# Consecutio temporum



## dylanG3893

C'è un tempo per il congiuntivo del futuro e del condizionale? Dovrei lasciare solo il tempo del verbo, come in una frase come questo:

"Penso che cambierà...". o
"Penso che cambierebbe (se)..."

Corretto o scorretto? C'è un congiuntivo qui?
Grazie a tutti in anticipo.


----------



## Flaviano Martello

Short answer: no there is no future subjunctive in Italian, nor is there a subjunctive conditional. 

Think about it this way: the future has not occured, so it is "unreal"; in the same way, the conditional is "unreal" because it depends on some condition being fulfilled; and of course the subjunctive is "unreal" because its primary function is to indicate that the event being reported is not certain (is a feeling, an opinion, a possibility etc.)

As I understand it, when you use the present subjunctive, it can, like any ordinary present, also have a 'future' meaning

Credo che venga  = I think he's coming OR I think he will come.

Even in English the future can be expressed by the present tense form.

However, you may want to be explicit about the future time. In that case, in Italian just as in English you may use the future tense:

Credo che verrà = I think he will come.

There is no future subjunctive; you use the future indicative even though it follows pensare che, which only demands a subjunctive _when there is one to use. 

_Likewise, when you are using a conditional in a clause introduced by a verb which ordinarily demands a subjunctive, you really can't do anything but use the conditional. There's no subjunctive of the conditional.

However, the rules for tenses in if-then clauses introduced by verbs requiring the subjunctive are complicated and I think I should allow the natives to explain that. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## virgilio

Flaviano,
            As the so-called 'conditional' tense gradually assumed some of the functions of the imperfect subjunctive in medieval Italian, would it not be more appropriate to replace it with the imperfect subjunctive in clauses dependent on verbs like "pensare"?
Would it not be correct for example to say:
"Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
I thought that it would be better, if nothing were said about it.

I am not asking, of course, whether such a sentence would be modern or trendy or modish but rather whether it would be correct.

Thank uou
Virgilio


----------



## Flaviano Martello

virgilio said:


> Flaviano,
> As the so-called 'conditional' tense gradually assumed some of the functions of the imperfect subjunctive in medieval Italian, would it not be more appropriate to replace it with the imperfect subjunctive in clauses dependent on verbs like "pensare"?
> Would it not be correct for example to say:
> "Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
> I thought that it would be better, if nothing were said about it.
> 
> I am not asking, of course, whether such a sentence would be modern or trendy or modish but rather whether it would be correct.
> 
> Thank uou
> Virgilio



Virgilio,

To be honest I do not know the answer. It is precisely this sort of thing that I am uncertain about. I hope the natives can help us.


----------



## cscarfo

virgilio said:


> Flaviano,
> As the so-called 'conditional' tense gradually assumed some of the functions of the imperfect subjunctive in medieval Italian, would it not be more appropriate to replace it with the imperfect subjunctive in clauses dependent on verbs like "pensare"?
> Would it not be correct for example to say:
> "Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
> I thought that it would be better, if nothing were said about it.
> 
> I am not asking, of course, whether such a sentence would be modern or trendy or modish but rather whether it would be correct.
> 
> Thank uou
> Virgilio




Consecutio temporis is such a pain in the neck.

I think the sentence is correct, but to be *really pedantic*, I would add that:
"Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne *fosse detto* nulla" is even more correct, because, out of context, in your sentence, it is not clear if the action happened in the past.

Think of the phrase "Pensavo... che sia meglio, se non se ne dica nulla"
Here "Pensavo" means "I'm considering" and has a present meaning.
If I change "sia" in "fosse" and "dica" in "dicesse", I stress my uncertainty, but the action is present.
But on second thought, this sentence is not really correct, "Pensavo che sarebbe meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla" is better.
Ciao


----------



## Nicholas the Italian

cscarfo said:


> Consecutio temporis is such a pain in the neck.


Consecutio temp*orum*  (II decl gen pl?)

"Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
A me suona decisamente sbagliata.

"Pensoo che sarebbe meglio non parlarne"
"Pensavo che fosse meglio non parlarne"
"Penso che sarebbe meglio se non se ne parlasse"
"Pensavo che sarebbe stato meglio se non se ne fosse parlato"

Edit: su Google si trova anche "consecutio temporis", ma è più diffusa "-orum" e a me hanno insegnato questa... boh?


