in use in England, Kent is of Celtic origin, first
recorded by Pytheas in Ancient Greek c. 320 BC. Although the original work has
not survived, it is quoted explicitly by Strabo.
ὁ δὲ πλειόνων ἢ δισμυρίων τὸ μῆκος ἀποφαίνει τῆς νήσου, καὶ τὸ Κάντιον ἡμερῶν τινων πλοῦν ἀπέχειν τῆς Κελτικῆς φησι (Strabo)│ Yet he [Pytheas] declares that the extent of the island is more than 20,000 stadia and says that Kantion is several days' sail from Keltike.
____________________
[1]
[i] (1)
a few days; (2) weather was foul; (3) rain and mists
[ii]
(1) stationed troops (2) in Kent
[iii]
legions
[iv]
(1) Later,
(2) Boudicca, queen of the Iceni, (3) suddenly prepared (4) a great rebellion (5)
against the Romans, (6) who were waging war (7) on the Ordovices. (8) Boudicca
captured (9) many towns and forts (10) and killed (11) a very large number (12)
of Romans.
[2]
[i]
troops sent to York (2)
towns occupied by the
Romans (4)
the capital of Britannia
(3)
small number of
auxiliary forces (5)
defeat of Boudicca (1)
[ii]
(1) The Romans built (2) many roads; (3) through them (4) the Roman forces would march / make their way (5) quickly and (6) could send (7) help to their soldiers (8) very swiftly. (9) At this time, (10) the Romans had conquered (11) a large part (12) of the island.
Video notes
[i] Quid
est? │ What is it? The same expression can be used to express “What’s
wrong / what’s the matter?”
[ii] Quid est hoc?
│ What is this / it? [i.e. referring to an inanimate object]; the
question uses the neuter hoc because, at that point, the gender
remains unknown to the speaker; German: Was ist das [neuter]?; Russian:
Chto eto [neuter]?; Spanish: ¿Qué es esto [neuter]?
[iii] When the
answer is given, hic, haec and hoc will reflect the gender
of the noun. Although indicating something near the speaker, ‘it’ rather than
‘this’ can also be used in translation.
Quid est hoc?
│ What is this (thing) / it?
Hic est gladius [masculine] │ This is /
it is a sword.
Hic gladius longus est │ This sword
is long.
Haec est mēnsa [feminine] │ This / it is
a table.
Haec mēnsa rotunda est │ This table
is round.
Hoc est templum [neuter] │ This is / it
is a temple.
Hoc templum antīquum est │ This temple is
ancient.
[iv] Word order
in Latin is flexible because the endings of words tell you how they are related
to each other. In general, a verb is placed at the end of a sentence but that
is by no means a hard and fast rule, and authors will change the order
depending on, for example, the emphasis they wish to place on a word.
Hic gladius longus
est = Hic gladius est longus│ This sword is long
Hic est gladius longus.
│ This is a long sword.
20.02.24: Asking
and saying who people are
https://www.facebook.com/groups/latinforstarters/posts/394496183161656/
20.02.24: hic,
haec, hoc [2]
https://www.facebook.com/groups/latinforstarters/posts/394751416469466/
20.02.24: Quis est
hic / haec?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/latinforstarters/posts/394756356468972/
20.02.24: hic,
haec, hoc [3]
https://www.facebook.com/groups/latinforstarters/posts/394768023134472/
Video notes
Latin has
different ways of expressing the 3rd person pronouns ‘he’ and
‘she’; we focus here only on two of them:
[i] They are
generally not used unless there is some need to be specific i.e. the verb alone
is enough.
Quis est? │ Who is (s)he?
Servus est │ He’s
a slave.
Ancilla est │
She’s a maidservant.
Amīcus meus est│
He’s my friend.
Magistra nostra
est │ She’s our teacher.
[ii] hic
[masculine] / haec [feminine] are used when referring to somebody near the
speaker, and can translate variously as:
Quis est hic?
Who is this [person (male)] / this man / he?
Quis est haec?
Who is this [person (female)] / this woman / she?
Hic est amīcus meus │ This / he
is my friend.
Haec est magistra nostra │ This / she
is our teacher.
In grammar they
are known in this context as demonstrative pronouns i.e. they are used
in place of a noun.
[iii] Hic
and haec can also be used with nouns and act as demonstrative
adjectives i.e. the equivalent of ‘this
boy, this lady’:
hic puer │ this boy
Quis est hic puer?
│ Who is this boy?
Hic puer fīlius
meus est │ This boy is my son.
haec puella │ this girl
Quis est haec
puella? │ Who is this girl?
