This article covers free indications of frequency, probability, volition and obligation.
The gerundive of the verb (an adjectival form ending in -ndus) can be combined with the verb 'I am' to make a passive periphrastic tense. This usually expresses what is needing to be done:
The negative gerundive usually means 'not needing to be', as in the first example above. However, sometimes the interpretation 'ought not to be' or 'it isn't possible for it to be' is more appropriate:
Very often the passive periphrastic is used impersonally, together with a dative of the agent:
The impersonal form of this tense can also be made using intransitive verbs such as 'I go' and verbs such as 'I persuade' and 'I use' which do not take an accusative object:
An example of a future gerundive periphrastic is the following:
An example of the imperfect passive periphrastic is the following:
As with the active perfect periphrastic, in a conditional sentence the perfect gerundive periphrastic tense can mean "would have done":
Another meaning of the perfect passive is "ought to have been done":
In the following result clause, this tense becomes subjunctive:
The active future perfect periphrastic tense is not found, but the passive occurs:
For gerundive infinitive tenses see #Gerundive infinitives below.
The present subjunctive can express a wish for the future (the word is usually added):
The negative is :
Less commonly, the perfect subjunctive expresses a wish for the past, leaving open the possibility that it may have happened:
The perfect subjunctive can also be used in a wish for the future, but this use is described as "archaic".
The imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive are used in wishes to represent an imagined or wished for situation or event which is no longer capable of fulfilment:
Sometimes or 'I would that' is used instead of . In the following sentence, the imperfect subjunctive is used to wish for something that cannot now come true, while the present subjunctive leaves open the possibility that it may be true:
When the present subjunctive has a jussive or hortatory meaning, it can be a suggestion or command in the 1st or 3rd person:
In philosophy it can set the scene for a discussion:
The jussive subjunctive is only used in the 2nd person when the person is indefinite:
Another use of the present or perfect subjunctive is concessive:
The present and imperfect subjunctives are also used in deliberative questions (which are questions which expect an imperative answer):
With the negative particle the perfect subjunctive can express a negative command:
As with wishes and conditional sentences, the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives can represent a situation which, because it is in the past, cannot now be changed. They describe something which should have been done in the past, but which it is now too late for:
This usage is quite common in Plautus but rare in later Latin. The normal prose practice is to use either a past tense of 'I have a duty to' or 'it is proper' with the infinitive, or else a gerundive with a past tense of .
The jussive pluperfect is also fairly uncommon. The following examples are from Cicero, again using the negative :
After the word 'perhaps' and occasionally after 'perhaps', the present subjunctive can mean "may" or "could", expressing a possibility. The first example below uses the present subjunctive, and the second the perfect:
In the following sentence, using the pluperfect subjunctive, according to one view, Queen Dido contemplates what "might have been":
Others see the pluperfect subjunctive in this sentence as a wish ("if only I had carried!"); others again as jussive ("I ought to have carried!").
Another old subjunctive is , from the verb 'I give'. It occurs mostly in Plautus and Terence, but sometimes also in Cicero, in phrases like the following:
In old Latin, a form of the subjunctive with -s-, known as the sigmatic aorist subjunctive, is preserved ( etc.). One use of this is for wishes for the future:
In Plautus this subjunctive is also used in prohibitions, when it exists:
In other phrases it has a potential meaning and can be translated with "would":
In the verb 'I am', the imperfect tense and the perfect both mean 'I was', but in Latin there is usually a difference. As with other verbs, the perfect is usually used when the length of time is mentioned:
But if the situation was still continuing at the time referred to, the imperfect is used:
The perfect is also used when the sentence describes an event rather than a state:
Another use of the perfect is to describe a former state, emphasising that it is no longer in existence:
However, if a time adverb such as 'once upon a time' is added, there is no need for the perfect tense and the imperfect is more usual:
The perfect is also used in sentences such as the following, which describe a permanent state, as opposed to the imperfect, which describes a temporary one:
According to Pinkster, the use of erat in these two examples would sound wrong. "In both cases the reader would want to know 'What happened next?
For geographical description, on the other hand, erat is used, describing the landscape was it was at the time of the narrative:
The use of here would imply that there used to be a bridge, but that it has now gone.
The perfect must also be used with adverbs such as 'once', 'twice', 'three times', which imply that the situation is now over:
The perfect is also used for something which has always been (or never been) the case:
The adverb , when referring to a past period of time, can have either tense:
There are also some types of sentences where either tense may be used indifferently, for example when describing someone's name or character:
The equivalent of these two tenses, Spanish and both meaning 'I was', still exist in Spanish and Portuguese today. (See Spanish conjugation, Portuguese verb conjugation.)