----------



## dylanG3893

Grazie mille a tutti!
La mia domanda è stata risposto conformemente!

Ciao!


----------



## oetzi

virgilio said:


> Flaviano,
> As the so-called 'conditional' _tense_ gradually assumed some of the functions of the imperfect subjunctive in medieval Italian, would it not be more appropriate to replace it with the imperfect subjunctive in clauses dependent on verbs like "pensare"?
> Would it not be correct for example to say:
> "Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
> I thought that it would be better, if nothing were said about it.
> 
> I am not asking, of course, whether such a sentence would be modern or trendy or modish but rather whether it would be correct.
> 
> Thank uou
> Virgilio


 

Firstly, the 'conditional' is not a _tense_, but a _mode_.
_Tenses_ are present, future, imperfect, and so on.
_Modes_ are indicative, conditional, subjunctive, imperative, infinitive (though I know that you are convinced that infinitive is not a verb ...).

If you are not aware of what you are talking about, you will hardly go anywhere.

Then, the use of one tense or another in a sentence like the one you suggest depends strictly on the time in which the various actions take place, exactly as it happens in English (though the rules may differ).

The sentence you wrote is _by all means wrong_, because there is no *'consecutio temporum'*, as Virgilio and Cicerone would have said.

If you say: "Pensavo che _fosse_ meglio", you are locating the main action in the past, since _fosse_ is an _imperfect_ subjunctive; therefore,you *cannot* use _'dicesse' _in the subordinate, since it's a _present_ conditional: you *must* say "se non se ne _fosse detto_ nulla".

Otherwise, you might say "Pensavo che _sarebbe_ meglio, se non se ne _dicesse_ nulla": now you are locating the main action _in the present_ (_'sarebbe'_ is a present subjunctive), so you can use _'dicesse'_.

Usually, grammar rules are not subject to personal interpretation or to fashion, fortunately (though someone may happen to think so sometimes, or they may appear to be when used improperly), but they are rather fixed, at least in the medium range.


----------



## Flaviano Martello

Yes, sequence of tenses and the subjunctive at once ... it's enough to make you cry.

Which of these is a possible translation of 

It seems to me that if I can, I'm buying (= will buy) the book today

?

Mi sembra che se posso, compro il libro oggi.
Mi sembra che se posso,  compra il libro oggi (io)
Mi sembra che se possa (io), compro il libro oggi.
Mi sembra che se possa (io), compra il libro oggi (io).
Mi sembra che se potrò, comprò il libro oggi.
Mi sembra che se posso, comprò il libro oggi.
Mi sembra che se possa (io), comprò il libro oggi. 
Mi sembra che se potrò, compra il libro oggi (io). 
 
How about

It seems to me that if I could (= were to be able to), I would buy all the books.

Mi sembra che se potessi (io), comprerei tutti i libri.
Mi sembra che se potessi (io), compra tutti i libri (io). 

Or: 
 
It seemed to me that if I could have (= had been able to), I would have bought the book yesterday.

Mi sembravo che se avessi potuto (io), avrei comprato ieri il libro.
Mi sembravo che se avessi potuto (io), comprassi ieri il libro (io). 

This is SO confusing!! The first sentence of each group is supposed to be correct, I think, if the if-then clause stands alone. I want to know if the facts change when the if-then clause is subordinated under a verb that requires a subjunctive.

Un grazie anticipato


----------



## dylanG3893

Flaviano I think 'Grazie' is plural of 'Grazia'.


----------



## oetzi

It IS *definitely* confusing, mainly because I could never imagine to pronounce such weird sentences!!

What's the use and the meaning of saying "Mi sembra che se posso (o se potro') ..." ? It complete nonsense!

You would simply say "If I can, I'll buy that book" or "I think I'll buy that book". 
I've never dreamed of saying "It seems that if I can I'll buy that book", not even in my worst nightmares !!

If you want to catch the sense of some rule, try to use some simple and meaningful sentence!


----------



## cscarfo

Nicholas the Italian said:


> Consecutio temp*orum*  (II decl gen pl?)
> 
> "Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne dicesse nulla"
> A me suona decisamente sbagliata.
> 
> "Pensoo che sarebbe meglio non parlarne"
> "Pensavo che fosse meglio non parlarne"
> "Penso che sarebbe meglio se non se ne parlasse"
> "Pensavo che sarebbe stato meglio se non se ne fosse parlato"
> 
> Edit: su Google si trova anche "consecutio temporis", ma è più diffusa "-orum" e a me hanno insegnato questa... boh?