Haec puella fīlia
mea est │ This girl is my daughter.
[iv] Although most
first declension nouns are feminine, there are some which are masculine in
gender because they were traditionally associated with male occupations
agricola:
farmer
nauta:
sailor
Words which agree
with them are masculine in gender:
Hic est nauta │ This (man) / he is a sailor.
Hic agricola in agrō labōrat │ This farmer is
working in a field.
[v] A small group
of nouns ending in -er are 2nd declension masculine:
magister:
teacher
puer: boy
You first need to become familiar with two terms: (i) the indicative mood and (ii) the subjunctive mood.
The word mood
does not refer to a specific tense. Each mood contains its own set of
tenses — for example: present indicative, present subjunctive, imperfect
indicative, imperfect subjunctive, and so on. The term is not easy to define
neatly, but it refers to the speaker’s attitude toward the action or state —
the perspective from which the action is expressed.
[i] All the
verb tenses so far – both active and passive – have been in the indicative
mood. They express real actions or states, for example:
Rōma in
Ītaliā est. │ Rome is in Italy.
Rōmae habitābam.
│ I used to live in Rome.
Mīles rēgem interfēcit.
│ The soldier killed the king.
Mīlitēs hostēs
interfēcerant. │ The soldiers had killed the enemy.
Rūs crās ībō.
│ Tomorrow I’ll go to the country.
Vēxillum
ventō movētur. │ The flag is being moved by the wind.
Gladiō vulnerātus
est. │ He was killed by a sword.
Ab hostibus captus
erat. │ He had been captured by the enemy.
If, for
example, you look up interfēcit in Wiktionary, you will find its description:
“third person singular perfect active indicative of interficiō”
[ii] The
subjunctive mood, by contrast, does not express actions as real, factual
events. If you look up interficiat, you will find: “third person
singular present active subjunctive of interficiō.” What’s the
difference?
Image #1: A good
starting point is to look at some examples in English which, although not
usually labeled as “subjunctive,” convey subjunctive ideas. First, compare
Column A with Column B(1). Then, look at the headings in B(2), which identify
the speaker’s “attitude” or perspective.
Consider the
terms in B(2), for example: possibility, suggestion, hypothetical, unfulfilled
— unreal. Pause and ask yourself: have any of these actions actually happened,
or can the speaker guarantee that they will happen?
For instance,
is “Yes, I can help you” the same as “Well, yes, I would like to help
you”? Or is “He spoke clearly and everybody understood him” the same
as “He spoke clearly hoping that everybody might be able to understand him”?
Clearly not.
This is why
English often adds modals — might, could, would — to give
a different perspective on what is being said. The aim of the examples in the
table is to give you a “feel” for the subjunctive. Sometimes translations of
Latin subjunctives won’t use words like might, could, or would
(though many do), but they reflect the way the subjunctive shapes the speaker’s
thinking.
Image #2: In
general, the indicative describes reality — what has happened or can be
stated as fact — while the subjunctive expresses non-reality,
uncertainty, desire, or suggestion.
Those
headings – and others – are used to categorise different uses of the Latin
subjunctive, and we will look at them all individually.
Latin for
Learners is a community in
which I occasionally share my own experiences with the language and point out
common pitfalls—many of which waste time and can make the climb towards mastery
seem impossibly steep.
The subjunctive is
a prime example. The reflections below, aimed especially at independent
learners, apply not only to the subjunctive but to many areas of Latin.
Imagine two chess
players discussing a brilliant move by a Grand Master. Neither needs to define
what a pawn is; each naturally pitches the conversation at the other’s level.
They “mirror” each other.
Image #1: In some Latin discussion groups, this mirroring breaks down. A beginner’s straightforward question is sometimes answered with a dense, highly technical explanation packed with exceptions—useful information in itself, but delivered at the wrong level and at the wrong time.
Image #2
[1] A crucial feature of the subjunctive is that it has
a wide range of distinct uses, each with its own traditional name.
Unlike, for example, the future tense—which has a relatively straightforward
and easily understood function—the subjunctive does not operate
in a single, uniform way.
[2] Most writers on Latin grammar follow a set of
conventional labels (the image gives some of the common terms and key words you
will encounter). However, they may disagree about which particular “box” a
given subjunctive belongs in, and some authors group several uses together
while others separate them. This can lead to long, detailed, and ultimately
time-wasting discussions for a beginner. Similarly, be cautious with
digressions such as “there’s an exception,” “you may sometimes find,” or
“Plautus occasionally uses…”.
