# If you were to ask this man, there is no doubt that he would



## Lamb67

If you were to ask this man,there is no doubt that he would forbid you to go.

_Si hunc hominem roges,non est dubium quin te ire vetet._

_Comment please, thanks._


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Lamb67 said:


> If you were to ask this man,there is no doubt that he would forbid you to go.
> 
> _Si hunc hominem roges,non est dubium quin te ire vetet._
> 
> _Comment please, thanks._


 
Si *forte*  hunc virum roges (rogares), non est dubium quin te ire vetet (vetaret)_._

_Forte_ is added to translate _were to._


----------



## Lamb67

Si *forte* hunc virum roges, non est dubium quin te ire vetet_ MIGHT mean as followed:_


There is no doubt that he would forbid you to go in the hope of asking that man,which means nothing.

Si forte with the subjunctive almost expresses a purpose,= in the hope that, on the chance that.

Note that when there is a should or would in the English main clause,there must be a subjunctive in both clauses in Latin, *a present subjunctive if the reference is to future time*,imperfect if to present time,and pluperfect or impefect if to past time

Note also that in English _if he were to do it_ refers to the future,but_ if he were doing it_ refers to the present

After reading above, it is clear that _Si hunc hominem roges,non est dubium quin te ire vetet is best._


----------



## Cagey

A model from classical Latin:At _si forte roges_ fecundam Amathunta metallis,
an genuisse velit Propoetidas, abnuat ....

If by chance you should ask Amathus, rich in metals,
whether she wishes to [is glad to] have given birth to the Propoetides, she would deny it ....​Ovid's Metamorphosis, Book X, lines 220-21.
(Text: Latin Library.)​


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Lamb67 said:


> Si forte with the subjunctive almost expresses a purpose,= in the hope that, on the chance that.


 
I beg to differ . Have you got an example with this meaning? I think the adverb _forte_ just means_ by chance ,_ as Cagey says in his post.



> Note that when there is a should or would in the English main clause,there must be a subjunctive in both clauses in Latin, *a present subjunctive if the reference is to future time*,imperfect if to present time,and pluperfect or impefect if to past time


 
In Classical Latin the present subjunctive is used when the assumption can be fulfilled (potential) , the imperfect, if not (unreal). That's why I am wondering what tense to use in this sentence for lack of context.



> Note also that in English _if he were to do it_ refers to the future,but_ if he were doing it_ refers to the present


 
I am not a native, a you know, and I admit I can misunderstand the sentence.Yet after having looking up in a grammar, I think the phrase_ If you were to _places emphasis on an improbable assumption : the person is unlikely to have the opportunity to ask this question. If so, adding _forte_ seems to me not quite necessary, but adequate to the meaning.


----------



## Lamb67

Usage: _Were,_ as a remnant of the past subjunctive in English, is used in formal contexts in clauses expressing hypotheses (_if he were to die, she would inherit everything_), suppositions contrary to fact (_if I were you, I would be careful_), and desire (_I wish he were there now_). In informal speech, however, _was_ is often used instead.--- *thefreedictionary.com* under*'WERE*'.

_Progrediebantur si forte cum sociis se coniungerent._

They advanced in the hope of joining forces with their allies.


----------



## Lamb67

Here is a brief or summary from my book,The Clarendon LATIN COURSE first published 1931.
*case 1* When the condition(or if-clause) is an open one, i.e when nothing is suggested as to its impossiblity or improbability, the Indicative is used in both clauses in Latin.

*case 2*.When it is implied that a future condition is not likely to be fullfilled,the Present Subjunctive is used in both clauses.

*case 3.*When it is implied that a present or past condition is unfullfilled or contrary to fact, the Impefect or Pluperfect Subjunctive is used in both clauses, or the Imperfect in the main clauses and the Pluperfect in the subordinate.


----------



## Cagey

Do you mean that you interpret the sentence you are translating as describing an impossible situation?  That it would be impossible to ask the man?

On the other hand, I don't see how you can describe Ovid's _si forte_ _roges_ as describing a possible situation.   Surely it is not possible to ask the town of Amanthus whether it was glad to have given birth to the Propoetides.

My point is:1) Hypothetical situations may be more or less likely, but they do use the subjunctive in Latin.
2) While _forte_ is not required, it is certainly permissible in this construction.​As to the interpretation of "_If you were_ ....": It would be helpful to know when the book you are using was written.  At different times, there have been different conventions as to how conditionals were represented in Latin grammar books.  

At present, conditions using the present subjunctive are commonly referred to as "should / would" conditions. These are the auxiliaries textbooks use to indicate that structure.  

However, Gildersleeve's _Latin Grammar,_ last revised in 1895, includes "_If you were to ...._" as a translation for this form of conditional.

Texts written between these two times vary in their use of auxiliaries. ​


----------



## Lamb67

A closer look at the my book, it says that it was corrected in 1953.

Anyway probabaly both imperfect subjunctive(...rogares...vetares.) as in* case 3* and present subjuncitve(...roges...vetes.) as* in case 2* are right here.

'Were to' implies both present and future improbability.However it could lean on the future one.

Please examine my thoughts, thanks.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Lamb67 said:


> A closer look at the my book, it says that it was corrected in 1953.
> 
> Anyway probabaly both imperfect subjunctive(...rogares...vetares.) as in* case 3* and present subjuncitve(...roges...vetes.) as* in case 2* are right here.
> 
> 'Were to' implies both present and future improbability.However it could lean on the future one.
> 
> Please examine my thoughts, thanks.


 
I do think so.  Choosing between present and imperfect subjunctive is possible only if we can answer the question whether he is really able to ask this man ( Is it possible  to meet him at the present time or in the future, is there an opportunity to speak to him...? ) and this information needs a context.
Here are two examples from a grammar :
_Cras si pecuniam habeam, tibi dem _
To-morrow if I had money , I would give you some. ( Perhaps I'll have money)

_Hodie si pecuniam haberem, tibi darem_
To-day if I had money , I would give you some. ( I have no money)

Without these adverbs , both tenses are possible, but they don't mean the same : _Cras si pecuniam haberem, tibi darem_ is possibleand implies I'll have no money.


----------



## XiaoRoel

La *diferencia* está en que el *presente de subjuntivo* introduce la noción de "*posible*" (como el _perfecto_) mientras el *imperfecto* introduce la noción de "*irreal*" (como el _pluscuamperfecto_). En plano de lo _real_, de lo narrado como cierto, de la asertividad, se usan los tiempos del _indicativo_. El *uso de los modos no* se puede considerar un fenómeno de _consecutio temporum_.


----------



## Cagey

My try at translating XiaoRoel's post into English.   I trust that he or anyone else will feel free to correct any errors.The difference is that the present subjunctive introduces the notion of "possible" (as does the _perfect subjunctive_), while the imperfect introduces the notion of "unreal" (as does the _pluperfect_).  On the level of the _real_, of the narrative as certain, of the assertive, the tenses of the _indicative_ are used.  The use of the modes cannot be considered a phenomenon of the _sequence of tenses_.​


----------



## XiaoRoel

Gracias por la traducción que creo está perfecta.


----------

