grammar rationale?

[hlawson38]

Cicero, pro Sestio, ch. 50, first sentence

While I believe I have a satisfactory meaning for this sentence, I don't know how to explain the verb tenses/moods with respect to removeris, which I read as perfect subjunctive, videantur, which I read as present subjunctive, and the future active infinitive sensuri esse.

Context: Reviewing the political situation at present, Cicero asserts that there is no basic political conflict between the aristocrats and the masses of citizens. Political troubles result from discontented aristocrats who pack meetings with paid voters.

Nunc, nisi me fallit, in eo statu civitas est, ut, si operas conductorem removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.

Translation, Cicero speaking in his own voice:
Now, if I mistake not, the political situation is such that if you removed the work of these paid political operatives, the citizenry would most probably all develop the same political feelings.

[Hylander]

conductorem should be conductorum.

removeris is future perfect, not perfect subjunctive.

The ut clause is a result clause. It takes a subjunctive verb, videantur. Unlike a subordinate clause in indirect discourse or in a purpose clause, the si clause isn't part of mental processes attributed to someone other than the speaker or writer, and so the si clause doesn't require the subjunctive.

Instead, what we have here is a future condition. The apodosis is sensuri esse (or sensuri esse videantur). In a Latin future condition (unlike English), if the verb of the protasis happens before the verb of the apodosis, the verb of the protasis must be future perfect indicative, and the verb of the protasis will usually be future indicative. With videantur, the verb of the apodosis is a future infinitive, but it functions just like a future indicative in the apodosis of a future condition.

Literal translation: "Now, unless I'm mistaken, the state is in such a situation that if you get rid of the work of the political operatives, everyone seems to be going to have the same opinion regarding the republic."

Better: ". . . in such a situation that, if you get rid of the work of the political operatives, it seems that everyone is going to/will have the same opinion regarding the republic"

Or: ". . . in such a situation that it looks like/as if everyone will have the same opinion regarding the republic if you get rid of the work of the political operatives."

[Barry Hofstetter]

Note conductorum, not conductorem.

I'm wondering if this is simply a mixed condition, the equivalent of a future more vivid, but with the ut clause substituting for the expected apodosis?

[Hylander]

videantur is subjunctive because it is the verb of a result clause: in eo statu ... ut ...videantur.

[hlawson38]

Quoting the original for ease of reference:

Nunc, nisi me fallit, in eo statu civitas est, ut, si operas conductorum [spelling error corrected] removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.

Let me test my understanding of Hylander's analysis. I need to get this straight before reviewing the grammar. We have here a result clause:

omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.

And this result clause does double duty, as the apodosis of a future conditional sentence, the protasis being:

si operas conductorum removeris

My "conductorem" was a typing error which I failed to spot. Usually I cut-and-paste from Perseus, but this time I pecked it out.

On future perfect v. perfect subjunctive removeris: I attempted a reading with future perfect, but the grammar was beyond me.

[Hylander]

The apodosis is strictly speaking the future infinitive sensuri esse.

It's generally not a good idea to disturb Cicero's word order, but simply to show the levels of subordination:

ut omnes videantur

>>>>>idem de re publica sensuri esse

>>>>>>>>>>si operas conductorum removeris

(You have to get rid of the political operatives before everyone will think alike.)

If the conditional were not embedded in a result clause, Cicero might have written: Si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sentient. Si + future perfect, future indicative.

If Cicero wanted to make the result clause a more positive statement, without videantur, I suppose he might have written ut, si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri sint, using a periphrastic future subjunctive verb to complete the apodosis of the future conditional, where the apodosis is a result clause requiring a subjunctive.

As it is, he uses a periphrastic future infinitive in the apodosis, after videantur. In each of these cases, he needs a future tense verb, whether indicative, subjunctive or infinitive, to complete the apodosis of the future conditional.

[Barry Hofstetter]

The apodosis is strictly speaking the future infinitive sensuri esse.

This is where actual usage of the language by a skilled native speaker can defy our attempts to categorize it (and why grammars never in fact are able to tell the whole story, and academicians can continue to write scholarly articles). I think it's better view the entire clause as the apodosis, since sensuri esse is complementary to videantur. Mixed and partial conditions really are a thing in the language, and this is one example.

