Re: [tied] Re: Eggs from birds and swift horses

>I found that the
> imperfect subjunctive is often the past-tense replacement
> of the present subjunctive

In sentences where the usual sequence of tenses is followed, it is the
replacement of the present subjunctive when the main verb is past. That
does not mean that the imperfect itself carries that past reference.

> Take an indirect question: scio quid faciat "I know
> what he is doing (prs.sbj.)" : sciebam quid faceret "I knew what he
> was doing (ipf.sbj.)". In absolutely parallel fashion, the perfect
> offers scio quid fecerit "I know what he has done (pf.sbj.)" :
> sciebam quid fecisset "I know what he had done (ppf.sbj.)".

If the imperfect carries a past meaning, then the meaning of any sentence:
past main verb + subordinate verb with past reference
would have to be "I knew what he had been doing." But that is precisely
what the imperfect subjunctive cannot convey.

> If time is immaterial, then why does the subjunctive follow suit
> when the tense of the main verb changes? Surely you wouldn't say
> that, in the sentences quoted, the relation between faciat and
> faceret is different from the one between scio and sciebam?

Yes, that is what I am asserting. In those sentences there is no choice
between faciat and faceret - it is automatic, and can carry no information,
since it is utterly predictable. But there is a choice between scio and
sciebam, which carries meaningful information (the tense). So the two are
different.

Peter