> > >The Latin imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive
> > > in preterital contexts.
> > In those constructions, it is the main verb which marks the time. The
> > subjunctive has lost all time reference.
> I can't agree with such a characterization of Latin.
I seldom insist that I'm right, but here I am. Any time reference is
carried by perfective stem, not by the subjunctive. In the constructions
referred to, once you have chosen your main verb, you have no choice of
subjunctive, except between present or perfect stem. The difference between
those two indicates the time of the action. Where there are no choices,
there is no meaning. We cannot contrast present and imperfect subjunctives
(in the construction under discussion). Any meaning is carried by the
choice we do have - the continuous or perfective stem.
Gildersleeve and Lodge (a standard Grammar of Latin) page 170:
"The realisation of the idea may be in suspense, or it may be beyond control
The first, or purely ideal Subjunctive, is represented by the present and
perfect tense; the second, or Unreal, is represented by the Imperfect and
Pluperfect."
Your quotation from "a familiar Jakobsonian description", that "tense marks
the time of an action" etc., is no doubt true and wonderful and good - but
it does not refer to tenseless verb forms such as subjunctives.
> "unreal conditions"
>Does
> anything other than pragmatics tell us the situation is "present"?
Here you seem forced to admit that the imperfective subjunctive does not
carry a tense.
Peter