[Barry Hofstetter]

On future perfect v. perfect subjunctive removeris: I attempted a reading with future perfect, but the grammar was beyond me.

I'm sure you know this, but to be thorough the future or future perfect in the protasis of a future more vivid construction is translated in English as a present tense (because that's the way we do it in English).

[Hylander]

I think it's better view the entire clause as the apodosis, since sensuri esse is complementary to videantur.

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but logically the conditional is: "if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone will agree", not "if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone seems . . . " si removeris is subordinate to sensuri esse, not videatur. This is a straightforward future conditional (future more vivid, if you like).

[mwh]

Well put, Hylander (and it spares me the need to explain, as I was about to do). There’s no “mixed” or “partial”(?) condition here.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I think it's better view the entire clause as the apodosis, since sensuri esse is complementary to videantur.

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but logically the conditional is: "if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone will agree", not "if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone seems . . . " si removeris is subordinate to sensuri esse, not videatur. This is a straightforward future conditional (future more vivid, if you like).

True enough -- regardless of how the construction is conceptualized in our meta-language, the meaning and rendering of it remains the same. But the grammatical elephant in the room is the fact that you don't have a main verb for the apodosis outside of the ut clause, but within it, and that sensuri esse is not coordinate, but subordinate as a complementary infinitive. That means that yes, effectively the ut clause replaces the apodosis. So a mixed partial condition it is.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Ah, I think I see what you are arguing, that the protasis is itself in the result clause, that the entire conditional statement is so subordinated. Hmmm.... Okay, it we want to express it using the identical vocabulary as a straightforward future more vivid we would have:

si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sentire videbuntur...

Right? Wouldn't it be the main verb which would have to go into the future?

That makes sense, and it also means it's not a mixed condition. Since C. put into a result clause, the only way really to express the futurity is through the future active infinitive. Okay, I think I'm now on the same page.

[mwh]

Still not quite there Barry. I think what may be confusing you is the fact that the si clause is the protasis not of videantur, the main verb of the ut clause, but of the infinitive sensuri esse within that clause. There’s nothing particularly unusual about having an if-clause depend on an infinitive or a participle.

If it weren’t all in the result clause, it would simply be
si operas removeris, omnes idem sensuri esse videntur.
You could replace sensuri esse videntur with plain sentient, and the si clause would be subordinate to that:
si operas removeris, omnes idem sentient (= sensuri sunt ~ eandem sententiam habebunt).

Here’s an analogous pair of sentences:
Te amabo si me amaveris.
Videor te amaturus esse si me amaveris.
The si clause is not the protasis of videor.

I hope that clears it up. There’s no “mixed” condition, and no “partial” condition either (I don’t actually know what’s meant by that, but no matter).

[mwh]

Deleted.

[Barry Hofstetter]

A partial condition simply means that either protasis or apodosis is left unexpressed. Let me ask you this: what is videantur doing in the sentence? Why can't the protasis be taken with it? What is it about the syntax that leads you to say that it must be taken with sensuri esse?

[Hylander]

what is videantur doing in the sentence? Why can't the protasis be taken with it? What is it about the syntax that leads you to say that it must be taken with sensuri esse?

Think of the logic here.

The condition--the protasis--is getting rid of the machinations of the political operatives, si removeris. The state of affairs that will come about if the condition is satisfied--the apodosis--is: everyone will be in agreement, omnes idem sensuri.

removeris is future perfect; the apodosis must be an event/state of affairs that will occur after the protasis in the future, i.e., sensuri esse.

videantur qualifies the conditional si removeris . . . sensuri esse, signaling that it seems to be true. In English we would generally use an impersonal construction: "it appears that/looks like if you get rid of . . . then everyone will be in agreement." You could do something like this in Latin, too: ut, si removeris . . . , ut videtur, omnes sensuri sint. (This would be somewhat awkward in Latin because you would have to resort to the little used periphrastic future subjunctive.) But Latin idiom allows you to attach videantur to the subject of sensuri and make the apodosis of the conditional an infinitive complement of videantur. That is what is somewhat confusing to us Anglophones.