According to de Melo it is not always possible to tell from the context whether the tense with refers to an anterior time or is merely a stylistic variation of an ordinary perfect passive. He contrasts the following two sentences, the first of which is made with and refers to a very recent time; the second is made with and may refer to a time earlier than the following verb but this is not certain (the speaker goes on to say that after sailing to Egypt he sailed round the most distant coasts, ):
In the following examples, both from the same scene, the meaning of the double perfect seems to be the same as an ordinary perfect:
Similarly, the following two examples use different tenses, although the context is very similar and the meaning is the same:
There is a difference, however, since only the form can be used in sentences like the following where the verb has a present perfect meaning:
In some cases, the perfect participle accompanied by is merely adjectival, and does not describe any particular event. Thus in the following example, according to the 19th-century grammarian Madvig, the words do not describe an event but the state in which the temple of Janus was in:
The perfect indicative with is not used by Cicero except in the following example, where the participles are adjectival. It refers to a previous situation which has now changed:
Often, especially from the Augustan period onwards, this tense had no particular anterior meaning but was a mere variation of the perfect passive with . De Melo cites the following example, where the second verb is obviously not anterior to the first:
In the Vulgate Bible (4th century A.D.), just as with Cicero, the perfect indicative with is only very rarely used compared with the other double tenses. An example is the following:
Here are some examples of Latin verbs with modal meaning (frequency, possibility, volition, obligation, atemporality) or verb forms determined by conjunctions.
The imperfect indicative generally has an imperfective meaning and describes situations in the past. Often the imperfect can be translated into English as "was doing", but sometimes the simple tense "did" or expressions such as "used to do", "would do", "kept doing", "began to do", "had been doing" are more appropriate.
The perfect passive is usually made with the perfect participle combined with , e.g. 'I was sent, I have been sent', 'I was led, I have been led'.
Some perfect tenses have an irregular stem, for example 'I am', 'I go', 'I bring, I bear', 'I raise, I remove'.
The Latin perfect has a dual meaning. It can describe a past event with a present result (e.g. "he has died (and is laying dead somewhere)") or a past event without a present result (e.g. "he died (last year)").
The perfect of , 'I have grown accustomed', is also often used with a present meaning:
As with the English perfect, the Latin perfect can sometimes be used to relate experiences which have happened several times in the past:
It can also be used with to describe what has always been the case:
Similar to this is the "gnomic perfect", which states a general truth based on past experience:
In sentences which mean "whenever X occurs, Y occurs", referring to general time, the perfect tense is used for event X if it precedes event Y. In English the present tense is often used:
The perfect tense is usually used in temporal clauses after 'after', 'when', 'as soon as', 'as soon as'. Here English often uses the pluperfect tense:
It is also used in a past-time relative clause referring to an anterior action where similarly English might use a pluperfect:
The perfect, not the imperfect, is used when a situation is said to have lasted in the past for a certain length of time, but is now over. (The imperfect, however, with a length of time, is used for a situation which was still going on at the time referred to; see the examples above.)
However, the phrase with the perfect tense means 'long ago':
In subordinate clauses of the type "whenever...", "whoever..." etc. in past time the pluperfect indicative is used if the event precedes the event of the main clause. Usually in English the simple past is used:
In later writers such as Livy, the pluperfect subjunctive is used in a similar context.
Sometimes in a conditional clause a pluperfect indicative can have the meaning of a potential pluperfect subjunctive ("would have"), when it refers to an event which very nearly took place, but did not:
In a conditional sentence this tense can mean "would have done":
This tense can also be potential, expressing the meaning "would have done":
An example of this tense is the following:
In indirect statements and questions, the active periphrastic future can represent a future or periphrastic future tense of direct speech in primary sequence. In this case there is not necessarily any idea of planning or intention, although there may be:
This tense can also be used in primary sequence reported speech, to represent the main clause in either an ideal conditional sentence or a simple future one (the distinction between these two disappears in indirect speech):
If the main verb is in past time, an imperfect version of the periphrastic future subjunctive is used:
It is also possible to form an imperfect periphrastic subjunctive with instead of (the first instance of this is in Sallust):
A perfect periphrastic subjunctive can be used with a conditional meaning ("would have done") in hypothetical conditional clauses in indirect questions in primary sequence. In this case it represents a pluperfect subjunctive in the original direct speech:
In an indirect question, the perfect periphrastic subjunctive can also sometimes reflect a potential imperfect subjunctive:
These tenses can be compared with the similar examples with the perfect periphrastic infinitive cited below, where a conditional sentence made in imperfect subjunctives is converted to an indirect statement.
The pluperfect version of the periphrastic subjunctive can be used in a circumstantial clause:
It can also be used in conditional sentences after , as in the following sentence from an imaginary letter from Helen to Paris:
Once in Cicero it occurs in the apodosis of an unreal conditional, referring to the inevitability of fate:
It can also reflect a potential pluperfect subjunctive ('would have done') in historic sequence in an indirect question:
The present infinitive is occasionally used in narrative as a tense in its own right. It usually describes a scene in which the same action was being done repeatedly. There are often two or more historic infinitives in succession. When the subject is expressed, it is in the nominative case (distinguishing the historic infinitive from the accusative and infinitive of reported speech).
The perfect tense with the infinitive can often mean 'I was able to' or 'I managed to':
However, it can also mean 'I could have done (but did not)':
The pluperfect subjunctive after also means 'could have':
"Ought to have done" is often expressed with a past tense of 'I have a duty to' or 'it is fitting' together with a present infinitive:
Sometimes, means 'it must be the case that...':
Sometimes, in familiar style, can be used with the perfect infinitive passive:
The indirect speech form is regularly with the present infinitive:
Indirect commands are made with two constructions: either (or ) with the present or imperfect subjunctive, or the accusative and infinitive construction, using the present infinitive. The latter construction is used especially when the main verb is 'I order' or 'I forbid', but also sometimes after 'I command':