Talk:Latin tenses

Missing B-Class criteria?

Hello peer reviewers of the Project Latin and the Project Assessment. I have time in the next months to work on this article and I would like to make it become a B-class article. I would appreciate your reviews. Plese substitute a "Reviewer #" column head with your name and please answer in the cells if the article fulfills each of the six criteria for a B-Class article. If not, please tell below what should be done to fulfill the missing criteria. I will go through each suggestion. --Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that this is already a B class article. The question is whether it can be improved to become a "Good article". No doubt it could be improved. Your suggestions are welcome, but I'd rather you didn't start making changes to it yourself. Last time you tried that, it was unsuccessful. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi, I will ask you if the suggestions should be applied before applying them. I will only perform changes that I agree with you because I know you put a lot of effort here.

About the article

Question	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3
1. Is it suitably referenced?	---	---	---
2. Does it cover most of the topic accuratly?	---	---	---
3. Does it have a defined structure?	---	---	---
4. Is it reasonably well-written?	---	---	---
5. Does it contain the needed supporting materials?	---	---	---
6. Is its content understandable?	---	---	---

Criterion 1 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Criterion 2 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Criterion 3 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Criterion 4 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Criterion 5 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Criterion 6 – Needed improvements

• Improvement
• Improvement
• Improvement

Replacement of the lead

I have replaced and rewritten the lead for reasons (mentioned above): 1. It's too long, and doesn't summarise the whole subject succinctly. 2. The verb ago doesn't mean "act". 3. The "tense" agere coepero is not considered to be a tense by any standard grammar, nor is it one. 4. The terms "secondary present" and "secondary past" are not standard terms found in any Latin grammar book, but apparently invented by the previous writer. No citation is given for these terms. If such terms exist it should be made clear which author invented them (since they are completely non-traditional as far as Latin is concerned), and this should go further down the article, not in the lead. 5. There is no such thing as a "supinum" aspect. Tenses such as acturus sum are presumably infectum, and have a corresponding perfectum tense acturus fui, which have been omitted from the table. But to go into details of these rarely used tenses does not seem appropriate in the lead, which should just summarise the main facts. 6. The fact that subjunctives, infinitives, imperatives, and participles also have different tenses needs to be mentioned in the lead, even if no details are given, since these are very important in Latin grammar. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings

When an article is read on a laptop, the topics can be nested, but this doesn't seem to work on a smartphone. Consequently, if topics are nested, then when using a smartphone you seem to get very long sections which you have to scroll down for ages. To prevent this I have upgraded some headings from ===x=== to ==x== so that on a phone there will be more headings and less scrolling between headings. But it still doesn't seem very satisfactory. If anyone can suggest a solution to this, I would be interested to hear. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kanjuzi, since this article is about tense morphology and syntax, I think you could organize the content in two levels. At the first level, I would create an introduction section telling that there are 5 traditional 'modes' for Latin verbs, I would write five sections on morphology, one for each 'mode' (namely Indicative, Subjunctive, Infinitive, Participle, Imperative), and I would write a final section on possible tense combinations (syntax).

1. The Latin tense system
2. Indicative (Present indicative, Future indicative, Imperfect indicative, Perfect indicative, Future perfect indicative, Pluperfect indicative, Perfect passive tenses made with fuī and fueram, Perfect tenses made with habeō, Periphrastic future tenses, Tenses with the gerundive)
3. Subjunctive (Present subjunctive, Imperfect subjunctive, Perfect subjunctive, Pluperfect subjunctive, Subjunctive tenses formed with the future participle, Forem, Ductus forem, Archaic forms of the subjunctive)
4. Infinitive (Infinitive tenses)
5. Participle (Present participle, Perfect participle, Future participle)
6. Imperative (The imperative mood)
7. Tense combinations (Sequence of tenses rule)
8. Bibliography
9. References
10. Citations

At the second level, I would put the current sections you have, one level lower. Since the tenses 'future', 'present' and 'past'/'imperfect' occur in every mode, this content structure would create a navigation structure that allows people to jump across the modes. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me think about this for a bit. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the article again, it could certainly be organised better. Another improvement that could be made is to omit those tables at the beginning, under "Main tenses", which don't have much support from the sources. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this section on the six "main tenses" is not a bad idea in an article about verb morphology. Maybe we can find some references for it and adapt it to match the references better. These are all "simple tenses" (as opposed to "compound tenses") and they are all "indicative tenses". They are also the basis for compound tenses such as "perfect passive tenses" and also other compound tenses that are not listed in traditional grammar books such as the "future periphrases" (āctūrum est, agendum est, etc.). I will look up some books here to see if I find something useful.

As for the section titles, I think it will be easier for the reader if the titles are standardized.