[mwh]

Barry, I can’t quite fathom what your continued difficulty with this is, after Hylander’s previous explanations. Take that pair of sentences I offered, “te amabo si me amaveris” and “videor te amaturus esse si me amaveris.” Do you not see that the if-clause does not apply to videor but to te amaturus esse?

Thanks for telling me what’s meant by a “partial condition”—either of two different things, apparently, which need to be distinguished from one another. If the apodosis is unexpressed, that’s just a grammatically incomplete sentence. The condition itself (the protasis) is not partial. If on the other hand the protasis is unexpressed, i.e. if there’s no if-clause, then we simply have a main clause, not a conditional. Perhaps you’re thinking of use of potential subjunctive, cf. English “I wouldn’t say that.” or "I wouldn't have thought so." In such cases we’re free to “understand” an if-clause, e.g. “if I were you” or whatever, but the syntax is complete without one. I suppose we could speak of a potential condition, but not a partial one. So in either case I don’t think the term has any real validity.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Barry, I can’t quite fathom what your continued difficulty with this is, after Hylander’s previous explanations. Take that pair of sentences I offered, “te amabo si me amaveris” and “videor te amaturus esse si me amaveris.” Do you not see that the if-clause does not apply to videor but to te amaturus esse?

Thanks for telling me what’s meant by a “partial condition”—either of two different things, apparently, which need to be distinguished from one another. If the apodosis is unexpressed, that’s just a grammatically incomplete sentence. The condition itself (the protasis) is not partial. If on the other hand the protasis is unexpressed, i.e. if there’s no if-clause, then we simply have a main clause, not a conditional. Perhaps you’re thinking of use of potential subjunctive, cf. English “I wouldn’t say that.” or "I wouldn't have thought so." In such cases we’re free to “understand” an if-clause, e.g. “if I were you” or whatever, but the syntax is complete without one. I suppose we could speak of a potential condition, but not a partial one. So in either case I don’t think the term has any real validity.

Well, to be honest, your opinion on the validity of the terminology is irrelevant. If you find it helpful, then good. If not, then disregard it, and find different metalanguage to discuss the phenomenon. Your and Hylander's explanations are clear and helpful in expressing your conceptualization of the grammar. What I find difficult is the presence of videantur. You and H. are treating as though it's a modal that is subordinate or supplementary to sensuri esse, whereas I see it as the main verb of the apodosis to which sensuri esse is complementary, and to which the protasis is actually subordinate. Cicero uses this language and construction for a reason, suggesting that a seeming possibility is not an actual possibility, and I think your approach somewhat lessens that emphasis. That's fine, however, and I'm ready to move on, but I very much appreciate the discussion.

[Hylander]

Sorry to prolong this, Barry, but I just think you're wrong about not only the syntactic structure but also the thrust of the sentence.

Syntactic structure: My view, and I think that of mwh, too, is not that videantur is subordinate to the conditional. The entire conditional is subordinate to videantur.

Meaning:

Cicero uses this language and construction for a reason, suggesting that a seeming possibility is not an actual possibility,

No, he's not suggesting that the seeming possibility is not an actual possibility. He's suggesting that the conditional appears in fact to be the case. With videantur he's admitting that he's speculating, but saying that from his perspective, the conditional appears to be true and valid.

You could translate videantur, without precisely following the Latin syntax word for word, as "apparently," or perhaps "it looks like."

"The state is in such a situation that, if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives, it looks like/apparently everyone will be in agreement regarding the republic."

"... that everyone appears to be going to be in agreement if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives."

[Barry Hofstetter]

Sorry to prolong this, Barry, but I just think you're wrong about not only the syntactic structure but also the thrust of the sentence.

Syntactic structure: My view, and I think that of mwh, too, is not that videantur is subordinate to the conditional. The entire conditional is subordinate to videantur.