Consecutio temporis (II decl. gen. sing.) but you can use temporum too. We are both correct.

Let's add some context:
1) "Passavano gli anni, ma continuavo a pensare a quel fatto increscioso. Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne *dicesse* più nulla". I'd prefer "*fosse detto*", but I fear that in Manzoni we might find dicesse too.

2) "Guarda, non so proprio... Pensavo (penso/sto pensando), sai.. che fosse meglio...., se non se ne dicesse nulla". I must correct myself. It still has a past meaning and is WRONG.
"Pensavo (penso/sto pensando) che *sia/sarebbe* meglio, se (o che) non se ne *dica/dicesse* nulla.
Other thoughts?
Ciao


----------



## Flaviano Martello

oetzi said:


> It IS definetly confusing, mainly because I could never imagine to pronounce such weird sentences!!
> 
> What's the use and the meaning of saying "Mi sembra che se posso (o se potro') ..." ? It complete nonsense!
> 
> You would simply say "If I can, I'll buy that book" or "I think I'll buy that book".
> I've never dreamed of saying "It seems that if I can I'll buy that book", not even in my worst nightmares !!
> 
> If you want to catch the sense of some rule, try to use some simple and meaningful sentence!



The sentences I am trying to translate are not nonsense at all. They are simply the sort of sentences that would require specialized contexts of use. The rules of grammar should apply equally well to such sentences as to any others. But, I will rewrite all examples to be pragmatically more natural so as not to overly  tax anyone's powers of thinking.

Maybe these sentences will seem less awkward and more usable.

I have the impression that if they can, they will buy the car today.

Ho l'impressione che se possono, comprano la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se possono  comprino la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se possano, comprano la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se possano, comprino la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se potranno, compreranno la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se possono, compreranno la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se potranno, comprano la macchina oggi.
Ho l'impressione che se potranno, comprino la macchina oggi.


----------



## dylanG3893

The third one seems better in my eyes, but I'm not a native, so...


----------



## oetzi

N. 5 and n. 6 are correct.
N. 1 is not formally correct, but is used in informal conversation.
All others are wrong.

Of course the rules of grammar should apply to all sentences, but if you try to apply them to constructions you'll never use in your life, you're only making your life harder than necessary ...  That's all I meant. And, I can assure you, you would _never_ say sentences like those in the previous post, in Italian (and I think in English, as well...).
These ones are more realistic!


----------



## Flaviano Martello

Here are the others:

I have the impression that if they could, they would buy all the books in the shop.

Ho l'impressione che se potessero, comprarebbero tutti i libri nel negozio.
Ho l'impressione che se potessero, comprino tutti i libri i libri nel negozio.

Or: 

I had the impression that if they could have, they would have bought all the books in the shop.
 
Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, avrebbero comprato tutti i libri nel negozio.
Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, comprassero tutti i libri nel negozio.
Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, avessero comprato tutti i libri nel negozio.


----------



## dylanG3893

oetzi said:


> N. 5 and n. 6 are correct.
> N. 1 is not formally correct, but is used in informal conversation.
> All others are wrong.
> 
> Of course the rules of grammar should apply to all sentences, but if you try to apply them to constructions you'll never use in your life, you're only making your life harder than necessary ...  That's all I meant. And, I can assure you, you would _never_ say sentences like those in the previous post, in Italian (and I think in English, as well...).
> These ones are more realistic!



You're right, oetzi. The "It seems to me that if..." is rarely heard today.
And, just a quick question: where did you get your username "oetzi" from, is it your name, because I've heard it before somewhere...


----------



## Flaviano Martello

oetzi said:


> N. 5 and n. 6 are correct.
> N. 1 is not formally correct, but is used in informal conversation.
> All others are wrong.
> 
> Of course the rules of grammar should apply to all sentences, but if you try to apply them to constructions you'll never use in your life, you're only making your life harder than necessary ...  That's all I meant. And, I can assure you, you would _never_ say sentences like those in the previous post, in Italian (and I think in English, as well...).
> These ones are more realistic!



Thanks very much!! 
That is what I thought, in fact, I just wanted to make sure!
Sometimes when grammar books do not mention something, you don't know if it is because it is too complicated, so they haven't considered including it, or if there's nothing special going on. That's why we need to have this forum to get help. Thank you!!


