>
> >The Latin imperfect
> > subjunctive and the pluperfect subjunctive are the subjunctives used
> > in preterital contexts.
>
> In those constructions, it is the main verb which marks the time. The
> subjunctive has lost all time reference. The single exception is
> unreal conditions, where the imperfect subjunctive marks present
> tense!
>
> Peter
>
I can't agree with such a characterization of Latin. According to a
familiar Jakobsonian description, tense marks the time of an action in
relation to the speech event in which the action is described, or the
time of the action in relation to another action described in the same
speech event. A pluperfect verb form shows anteriority of the action in
relation to another past action--whether it's the pluperfect indicative or
the pluperfect subjunctive. The subjunctive is simply required in
certain kinds of subjoined clauses. It has as much "time reference" as
the indicative in such sentences.
By "unreal conditions" I assume that Peter refers to the use of the
imperfect subjunctive to denote conditions contrary to fact in Latin. But
how do such usages mark present tense? A potential, i.e., future
condition is no longer possible, so it's shoved back into the past. Does
anything other than pragmatics tell us the situation is "present"? In a
number of European languages conditional verb forms are
morphologically "the past of the future." Do such conditionals mark
present tense?
Jim Rader