Meaning:

Cicero uses this language and construction for a reason, suggesting that a seeming possibility is not an actual possibility,

No, he's not suggesting that the seeming possibility is not an actual possibility. He's suggesting that the conditional appears in fact to be the case. With videantur he's admitting that he's speculating, but saying that from his perspective, the conditional appears to be true and valid.

You could translate videantur, without precisely following the Latin syntax word for word, as "apparently," or perhaps "it looks like."

"The state is in such a situation that, if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives, it looks like/apparently everyone will be in agreement regarding the republic."

"... that everyone appears to be going to be in agreement if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives."

For now we'll have to "agree to disagree." At some time when I'm done with my current projects in the Catilinarian orations and Lucian, I may have another read through the Pro Sestio for a fresh look.

[Hylander]

Here is an explanation of videatur from Gildersleeve & Lodge, sec. 528:

https://archive.org/stream/gildersleeve ... 2/mode/2up

See especially Remark 2: "Videri is used, as a rule, personally".

Allen & Greenough, sec. 582, also addresses this, but not as clearly or as thoroughly:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

Since this construction is assimilated to indirect discourse, you could perhaps make a case that removeris is perfect subjunctive, representing -- and indistinguishable from -- future perfect indicative in direct discourse (contrary to what I stated above). I still think it's better to view removeris as future perfect, coming as it does at the beginning of the ut sequence, and setting up the expectation of a future "more vivid" conditional. Would Cicero have thought about this?

[Timothée]

Here’s Menge (2007³) on uideri.

[mwh]

6. “vidēmur enim quiētūrī fuisse, nisi essēmus lacessītī” (De Or. 2.230) , it seems that we should have kept quiet, if we had not been molested (we seem, etc.). [Direct: quiēssēmus ... nisi essēmus lacessītī.]

As with the hypothetical example that I offered, this example shows clearly that the condition applies not to videmur/videantur but to the dependent infinitive. Barry has no basis for disagreement.

As to removeris, Hylander, I found your initial justification of indicative unconvincing and do think it ought to be subjunctive as in indirect speech, but my Latin is not good enough to say whether fut.perf.indic. is represented by perf.subj. in primary indirect speech (there must surely be definitive comparanda, though), nor whether in this particular case it would have registered with a native reader as one or the other, given the coincidence of form.

So, hlawson38, it seems we’ve worked our way round to endorsing your original understanding of the sentence (rendering videantur by “most probably”; but your “removed” should be “remove” and “would” should be “will”). Little did you know you’d be stirring up a hornet’s nest.

[Hylander]

Allen & Greenough say this (sec. 484c):

c. Notice that the Future Perfect denotes action completed (at the time referred to), and hence is represented in the Subjunctive by the Perfect or Pluperfect:—

He shows that if they come (shall have come), many will perish, dēmōnstrat , sī vēnerint , multōs interitūrōs.
He showed that if they should come (should have come), many would perish, dēmōnstrāvit , sī vēnissent, multōs interitūrōs.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

But they don't give an example of real Latin.

See also Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax, p. 236 (again, no real examples):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 4;size=200

A real example from Livy 34.13.2-3:

legatosque ab suis missos rogare Hannibalem ut exercitum propius Tarentum admoueat: si signa eius, si castra conspecta a Tarento sint, haud ullam intercessuram moram quin <in deditionem ueniat> urbs; in potestate iuniorum plebem, in manu plebis rem Tarentinam esse.

Courtesy of Woodcock, p. 226.

Why am I wasting my time on this stuff on a Saturday afternoon?

[mwh]

when you could be reading West’s Odyssey. But that settles it, I think (but of course you may pronounce my opinion irrelevant ). Subjunctive it is. It’s what one would expect, after all.

[RandyGibbons]

Highlander wrote,

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference ...

Barry wrote,

True enough -- regardless of how the construction is conceptualized in our meta-language, the meaning and rendering of it remains the same.

While personally I don't think there's any question but that Highlander and mwh's analysis of the grammar is correct, Highlander and Barry, you seem in agreement - and I would agree - that it really doesn't matter, though, hlawson38, it seems to matter to you, and I want to understand your question. But please hold ...

Barry wrote,

the grammatical elephant in the room is ...

