From: elmeras2000
Message: 31323
Date: 2004-03-02
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
[Jens:]
> > 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?
[Peter:]
> 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.
[Jens:]
Sure, I've accepted that all along, but what about the
*interpretation* of this fact? We agree that, in the dependent
clause, the form <faciat> is automatically replaced by <faceret> if
the main clause is changed to past tense. That is, we agree that the
socalled "present subjunctive" goes with a present setting, and the
socalled "imperfect subjunctive" goes with a preterital setting. We
also agree that, in the dependent clause, this carries no
information as to tense which is already indicated by the main verb.
But we will also have to agree that, in an indirect interrogative
sentence, the "prs.sbj." can *only* go with a present or future main-
clause verb, and the "ipf.sbj." can *only* go with a past-tense main-
clause verb. Thus we must also agree that faciat and faceret express
the very same thing, i.e. the specific modal shade to be conveyed by
a verb in an independent question. Thus, if faciat is a subjunctive,
so is faceret. Now, if faciat is a present subjunctive by virtue of
its being obligatorily combined with a non-past main verb, then
faceret is the corresponding past.
From a standpoint of pure information theory I agree that there was
no need to mark the tense also in the dependent clause, since it has
already been stated in the main clause. By the same token, there
should be no need to put the verb in the 3pl if more than one
subject is mentioned, but Latin just does that anyway. This is
redundant information, a case of saying-again, we are being told
more than once. Hasn't that ever been practical in your experience?
It has the value of small footnotes like "now, it should be
remembered that ...", adding little checkpoints ensuring that
communication works. I truly and honestly can't see what is wrong
about that.
Jens