----------



## cscarfo

Flaviano Martello said:


> The sentences I am trying to translate are not nonsense at all. They are simply the sort of sentences that would require specialized contexts of use. The rules of grammar should apply equally well to such sentences as to any others. But, I will rewrite all examples to be pragmatically more natural so as not to overly  tax anyone's powers of thinking.
> 
> Maybe these sentences will seem less awkward and more usable.
> 
> I have the impression that if they can, they will buy the car today.
> 
> Ho l'impressione che se possono, comprano la macchina oggi. *OK*
> Ho l'impressione che se possono  comprino la macchina oggi. *OK*
> Ho l'impressione che se possano, comprano la macchina oggi. *NO*
> Ho l'impressione che se possano, comprino la macchina oggi. *NO*
> Ho l'impressione che se potranno, compreranno la macchina oggi. *OK*
> Ho l'impressione che se possono, compreranno la macchina oggi. *Very good*
> Ho l'impressione che se potranno, comprano la macchina oggi. *NO*
> Ho l'impressione che se potranno, comprino la macchina oggi. *NO
> 
> *The NO sentences send shivers down my spine, especially the last one.
> Ciao


----------



## oetzi

You're quite welcome ! 

As to cscarfo's reply: Beware, N.2 is DEFINITELY wrong!
N. 6 is certainly the best choice.
bye


----------



## Flaviano Martello

Hmm, we have one yes vote and one no vote for the following:

Ho l'impressione che se possono  comprino la macchina oggi. *OK

*All right everybody -- duke it out! (American slang for 'start fighting') ...


----------



## cscarfo

oetzi said:


> You're quite welcome !
> 
> As to cscarfo's reply: Beware, N.2 is DEFINITELY wrong!
> N. 6 is certainly the best choice.
> bye




I beg to differ.

"Ho l'impressione (...) che comprino la macchina oggi" is, IMHO, what grammar books recommend
"Ho l'impressione (...) che compreranno la macchina oggi" is correct and more assertive
"Ho l'impressione (...) che comprano la macchina oggi" is WRONG but (alas)
 widely used.
Ciao


----------



## dylanG3893

Quick tip - In English, we use No. instead of N. for number.


----------



## giovannino

I don't know whether the other native speakers will agree but I _have the impression _that using the present subjunctive or the future after a verb of opinion may, at least in some cases, have quite different meanings.

Take:

_Penso che partano domani_

vs

_Penso che partiranno domani_

I would use the former if I know they've already bought their train tickets. I'm just not sure when exactly their train leaves but I think it's tomorrow.

I would use the latter if something leads me to guess that they will decide to leave tomorrow

I'm not sure I've explained this clearly but I definitely think I would use the two tenses in different situations.


----------



## Flaviano Martello

cscarfo said:


> Let's add some context:
> 1) "Passavano gli anni, ma continuavo a pensare a quel fatto increscioso. Pensavo che fosse meglio, se non se ne *dicesse* più nulla". I'd prefer "*fosse detto*", but I fear that in Manzoni we might find dicesse too.
> 
> 2) "Guarda, non so proprio... Pensavo (penso/sto pensando), sai.. che fosse meglio...., se non se ne dicesse nulla". I must correct myself. It still has a past meaning and is WRONG.
> "Pensavo (penso/sto pensando) che *sia/sarebbe* meglio, se (o che) non se ne *dica/dicesse* nulla.
> Other thoughts?
> Ciao



I am still trying to understand this, so please be patient with me.

Penso che sia meglio, se non se ne dica nulla

is possible?

If that is so, why is

Ho l'impressione che comprino la macchina se possano (vs. possono)

not OK (see earlier posts)?

It would mean: "I have the impression that they will buy the car if (as seems improbable) they should be able to"


----------



## cscarfo

giovannino said:


> I don't know whether the other native speakers will agree but I _have the impression _that using the present subjunctive or the future after a verb of opinion may, at least in some cases, have quite different meanings.
> 
> Take:
> 
> _Penso che partano domani_
> 
> vs
> 
> _Penso che partiranno domani_
> 
> I would use the former if I know they've already bought their train tickets. I'm just not sure when exactly their train leaves but I think it's tomorrow.
> 
> I would use the latter if something leads me to guess that they will decide to leave tomorrow
> 
> I'm not sure I've explained this clearly but I definitely think I would use the two tenses in different situations.