I don't think there's a grammatical elephant in the room. I think the elephant, or nuance, in this sentence, if any (Cicero wasn't trying to be obscure), is what Highlander points out, namely, that we English speakers balk at the personal use of videri, though as Greenough and Highlander point out, it's quite common in Latin. So how to translate it? Highlander suggests (converting to the impersonal form we're used to in English), " 'apparently,' or perhaps 'it looks like' ". I read it as more emphatic, "they are seen to be" meaning (converting to the impersonal again), "it is obvious/evident/clear/demonstrable that ...". What is Cicero's rhetorical strategy here? What do the following sentences in the speech suggest? That to me would be the more interesting thing to discuss/debate.

But to you, hlawson38, the grammatical analysis was important. But in re-reading your original post, it's not clear to me where your doubt was about the meaning of the sentence? Hopefully you weren't trying to analyze the sentence first grammatically and then determine its meaning?

If you start with a clean slate and re-read it, in order of its delivery, where does it or did it break down for you?

Nunc,
nisi me fallit,
in eo statu civitas est,
ut,
si operas conductorum removeris,
omnes idem de republica sensuri esse
videantur.


Randy Gibbons

[Hylander]

mwh: I think you're probably right that removeris is perfect subjunctive, not future perfect. At any rate, this is a textbook future conditional.

[RandyGibbons]

Would Cicero have known the difference (as Highlander also asked)?

mwh, you also ask whether it would have registered with a native reader as one or the other, given the coincidence of form. Not sure if we know whether or not there was a coincidence of form, see this 1988-1989 article Perfect Subjunctive and Future Perfect Paradigms by Rex Wallace: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571?Sea ... b_contents

[Timothée]

Randy, why on earth do you insist on abusing Hylander’s name?

[RandyGibbons]

Sorry, I don't insist on it, just an unconscious mistake. Sorry, Hylander!

[Hylander]

I took extreme offense at the indignity inflicted on my name and flew into a sputtering rage, especially since the -igh- spelling threw the stress back onto the first syllable, reducing the -a- vowel to a mere schwa (who wouldn't be outraged at that?), but I will magnanimously condescend to forgive Randy this time.

But seriously, the Wallace article apparently suggests that in the classical period, at least, on the evidence of poetry, both the perfect subjunctive and the future perfect fluctuated between long and short i, not that the two forms were distinguishable from one another by the quantity of the i.

[hlawson38]

Randy Gibbons wrote:

But to you, hlawson38, the grammatical analysis was important. But in re-reading your original post, it's not clear to me where your doubt was about the meaning of the sentence? Hopefully you weren't trying to analyze the sentence first grammatically and then determine its meaning?

Thanks for the question. I believed I had found a satisfactory meaning for the passage, but I could not find grammatical precepts with which the verb-forms in the sentence were consistent. Using google, I found a couple of old commentaries on this oration, but there were no grammatical comments on what was bothering me. So I concluded that if the grammar of this sentence is too elementary for commentary, then I need some help.

So I posted my judgments on these verb forms, and asked for help.

removeris bothered me because it could be future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive. I tried it as future-perfect, but in reviewing my note cards and grammar books I couldn't find a proper grammar match. I don't mean there is none, just that I couldn't find one.

So I decided to just think that subjunctive is there often for conter-factual ideas, and those political hirelings were definitely not removed. Then at the most general level for sequence-of-tense, in relation to main and subordinate clauses, I applied the sequence of tense rule like this:

videantur: verb of main clause, present passive subjunctive. In my mind, I translated this as "would be seen", rather that "would seem", because I reckon the latter in English is less definite.

removeris: subordinate-clause verb. Counterfactually it happened before videantur. For the primary sequence, the perfect subjunctive fits.

sensuri esse: future active infinitive, the complement of videantur, something that would be seen to be about to be happening. If the hirelings were taken away [but they were not], then observers would see everybody [omnes] beginning to think in similar ways about public issues.

This was my reasoning for the judgments on the verbs in my OP, but I didn't post my reasoning, just the conclusions about the verbs.