• (Top)
• Overview (instead of "Overview of the tenses")
• Indicative tenses
• Subjunctive tenses
• Imperative tenses (instead of "The imperative mood")
• Infinitive tenses
• Participle tenses (instead of "Participles")

Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Couto Vale: I have rearranged it according to your suggestions and it should be much easier to navigate now. It was a good idea. But I have not yet separated references from citations. How should that be done, I wonder? Kanjuzi (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I myself never remember how to do it. I separated the two in the article Latin tenses (semantics). Just check there. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Couto Vale: Yes, those uniform headings are fine by me. Better still, we could also just omit the word "tenses" from those headings and put "Indicative", "Subjunctive" and so on. But as for splitting up citations and references, I've had a look at your other article and it looks a bit too fussy. I think it's fine as it is. Anyone can see that if it says (Cicero) followed by a number, it refers to the passage in Cicero. If the reference number comes anywhere else, it refers to a modern work. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is much clearer now!

By the way, here is an interesting remark. I noticed that only "infinitives" and "participles" are plural and that the other section titles are not. It is very interesting how such small variations in grammar shine through the theory of language that we are using. You marked them like this probably because you probably assume that these are 'nouns' or 'nominal forms of the verb' and that the other forms are 'personal forms of the verb'. In a functional theory (the one I use), this distinction would not be in forms but in functions. Orandum (the act of speaking), orāre (the option of speaking), orātōria (the art of speaking), modus orandī (the way of speaking), orātiō (the speech), orātor (the speaker), orāns (the one speaking), orātōrium (the speaking room), hōra orātīva (the speaking time) would be 'verbs embedded in nominal groups' whereas orantem in a clause such as vīdistī, mē orantem (you saw me speaking) would be a finite verb and orāre in a clause such as orāre conātus sum (I tried to speak) would be an auxiliated verb in a finite verb group. In a functional theory, it is not the forms that are nominal or not but rather the function they have in a wording. This is probably why I would not be inclined to treat 'infinitive verbs' differently from 'indicative verbs' and this is probably why I immediately noticed that you were using a different theory than the one I usually apply. :-D Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I'd noticed that slight discrepancy. But there is only one indicative mood, whereas there are several infinitives and three participles (or four if you count the gerundive). So inevitably the titles cannot be exactly parallel.

The reason I put an overview section is because one cannot assume that the readers have all studied elementary Latin. Some of them might be Chinese or Japanese, for example, who are educated but who have never learnt any inflected languages. I don't think there is any need for references for this section, since it merely states well known facts which are expanded on, with references and examples, later in the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In a systemic functional theory, "infinitive" and "indicative" are attributes of a verb: for instance, amāre is infinitive and amat is indicative. In turn, tenses are also attributes of a verb: for instance, amāre and amat are present and amāvisse and amāvit are perfect. Therefore, there is one "present infinitive verb" (amāre) and there are 12 "present indicative verbs" (amō, amās... amor, amāris...). In your case, the number in the section title "Indicative" is the number of moods (of course, because "indicative" is the name of the mood); and the number in the section title "infinitives" is the number of tenses and voices of verbs that are infinitive (probably because "infinitive" is not understood as one of the moods in your theory). Is this what is going on? Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not any particular theory; it's just the way the English language is used in conventional grammar books. The word "indicative" is not usually used in the plural, but "infinitive" and "participle" can be. Still, if the discrepancy seems uncomfortable, we could always make all the words singular. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not feel unconfortable. I just wanted to share with you that this small detail shined through that you were using a different linguistic theory from the one I usually use.

When I said "theory", I meant that such differences in wording are grammatical symptoms of an underlying "world view" like Firth would say, an underlying "logic" like Worth would say, or an underlying "theory" like Halliday would say.

Yes, I know that most grammarians talk about different infinitives like the "present infinitive" and the "past infinitive" where "infinitive" is a countable noun. I also know that most grammarians talk about moods and use "indicative" as an adjective of the countable noun "mood". The wording in the section title is fine and is typical.

What I find surprising is that this habit of saying induces a habit of thinking whereby the things being counted are not verb forms nor verbs. For instance, there are 36 "past particle verbs" as in locūtus, locūtum... (3 genders x 6 cases x 2 numbers), there are 24 "present participle verbs as in loquēns, loquentem (2 genders x 6 cases x 2 numbers), and there are 36 "future participle verbs" as in locūtūrus, locūtūrum... Nonetheless, most grammarians speak of "three participles": "the past participle", "the present participle" and "the future participle". What they are counting with the number 3 is not the number of verbs nor of verb forms but the number of tenses in participle verbs (past, present and future). I assume that the reason for that is that they assume that a participle is like an adjective: "nominative", "masculine", "singular" are attributes of the form of the "past participle", and "past participle" is a form of the verb. The theory works like this: there is a form of a form of a form of a dictionary entry. :-D Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This way of speaking, saying there are "36 past participle verbs", isn't familiar from any grammar that I have ever seen. What they say is that each verb has one perfect participle of which the ending changes according to gender, number, and case. It seems sensible enough to me! Kanjuzi (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I know. Such a wording is not common in traditional grammar books. Saying there are "36 past participle verbs" is only common in corpus-based linguistic descriptions. In corpus studies, researchers annotate text. A word such as locūtus needs to be tagged as a verb, then as past, participle, masculine, nominative and singular. This information about the word is stored in a database. Then if one searches for a "past participle verb", one finds 36 entries in the database, one for each combination of remaining features. This is why people doing linguistic description based on annotated corpus come to a wording such as "36 past participle verbs" and "14 past participle verb forms". Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Perfect subjunctive in ideal conditional