Yes, I agree. I think that without a context, it is difficult to explain.
For instance:
"Penso che partano domani, perché ho visto la loro macchina dal meccanico": I cannot infer that the car is broken, so I guess.

"Penso proprio che partiranno domani, perché oggi c'è sciopero". The strike is a real problem, they cannot leave.
Ciao


----------



## giovannino

Flaviano Martello said:


> Here are the others:
> 
> I have the impression that if they could, they would buy all the books in the shop.
> 
> Ho l'impressione che se potessero, comprerebbero tutti i libri nel negozio.
> Ho l'impressione che se potessero, comprino tutti i libri i libri nel negozio.
> 
> Or:
> 
> I had the impression that if they could have, they would have bought all the books in the shop.
> 
> Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, avrebbero comprato tutti i libri nel negozio.
> Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, comprassero tutti i libri nel negozio.
> Avevo l'impressione che se avessero potuto, avessero comprato tutti i libri nel negozio.


 
As for Ho l'impressione che comprino la macchina se possano I'm afraid I can't explain why in terms of "rules" but it certainly sounds totally wrong to my ears. I would say "ho l'impressione che se possono compreranno la macchina"


----------



## Flaviano Martello

Thanks very much, giovannino!


----------



## virgilio

oetzi,
       Thank you for your reply to my query. However, although I am reluctant to do so, I fear I must disagree with you on the following:

" If you say: "Pensavo che _fosse_ meglio", you are locating the main action in the past, since _fosse_ is an _imperfect_ subjunctive; therefore,you *cannot*_'dicesse' _in the subordinate, since it's a _present_ conditional use : you *must* say "se non se ne _fosse detto_ nulla".

Otherwise, you might say "Pensavo che _sarebbe_ meglio, se non se ne _dicesse_ nulla": now you are locating the main action _in the present_ (_'sarebbe'_ is a present subjunctive), so you can use _'dicesse'_.

I mean no disrespect to you, sir, but I would be interested to know whether the sections which I have underlined above would be defended as correct by other native Italian speakers.
I suspect that the whole thing is a simple matter of nomenclature really.
Incidentally both Cicerone and Virgilio (along with Ovidio Nasone) are two of my favourite authors but I can't remember seeing the phrase "consecutio temporum" in either. I would be grateful for any references to their works where I might find this phrase, so as to complete my education.
Thank you.
With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NicholasTheItalian,
                         Re your "Consecutio temp*orum*  (II decl gen pl?)" Stavo per dire "No. "temporum" (III decl gen pl)" ma dopo aver letto qualche messaggio qui (non mi riferisco al tuo, s'intende) comincio a domandarmi se anche le declinazioni dei sostantivi latini siano standardizzate per tutta l'UE.
  Comunque da noi in Inghilterra quel sostantivo "tempus, temporis" viene categorizzato terza declinazione (neutro).

Best wishes

Virgilio


----------



## cscarfo

virgilio said:


> oetzi,
> Thank you for your reply to my query. However, although I am reluctant to do so, I fear I must disagree with you on the following:
> 
> " If you say: "Pensavo che _fosse_ meglio", you are locating the main action in the past, since _fosse_ is an _imperfect_ subjunctive; therefore,you *cannot*_'dicesse' _in the subordinate, since it's a _present_ conditional use : you *must* say "se non se ne _fosse detto_ nulla".
> 
> Otherwise, you might say "Pensavo che _sarebbe_ meglio, se non se ne _dicesse_ nulla": now you are locating the main action _in the present_ (_'sarebbe'_ is a present subjunctive), so you can use _'dicesse'_.
> 
> I mean no disrespect to you, sir, but I would be interested to know whether the sections which I have underlined above would be defended as correct by other native Italian speakers.
> I suspect that the whole thing is a simple matter of nomenclature really.
> Incidentally both Cicerone and Virgilio (along with Ovidio Nasone) are two of my favourite authors but I can't remember seeing the phrase "consecutio temporum" in either. I would be grateful for any references to their works where I might find this phrase, so as to complete my education.
> Thank you.
> With best wishes
> Virgilio



mmmmmhhhhhhhh. I don't think so. You switched conditional with subjunctive.
Ciao


----------



## cscarfo

virgilio said:


> NicholasTheItalian,
> Re your "Consecutio temp*orum*  (II decl gen pl?)" Stavo per dire "No. "temporum" (III decl gen pl)" ma dopo aver letto qualche messaggio qui (non mi riferisco al tuo, s'intende) comincio a domandarmi se anche le declinazioni dei sostantivi latini siano standardizzate per tutta l'UE.
> Comunque da noi in Inghilterra quel sostantivo "tempus, temporis" viene categorizzato terza declinazione (neutro).
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Virgilio



*O tempora! O mores! *


----------



## Salegrosso

virgilio said:


> comincio a domandarmi se anche le declinazioni dei sostantivi latini siano standardizzate per tutta l'UE.


