(A.) PROTASIS.
2326. The protasis of every kind (2023, 2024) has the verb in the
subjunctive in indirect discourse (2315).
2327. The tense of the protasis is generally imperfect or pluperfect
(2322): as,
#Ariovistus respondit: sī ipse populō Rōmānō nōn praescrīberet, nōn
oportēre sēsē ā populō Rōmānō impedīrī#, 1, 36, 1, _Ariovistus answered:
if he did not dictate to the Roman nation, no more ought the Roman
nation to interfere with him_ (2026). #quae sī fēcisset, Pompēium in
Hispāniās itūrum#, Caes. _C._ 1, 10, 3, _if he did that, Pompey would go
to the Spains_ (2061).
2328. But indeterminate protases (2023) are sometimes put in the present
or perfect subjunctive in indirect discourse, even with a main secondary
tense: as,
#Ariovistus respondit: sī iterum experīrī velint, sē parātum esse
dēcertāre#, 1, 44, 1, _Ariovistus answered that if the Romans wanted to
try again, he was ready to fight it out_ (2026). #quī nisi dēcēdat, sēsē
illum prō hoste habitūrum#, 1, 44, 11, _that unless he withdrew, he
should consider him an enemy_ (2054).
2329. Protases of action non-occurrent (2024) remain in the imperfect or
pluperfect, even with a main primary tense.
#licet Varrō Mūsās, Aelī Stilōnis sententiā, Plautīnō dīcat sermōne
locutūrās fuisse sī Latīnē loquī vellent#, Quintil. 10, 1, 99, _though
Varro, following Stilo’s dictum, may say that the Muses would have
spoken in the style of Plautus, if they had wanted to speak Latin_
(2095). #quaeret ab accūsātōribus quid factūrī essent, sī in eō locō
fuissent#, Cornif. 2, 22, _he will ask the accusers what they would have
done if they had been in that predicament_ (2099).
(B.) APODOSIS.
2330. In indeterminate conditional periods (2023), the apodosis simply
follows the general rule (2312): as,
#Iovem sīc aiunt philosophī, sī Graecē loquātur, loquī#, _Br._ 121, _the
philosophers say that this is Jove’s style of speaking, if Jove speaks
Greek_ (2026). #sīn bellō persequī persevērāret, reminīscerētur
prīstinae virtūtis Helvētiōrum#, 1, 13, 4, _if he persisted in following
them up with war, let him call to mind the old time valour of the
Helvetians_ (2056). #in prōvinciīs intellegēbant sī is quī esset cum
imperiō emere vellet, fore utī quod quisque vellet quantī vellet
auferret#, _V._ 4, 10, _in the provinces they saw that if a man clothed
in authority should wish to be a buyer, he would carry off every time
whatever he wished at what he wished_ (2233; 2054 or 2076). #futūrum
esse, nisi prōvīsum esset, ut Rōma caperētur#, _Div._ 1, 101, _that
unless precaution was taken, Rome would be captured_ (2233, 2061). For
other examples, see 2327, 2328.
2331. In conditional periods of action non-occurrent (2024), the future
participle with #fuisse#, is used in apodoses of the active voice: as,
#an Cn. Pompēium cēnsēs maximārum rērum glōriā laetātūrum fuisse, sī
scīret sē in sōlitūdine Aegyptiōrum trucīdātum īrī#, _Div._ 2, 22, _do
you suppose that Pompey would have taken any pleasure in the fame which
his peerless exploits brought him if he had known that he was going to
be butchered in the wilds of Egypt?_
In one instance, found in Caesar, the future participle with #esse#
occurs, representing the imperfect subjunctive of present time (2091):
#Caesarem arbitrārī profectum in Ītaliam; neque aliter Carnūtēs
interficiundī Tasgetiī cōnsilium fuisse captūrōs, neque Eburōnēs, sī
ille adesset, ad castra ventūrōs esse#, 5, 29, 2, _that he thought
Caesar was gone into Italy; otherwise, the Carnutes would not have
formed their design of killing Tasgetius, and the Eburones, if he were
at hand, would not be assaulting the camp_. Here the context shows that
#ventūrōs esse# represents the imperfect subjunctive. But ordinarily it
might seem to represent the future indicative. Hence, to avoid
ambiguity, the Romans generally did not try to express present time in
apodoses of this class in indirect discourse.
2332. The perfect infinitive is exceptionally used; this is based upon
the indicative in apodosis (2104).
#memoriā teneō solitum ipsum nārrāre sē studium philosophiae ācrius
hausisse, nī prūdentia mātris incēnsum animum coërcuisset#, Ta. _Agr._
4, _I remember that he used to say that he had drunk in the study of
philosophy with too great eagerness, had not his discreet mother checked
his ardent soul_ (2105 or 2107).
2333. #possum#, in the apodosis of a conditional period of action
non-occurrent (2101), is regularly put in the perfect infinitive in
indirect discourse: as,
#Platōnem exīstimō, sī genus forēnse dīcendī trāctāre voluisset,
gravissimē potuisse dīcere#, _Off._ 1, 4, _I think that if Plato had
only chosen to cultivate forensic eloquence, he might have been a most
impressive speaker_ (2103). #cum dīcerent sē potuisse in amplissimum
locum pervenīre, sī sua studia ad honōrēs petendōs cōnferre voluissent#,
_Clu._ 153, _saying they might have risen to the proudest position, if
they had only chosen to apply their energies to a political career_
(2103).
2334. #futūrum fuisse ut# with the imperfect subjunctive is rarely used
in apodoses of the passive voice (2331): as,
#Theophrastus accūsāsse nātūram dīcitur quod hominibus tam exiguam vītam
dedisset: quōrum sī aetās potuisset esse longinquior, futūrum fuisse ut
omnī doctrīnā hominum vīta ērudīrētur#, _TD._ 3, 69, _it is said that
Theophrastus took nature to task ‘for giving man such a short life; if
the period could have been longer man’s life would have been informed
with knowledge of every sort’_ (2099). See also Caes. _C._ 3, 101, 2.
[Erratum:
2331 ... Aegyptiōrum trucīdātum īrī
Aēgyptiōrum]
(C.) PRONOUNS.