# Unless I am mistaken, I have met you before



## Lamb67

Unless I am mistaken,I have met you before.

_Nisi fallor, ante te conveni._

_Comment please,thanks._


----------



## XiaoRoel

Mejor *ad/(apud) te* que *ante te*. Me parecen más elegantes las expresiones. No sé muy bien el porqué: es olfato. 
También usaría un *in hoc desum,* y no *fallor*.
Y el verbo en _futuro-pres. de subj_. (se funden en la 1ª persona): *conveniam*.
*Nisi in hoc desum, ad te conveniam.*


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

I don't understand why you are opting for a future to translate _I have met you _and  an intranitive construction with _convenio._
 In Lambd67's sentence I read _te_ as the direct object and _ante_ as an adverb with the same meaning as _antea :_
*Nisi in hoc desum , antea te conveni*.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Antea, en Cicerón, adverbio de tiempo se puede traducir como 'antes', 'hasta (el día de) hoy'. Con _quam_ forma la subjunción _anteaquam_, o la locución conjuntiva _antea_ _quam_. *Jamás se refiere a espacio, sino a tiempo.*
A _nivel espacial_ se usan _ad, ante y apud_, 'junto a' 'ante', 'delante de', 'en presencia de', 'al lado de'.
_No puede usarse aquí un pretérito perfecto, en el contexto temporal del presente imperfecto_. El _desum_, previo a la acción de _conuenio_, marca la obligación de un _futuro I_, o un _presente_ de indicativo o de subjuntivo _pro futuro_.


----------



## Lamb67

_Quote1: si non must be used if the verb is not repeated._ 

_Q2: Particular attention must be given to the difference between English and Latin in the tense used for the future open condition.English regularly uses the Present; Latin nearly always uses the Future Perfect, sometimes the Future, never the Present._

_Conclusion: Si falsus fuero non, antea te conveni or Si in hoc defuero non,antea te conveni._


----------



## XiaoRoel

Si es _fuero_ o _defuero_, y _no sum o desum_, entonces _sí se puede usar conueni_.


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> _Quote1: si non must be used if the verb is not repeated._


This statement is simply not true, as you shall see in the examples I give below from classical authors. I have learned a different distinction between _nisi_ and _si non_, which I will explain below in my recommendations.


Lamb67 said:


> _Q2: Particular attention must be given to the difference between English and Latin in the tense used for the future open condition. English regularly uses the Present; Latin nearly always uses the Future Perfect, sometimes the Future, never the Present._


This is correct, but does not apply to the present case. The "unless" clause in your English sentence presents a present condition NOT a future condition. It would make absolutely no sense to read it as a future condition with a main verb in the present perfect. 

The speaker is essentially saying the following: 

"I think I have met you before [today], but I may not be correct in thinking so." 

Thus, you must use a present in the Latin _nisi_ clause.


XiaoRoel said:


> Antea, en Cicerón, adverbio de tiempo se puede traducir como 'antes', 'hasta (el día de) hoy'. Con quam forma la subjunción anteaquam, o la locución conjuntiva antea quam. Jamás se refiere a espacio, sino a tiempo. A nivel espacial se usan ad, ante y apud, 'junto a' 'ante', 'delante de', 'en presencia de', 'al lado de'.


I think you are misreading the English sentence. For the true meaning, refer to my paraphrase above. 

In Lamb's original sentence "before" is temporal, not spatial, and thus should be translated as _antehac_. Lamb's orginal choice and placement of _ante_ was ill-advised because it made _ante_ seem to be a preposition when in fact he intended it to be an adverb.


XiaoRoel said:


> No puede usarse aquí un pretérito perfecto, en el contexto temporal del presente imperfecto. El desum, previo a la acción de conuenio, marca la obligación de un futuro I, o un presente de indicativo o de subjuntivo pro futuro.


My quote from Apuleius below proves that it is indeed possible to use a present perfect in the apodosis, with a present in the _nisi_ clause.


XiaoRoel said:


> También usaría un in hoc desum, y no fallor.


I do not understand your opposition to _fallor_, which was very common in classical literature in this sense, as my quotes below demonstrate: 

_Nisi forte fallor, feminas ferrum decet._ (Seneca)

_Iamque dies, nisi fallor, adest_ (Virgil)

_nisi fallor enim, his ipsis uerbis accusationem _
_mei ingressus est_ (Apuleius)
----
My recommendations:

_Nisi fallor, antehac obvius tibi fui._
Somewhat Lit. "If I do not deceive myself, I have been face-to-face with you before [this]."

(Note that _fallor_ is used in a middle, reflexive sense.)

Now for _si non_:

_Si non fallor, antehac obvius tibi fui._
Somewhat lit. "If I do NOT deceive myself, I have been face-to-face with you before [this]."