Let me add a last point. Somebody who wants to master a subject must learn a mass of precepts. That's where I am. But the master of a subject can speak cogently about which precept is appropriate in particular situations. That's where I'm heading, but I may be too old to get there before being gathered unto my ancestors.

[RandyGibbons]

Thanks, Hylander, for graciously letting me off the hook!

Thanks, hlawson38, for explaining your thought process. As for your "too old," though, I'll see your 'old' and raise you a few years (quite possibly decades), which is why my poor brain more and more frequently makes mistakes like thinking Hylander and writing Highlander!

Randy Gibbons

[Barry Hofstetter]

Interesting question about whether or not Cicero really would have thought of the difference. That Romans could get passionate about grammar put me in mind of the following from Attic Nights:

DEFESSUS ego quondam diutina commentatione laxandi levandique animi gratia in Agrippae campo deambulabam. Atque ibi duos forte grammaticos conspicatus non parvi in urbe Roma nominis, certationi eorum acerrimae adfui, cum alter in casu vocativo “vir egregi” dicendum contenderet, alter “vir egregie.”

[2] Ratio autem eius, qui “egregi” oportere dici censebat, huiuscemodi fuit: “Quaecumque,” inquit,“nomina seu vocabula recto casu numero singulari 'us' syllaba finiuntur, in quibus ante ultimam syllabam posita est i littera, ea omnia casu vocativo i littera terminantur, ut 'Caelius Caeli, ''modiusmodi,' tertius terti,''Accius Acci,''Titius Titi' et similia omnia; sic igitur ' egregius,' quoniam 'us' syllaba in casu nominandi finitur eamque syllabam praecedit i littera, habere debebit in casu vocandi i litteram extremam et idcirco 'egregi, 'non 'egregie,' rectius dicetur. Nam 'divus' et 'rivus' et 'clivus' non 'us' syllaba terminantur, sed ea quae per duo u scribenda est, propter cuius syllabae sonum declarandum reperta erat nova littera, quae 'digamma' appellabatur.” [3] Hoc ubi ille alter audivit, “O,” inquit, “egregie grammatice vel, si id mavis, egregissime, die, oro te, 'inscius' et 'impius' et 'sobrius' et 'ebrius' et 'proprius' et 'propitius' et 'anxius' et 'contrarius,' quae ' us' syllaba finiuntur, in quibus ante ultimam syllabam i littera est, quem casum vocandi habent? Me enim pudor et verecundia tenent, pronuntiare ea secundum tuam definitionem.” [4] Sed cum ille paulisper oppositu horum vocabulorum commotus reticuisset et mox tamen se conlegisset eandemque illam quam definierat regulam retineret [p. 42] et propugnaret diceretque et “proprium” et “propitium” et “anxium” et “contrarium” itidem in casu vocativo dicendum, ut “adversarius” et “extrarius” diceretur; “inscium” quoque et “impium” et “ebrium” et “sobrium” insolentius quidem paulo, sed rectius per i litteram, non per e, in eodem casu pronuntiandum, eaque inter eos contentio longius duceretur, non arbitratus ego operae pretium esse eadem istaec diutius audire, clamantes conpugnantesque illos reliqui.

[Barry Hofstetter]

6. “vidēmur enim quiētūrī fuisse, nisi essēmus lacessītī” (De Or. 2.230) , it seems that we should have kept quiet, if we had not been molested (we seem, etc.). [Direct: quiēssēmus ... nisi essēmus lacessītī.]

As with the hypothetical example that I offered, this example shows clearly that the condition applies not to videmur/videantur but to the dependent infinitive. Barry has no basis for disagreement.

That does seem to be a very clear example, and thanks for providing it.

As for Highlander/Hylander, "There can only be one!"

[hlawson38]

So, hlawson38, it seems we’ve worked our way round to endorsing your original understanding of the sentence (rendering videantur by “most probably”; but your “removed” should be “remove” and “would” should be “will”). Little did you know you’d be stirring up a hornet’s nest.

Thank you for the translation notes, mwh. I feel flattered that a passage, difficult for me, attracted the careful attention of those whose skills are so much greater than my own.

Hugh