ginlindzey

My Latin 3's are mystified that I can, at a glance, toss away possible translations of a word, in particular verbs that could possibly be present indicative, present subjunctive, or a 3rd or 4th future indicative--without, you know, having memorized the principal parts of every verb in existence (like we did).

So today I put aside the story in Stage 38 that they were supposed to be reading, and backtracked to look at the conditional clauses using future perfects (in the protasis) and futures (in the Apodosis). I was trying as well to explain how easy it is to tell future perfect indicatives from the newer perfect subjunctives. That is, if the verb is in this particular type of conditional, I know to expect future perf ind & future tense verbs, NOT subjunctives, etc. (Ok, in great measure because we haven't gotten to conditionals using subjunctives yet!!!)

Here are the sentences I pulled out from CLC for them:

Future More Vivid: future perfect, then future. (If he verbs [will have verbed], he will verb.)

• nōs Chrīstiānī, sī vītam pūram vīxerimus et eī crēdiderimus, ad caelum ascendēmus. (Tychicus, p 258, stage 31)
• nisi [tū] vitiīs tuīs dēstiteris, poenās dabis. (vitium = sin) (Tychicus, p 258, stage 31)
• sī tē apud mē ille invēnerit, poenās certē dabis. (in aulā Domitiānī I, p 260, stage 31)
• sī Paris effūgerit, vōs poenās dabitis. (in aulā Domitiānī II, p 262, stage 31)
• sī mē in hāc rē adiūveris, magnum paemium tibi dabitur. (ultiō Epaphrodītī, p 274 Stage 32)
• sī mē vel Domitiam hōc locō cēperint, certē nōs interficient. (exitium I p 279 Stage 34)
• sī prōditōrēs effūgerint, vōs omnēs pūniēminī. (exitium I p 279 Stage 34)
• sī tū eum audīveris, certē delectāberis. (ex urbe p 4 State 35)
• sū tē mox vīderō, valdē dēlectābor. (ex urbe p 4 Stage 35)
• nisi cāveris, mī Glabriō, tū quoque sīcut pater meus, damnāberis atque occīdēris. (vīta rūstica p 8 Stage 35)
• nōn crēdam nisi lēgerō, Catulle. (epigrammata Martiālis IV p 29 Stage 36)
• sī Hibernōs superāverimus, nōn modo pacem in Brianniā habēbimus, sed etiam magnās dīvitiās comparābimus…. (epistula p 42 Stage 37)
• sī tamen tū mē adiūveris, sēcūrus erō. (amīcī principis p 44 stage 37)
• sī cōpiae nostrae trans mare in Hiberniam ductae erunt, magnō perīculō obicientur. (cōnsilium Domitiānī I p 46 Stage 37)
• sī Hibernia quoque ab Agricolā victa erit, totam Britanniam in potestāte nostrā habēbimus. (cōnsilium Domitiānī p 47 Stage 37)
• haec est sententia mea, quam sī dissēnseris mūtābō. (Imperātōris sententia p 60 Stage 38)
• sī hīc captus eris, interficiēris. (prīdiē nūptiārum p 64 Stage 38)

I followed this set with these because of the similarities:

Priusquam – future perfect indicative = until (notice similarity to the Future More Vivid Conditional)

• ego numquam iterum tībiīs cantābō priusquam perierit Salvius. (honōrēs p 283 Stage 34)
• nihil dīcam priusquam Epaphrodītī sententiam audīverō. (amīcī principis p 44 Stage 37)

And then we got to these few perfect tense subjunctives.  I pointed out that so far these were only coming up in indirect questions; NONE were in conditional clauses, thus it was easy to distinguish.

Perfect Subjunctives: used in indirect questions and other typical subjunctive clauses

• nōn satis cōnstat quot hostēs perierint; … (epistula p 42 Stage 37)
• nescio enim quārē Domitiānus nōs arcessīverit. (amīcī prīncipis p 43 Stage 37)
• intellegere nōn possum quārē illa in mātrimōnium nōndum collocāta sit. (Imperātōris sententia p 60 Stage 38)
• scio quō ille ierit, num occīsus sit. (prīdiē nūptiārum p 64 Stage 38)

Anyway, I dunno.  I was told the discussion did help.  However, it's the week before spring break and I'm not sure whether ANYTHING helps. hahahahaha.