 
Dai miei ricordi di scuola (italiana).

I decl.: Rosa, rosae.
II decl.: Lupus, lupi.
III decl.: Rex, regis.
IV decl.: Carrus, carrus.
V decl.: Dies, diei.


----------



## dylanG3893

Why are we discussing latin? It _is_ an Italian - English thread.


----------



## virgilio

dylanG3893,
                You're quite right, of course. We must stop these digressions. Of course, in one sense the people of Italy who spoke Latin as their native language were Italians too.
Still, I agree. Who do they think they are? Just because they invented the word "Italia" and handed down to us the language of which we speak a dialect today, they think they own the place! No wonder the barbarians used the phrase "Roman arrogance"!
I agree with you, dylanG

Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Salegrosso,
               Thank you for your very kind words. I shall try henceforth to deserve them.
Just one minor point, if you will permit me:
"IV decl.: Carrus, carrus." should actually be "II decl.: carrus, carri" - but I must admit I had to check it in the dictionary.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Salegrosso

_Last_ remark about Latin. 
Indeed, I have made a mistake; however, my goal was only to say 
"IV decl.: genitivo -us", giving the order for the declinations in the italian school.

But stop with Latin, ok. 
(Italian people is arrogant today? I think that the role of the roman empire is today not played by italy...)
Bye.


----------



## Nicholas the Italian

virgilio said:


> NicholasTheItalian,
> Re your "Consecutio temp*orum*  (II decl gen pl?)" Stavo per dire "No. "temporum" (III decl gen pl)" ma dopo aver letto qualche messaggio qui (non mi riferisco al tuo, s'intende) comincio a domandarmi se anche le declinazioni dei sostantivi latini siano standardizzate per tutta l'UE.


Credo che le declinazioni siano standard, è l'ignoranza delle persone che non lo è. 
-orum come gen pl era perfettamente coerente come II decl, ma probabilmente hai ragione tu ed è della III. Questo spiega anche -is come gen sing (proposto da cscarfo), che nella II non ha modo di esistere (in quel caso sarebbe tempus tempi, infatti).
(Nota che avevo messo il punto di domanda, infatti. Come dire che l'avevo sparata a caso.)




> Ho l'impressione che se possono comprino la macchina oggi.


Piuttosto userei "comprano", ma anche questo grammaticalmente mi suona quantomeno "strano". Molto meglio "compreranno".


----------



## brunohg2

virgilio said:


> NicholasTheItalian,
> Re your "Consecutio temp*orum*   (II decl gen pl?)" Stavo per dire "No. "temporum" (III decl gen pl)" ma  dopo aver letto qualche messaggio qui (non mi riferisco al tuo,  s'intende) comincio a domandarmi se anche le declinazioni dei sostantivi  latini siano standardizzate per tutta l'UE.
> Comunque da noi in Inghilterra quel sostantivo "tempus, temporis" viene categorizzato terza declinazione (neutro).
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Virgilio



May I ask what happens in the following situation?

- The subject and object are the same.
- The verb in the main clause is one that would normally trigger the subjunctive.
- The verb in the subordinate clause is conditional.

Is the rule the same as the present subjunctive where you replace _che + subjunctive_ with _di + infinitive?_
Example: _I think that I would like a beer = __Penso di volere una birra.
_Or can you say _Penso che vorrei una birra?_

If the rule is the same then I assume that it applies with the following:
_I thought that I would like a beer = Ho pensato (pensavo) di volere una birra.
_


----------



## Necsus

Hi, Bruno and welcome to WRF!
I'd say you should post the sentence you are referring to...


----------



## Emerson Corbin

What tenses would you use to say this in italian then because I'm completely lost:

"I think that he will think it is nice"

Or just in general what tenses would you use to say that someone thinks someone else will be thinking something in the future


----------