This sentence differs from the other in that the _non_ qualifies only the verb, not the entire clause. *The effect is the same as stressing "not" in English; it implies that most likely I AM deceiving myself.*
 ----
I am unsure about _convenio_ because I think it means "to meet" in the sense of "to come together" or "to assemble"--that is, it suggests planning. In this case, the English "meet" is equivalent to "to meet by chance [and thereby be introduced]"--it suggests a meeting that did not take place by plan. _Obvius_ may be used both when there is planning and when there is not. For an example of the latter, see:

_cuicumque est obvia_ (Juvenal)
"whomsoever she meets"

Then again, perhaps others will be able to come up with a still better suggestion for "meet." I myself might try to look into it a bit more when I have time.
----
You should have _antehac_ instead of _antea_ in this case, since the sentence is set in the present.


----------



## Lamb67

A fuller quote of my book is as followed:
The negative of si, if, is nisi,unless;but si...non,if...not can also be used; and si non must be used if the verb is not repeated.

It would be better if you can find some examples showing that'si...non' MUST be used provided that statement above 

is valid in the first place.And ' ...if the verb is not repeated.' is incomprensible here for me.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Starfrown said:


> You should have _antehac_ instead of _antea_ in this case, since the sentence is set in the present.


 
I have some misgivings about this opposition. The Charlton-T Lewis says _antehac_ is used only in reference to the present time, what does'nt mean it must be used ; as for _antea,_ it has a _relative _meaning and can be used whatever the time._ So antehac _is right, but I think _antea_ is much more used.

That given I quite agree with your comments. Opting for _obvius sum _is relevant to translate _to meet_ in this sentence , since  the Latin phrase matches _to_ _come across_. Maybe _convenio_ as well , but I admit I hav'nt got undubious examples. What about: "Romam rediens ab nuntio uxoris erat conventus" (T.Livius) or " Atilium sua manu spargentem semen convenerunt" (Cicero) ?


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> A fuller quote of my book is as followed:
> The negative of si, if, is nisi,unless;but si...non,if...not can also be used; and si non must be used if the verb is not repeated.
> 
> It would be better if you can find some examples showing that'si...non' MUST be used provided that statement above
> 
> is valid in the first place.And ' ...if the verb is not repeated.' is incomprensible here for me.


I assumed the author was talking about the verb in the _si_ clause.  Without knowing exactly what he meant, I don't think I can comment further.  Does your book give any examples to illustrate that statement?



J.F. de TROYES said:


> I have some misgivings about this opposition. The Charlton-T Lewis says _antehac_ is used only in reference to the present time, what does'nt mean it must be used ; as for _antea,_ it has a _relative _meaning and can be used whatever the time._ So antehac _is right, but I think _antea_ is much more used.


Yes, you're right.  _Antea_ may be used in reference to the present or past, so either _antea_ or _antehac_ would work in Lamb's sentence.


----------



## Lamb67

Si NON 's example to show a must-be-used case does not exist in my book.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

A  grammar points out that _si non_ is used when an opposition is expressed between an affirmative assumption and a negative one . So Latin says :
_Si confiteberis, tibi ignoscemus ; si non confiteberis, poenas dabis_ ( If you confess, you will be forgiven ; if not, you will be punished ), a sentence where the second _confiteberis_ can be dropped and I suppose this kind of sentence examples the case 'where the verb is not repeated',
 but :
_Nisi confiteberis, you will be punished._

So_ si non _is used when  an opposition has to be stressed .

Another reference grammar book says such a distinction is not always observed. The same writer, Cicero wrote _nisi molestum est_ in a text and _si tibi non est molestum_ in another ; C.Nepos _nisi ille fuisset_ and _si ille non fuisset_. _Si no_ was more and more used instead of _nisi _by Ovidius or Juvenalis. 
However if one wishes to write in a strict classical Latin, I think the best is to abide by the previous rule.


----------



## Starfrown

J.F. de TROYES said:


> A  grammar points out that _si non_ is used when an opposition is expressed between an affirmative assumption and a negative one . So Latin says :
> _Si confiteberis, tibi ignoscemus ; si non confiteberis, poenas dabis_ ( If you confess, you will be forgiven ; if not, you will be punished ), a sentence where the second _confiteberis_ can be dropped and I suppose this kind of sentence examples the case 'where the verb is not repeated',
> but :
> _Nisi confiteberis, you will be punished._
> 
> *So si non is used when  an opposition has to be stressed .*


Now I see what the author meant.

In other words, Lamb, if you wish to omit the verb in the second sentence JF provided, you would have to write:

_Si confiteberis, tibi ignoscemus ; si non, poenas dabis

_never:

_Si confiteberis, tibi ignoscemus ; nisi, poenas dabis_

(This rule of course does not apply at all to the sentence under consideration in this thread.)
----
I bolded and underlined the very important point that JF made above.  I'll also refer again to what I said in post #7:




Starfrown said:


> _Si non fallor, antehac obvius tibi fui._
> Somewhat lit. "If I do NOT deceive myself, I have been face-to-face with you before [this]."
> 
> This sentence differs from the other in that the _non_ qualifies only the verb, not the entire clause. *The effect is the same as stressing "not" in English; it implies that most likely I AM deceiving myself.*



This case is slightly different from the example JF gave because there is no sentence with _si fallor_ preceding it.  In such cases, what I have in bold above will hold.

You should note however, that, as JF pointed out, _si non_ does not have a strong contrastive reading in every case and is sometimes perfectly interchangeable with _nisi_.


----------