Focus instead on the core features of each subjunctive use,
rather than wandering down every side road.
Image #3: The key point — and it has been the key point
of every post about this language — is not to be overwhelmed. Don’t try
to gather every piece of information about the subjunctive at once. Don’t jump
in at the deep end.
The subjunctive matters because it is an integral part of
Latin language and literature; it permeates the writing of the authors. One of
the first pieces of authentic Latin you may encounter is Catullus 5:
Vīvāmus,
mea Lesbia, atque amēmus, │ Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us
love,
rūmōrēsque senum
sevēriōrum │ and the rumours of rather stern old men
omnēs ūnīus aestimēmus
assis! │ let us value them all at just one penny!
All three of the verbs in bold are subjunctives.
All three bold verbs are subjunctives.
Pliny’s first Vesuvius letter to Tacitus opens with two
more:
Petis ut tibi avunculī meī exitum scrībam, quō
vērius trādere posterīs possīs. │ You ask that I write to you
about the death of my uncle, so that you might be able to hand it
down more accurately to posterity
In Spielberg’s ‘Jaws’ Quint states: “Sometimes that shark
would go away, sometimes he wouldn’t go away.” The subjunctives won’t go away –
but they’re only sharks if you let them become so!
The posts are structured as follows:
[i] What is the subjunctive?
The term subjunctive refers not to a tense but to
a mood. In broad terms, it expresses ideas such as possibility,
intention, potentiality, and hypothetical or unreal situations. These concepts,
although initially somewhat vague, are more familiar to speakers of French,
German, and Spanish, whose languages retain full sets of subjunctive forms that
often parallel Latin usage. English, however, has only remnants of the
subjunctive, so we rely on English translations that suggest subjunctive
meaning rather than reproduce it directly. The first post will therefore
explain how these ideas can be conveyed in English before we turn to the Latin
forms themselves.
[ii] The subjunctive has several tenses, each introduced
separately, with practice in distinguishing their forms. Because these tenses
are employed in different ways, a tense will first be presented in one
particular use but will reappear in later posts as additional uses are
introduced.
[iii] The uses of the subjunctive—of which there are
many—are divided into two broad categories: independent and dependent.
These terms are explained, and the uses are presented under each category.
However, although such uses can be taught as separate rules, they rarely appear
in isolation in real Latin; authors combine them freely. Substantial contextual
practice is therefore essential.
[iv] Each use is discussed in detail with textbook examples, short quotations, and simple follow-up exercises. English translations are provided that clearly differentiate the uses, even if they sound a little archaic. Links to video resources are also included.
The subjunctive is
often left until (almost) last in a standard Latin grammar book, and there are
sound reasons for that:
[1] The
subjunctive is formed from endings that you have already seen. However, they
are used differently and so it’s important to be familiar with the endings
before you apply them to the subjunctive.
[2] For native English
speakers at least, the term ‘subjunctive’ can seem like a closed book.
[3] Unlike many
other grammatical features of Latin, the subjunctive performs a whole range of
functions. At first this can seem overwhelming but keep it slow and steady!
The Strawberry
Fields Subjunctive
We all remember
things in different ways. Some memory aids are well known — Mr. Roy G. Biv for
the colours of the rainbow (Red Orange Yellow Green
Blue Indigo and Violet), or Every Good Boy
Deserves Favour for the notes on the line of the treble clef. Others
are very personal, even a bit peculiar, but that doesn’t matter. If it helps
you remember, it works.
For example, in
Malay kiri means “left” and kanan means “right”. By inserting an
extra n, I used the name of the opera singer Kiri te Kana(n)wa
to remember which was which: kiri to the left of her name, kana(n)
to the right. Bizarre, perhaps — but unforgettable!
When faced with so
many different subjunctive uses, which can initially feel unrelated or
difficult to translate precisely, two
phrases – one a movie title and one a line from a Beatles’ song – summarised,
for me, two important connecting features of this lengthy and sprawling
subject.
[1]
Harrison Ford & Michelle Pfeiffer: What Lies Beneath (to be fair,
the subjunctive isn’t as creepy as the film poster!) i.e. What attitude
or underlying meaning lies beneath a subjunctive?
[2]
Beatles:
Let me take you
down / 'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields / Nothing is real
The idea of
something “vague”, “not clearly defined”, or “not presented as real” fits the
subjunctive perfectly.
Therefore, the
meaning that lies beneath the subjunctive is not real even if
that is not always directly expressed in the English translation.
As the posts progress we will look slowly at the subjunctive, how it is formed and how it’s used.