Why do the translations use present conditional forms? They imply a general meaning, while I would assume that the meaning of perfect subjunctive in ideal conditional is comparable to the meaning of pluperfect subjunctive in counterfactual conditional and these actions would have been completed in the hypothetical situation. 109.42.179.83 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In English, there are two counterfactual conditional forms for each tense: the form of the conditioning event and the form of the conditioned event.

Conditional nexus between future counterfactual events

'It will be very hot. If I earned more money, I would buy an air conditioner next month.'

Conditional nexus between present counterfactual events

'It is very hot. If I earned more money, I would be buying an air conditioner now.'

Conditional nexus between past counterfactual events

'It was very hot. If I had earned more money, I would have bought an airconditioner last month.'

In Latin, the 'perfect subjunctive' verb represents a present or future conditioned event (imperfect meaning) and the 'pluperfect subjunctive' verb represents a past conditioned event (perfect meaning).

sī nunc mē suspendam, meīs inimīcīs voluptātem creāverim (Plautus)

'If I were hanging myself now, I would be pleasing my enemies.'

However, the same cannot be said of concessional nexuses between counterfactual events. In this case, both conceded and conceding future and present events are represented by 'perfect subjunctive'.

Cicerōnī nēmo ducentōs nunc dederit nummōs, nisi fulserit ānulus ingēns (Juvenal)

'nowadays no one would give Cicero two hundred denaries, unless a huge ring glittered (on his finger)'

As I understand your question, the expression 'would give' above has a connotation of generalised subject, whereas the expression 'would be pleasing' does not. Indeed, in English this difference between conditional forms exists and in Latin it does not. Translators tend to translate words such as creāverim systematically by 'would please' because Latin translators learn to translate form-by-form, not meaning-by-meaning. Nonetheless, it is a wrong assumption that a 'perfect subjunctive' verb such as dederit represents a past conceded event as in 'would have given' or that one such as fulserit represents a past conceding event as in 'had glittered'.

I hope I have helped. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. But certainly, your translation of si me nunc suspendam doesn't seem quite correct. It must mean 'if I were to hang myself'. The way it's translated in the article is better. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear anonymous visitor, consider Kanjuzi's correction. Kanjuzi's sentence If I were to hang myself now, I would please my enemies is future, not present. It is a valid interpretation since nunc in Latin can extend into the future like now in English. This is the case if suspendam opposes suspendēs in person and suspendō and suspendī in tense as Kanjuzi's interpretation suggests. It is not the case if suspendam opposes supsendās in person and suspenderem in tense as my commentary suggests. In suspendam, suspendās, the verb is "non-past" and may mean either present or future. In this case, words such as nunc would function as a present adverb like the word gerade in German (a language with two tenses: "past" and "non-past"). Since I do not know what is being discussed in the quoted text and since I do not know the author's typical usage of tense in conditioning clauses, I trust Kanjuzi in his correction. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The remainder of the response to your complaint is still valid, though. The word dederit was correctly translated as would give because the subject is people nowadays, a generalised subject. If the subject were a named person, dederit should be translated as would be giving. However, dederit should never be translated as would have given in this sentence because, together with nunc, it represents a present event, not a past event. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Translation: future in past

Hi @Kanjuzi, I was reviewing the article to see if there are things that could be improved and I found some translations that don't seem optimal in the section about the future periphrasis. In my corpus study about this periphrasis and future participles, I found out that the future periphrasis may be simply indicative as in "was expected/intending/about to do", "is extected/intending/about to do", "will be expected/intending to do", but that it may also have a "had to", "has to", "will have to" deontic meaning (obligation) depending on the presence of adverbs such as "jūre" ("by law"). For this reason, I think that the current translation of the next sentence might be wrong and that we might find a better translation in the literature for the same passage.

sī tibī nōn pāruissem, iūre datūrus fuī poenās (Curtius)

'if I had not obeyed you, I would rightly have paid the penalty'

Without checking the context of wording, discourse and situation and without checking the author's style and the way other authors write during the same period as Curtius, I would intuitively come to the following translation for the legal discourse in a situation where two people are discussing about their contractual rights and duties.

sī tibī nōn pārvissem, jūre datūrus fuī poenās (Curtius)

'if I had not obeyed you, I would've had to pay for the damages by law'

Is this something that we can find in any of the translations that you have access to for Curtius? Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)