# The Romance conditional a mood or a tense?



## Daniel_Wilkins

*Moderator note: This question*


Daniel_Wilkins said:


> The name says it all really, is there a conditional subjunctive?


*in the French and English grammar forum gave rise to a discussion about the status of the French conditionnel whether it is best regarded as a mode, a tense or maybe sometimes the one and sometimes the other.*

*This discussion has become too abstract for the scope of the French and English grammar forum and has to touch historical questions which aren't within the scope of that forum.

Moderators from both forums have therefore agreed to move this discussion with a broadened scope to EHL. The new scope of this thread is:
- The origin of the Romance conditional
- Evolution of its status and meaning*


----------



## Monsieur Hoole

Not really.  There are only 3 subjonctif tenses:  present, passe compose, and imparfait (mostly used in literary works).

[…]

Hope this helps,

M. H.


----------



## judkinsc

The subjunctive basically is a conditional tense.  Not in the sense of the formation of 'le conditionel" in French, but the idea of it.

Latin would have just used the subjunctive, there was no "conditional" tense.
The formations in Latin took either the subjunctive, or the present, imperfect, past, future, pluperfect....just like English.
Latin had subjunctive tenses for all of those tenses, though, with the exception of the future.  The future subjunctive is the same idea as the present subjunctive.  Think of "If I were..."

Another Note:  The word "would" is from a modal English verb...there's no real equivalent.  There's the conditional, if you want "would do (something in the future/preference)"..._je ferais_, but it's not really the same.
Some conjunctions take the subjunctive form instead.  Bien que can take the subjunctive or not.  WF Dictionary gives "while..." for the subj. translation, and "although" for the indicative.  I think the subj. usage has a sense of something "hanging".


----------



## Aupick

Everyone knows that the subjunctive is a mood. Linguists will tell you that the conditional is also a mood (and not a tense). So, even though the subjunctive can have different tenses, the conditional can't really be one of them.

(I know, that's not really an explanation, it's just a bunch of terminology. But who knows? It might be useful to someone.  )


----------



## sylber

I like that. It's very much like English modals: you can't associate two modals in the same verb phrase (though some of my students see nothing wrong with, for instance: I won't can answer that question)


----------



## Starcreator

Aupick said:
			
		

> Everyone knows that the subjunctive is a mood. Linguists will tell you that the conditional is also a mood (and not a tense). So, even though the subjunctive can have different tenses, the conditional can't really be one of them.
> 
> (I know, that's not really an explanation, it's just a bunch of terminology. But who knows? It might be useful to someone.  )


 
T'as raison (http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa041301.htm) but if I have a statement that is conditional but is contingent upon an uncertain circumstance shouldn't there be a way to combine? It works the other way around (conditional subjunctive) : J'aimerais qu'il fasse mes devoirs. […]


----------



## mirifica

Bonjour à tous,
 […]

Petit rappel : il existe six modes en français :
- l'indicatif (le mode de la réalité)
- le subjontif (les faits envisagés)
- le participe
- l'infinitif
- le conditionnel  (qui peut-être remplacé au passé par le subjonctif (conditionnel 2ème forme).
- l'impératif


----------



## Maître Capello

Le conditionnel est aujourd'hui considéré par la majorité des linguistes comme un *temps* de l'indicatif et non comme un mode… […]


----------



## berndf

Maître Capello said:


> Le conditionnel est aujourd'hui considéré par la majorité des linguistes comme un *temps* de l'indicatif et non comme un mode…


That is going a bit too far. The interpretation as a tense of the indicative only applies to very specific use of the verb form where it expresses future tense but the auxiliary verb of the future has to be in _imparfait_ for tense-agreement reasons (click). This use is a residue of the original nature of _futur simple_ and _conditionnel_ as composite verb forms constructed with the infinitive + present of _avoir _and infinitive + imparfait of _avoir_, respectively: _amare habeo > aimer ai > aimerai_ and _amare habebam > aimer avais > amerais_. I.e. the opinion of linguists who speak of a "tense of the indicative", if I understand them correctly, is that this use isn't properly a conditional expressing a reservation but a verb form which just happens to be formed the same way as the conditionnel.


----------



## Maître Capello

berndf said:


> That is going a bit too far.


Maybe too far for you, but not for Grevisse. 

_Le Bon Usage_, §768, a, 1º:


> N.B. Le conditionnel a longtemps été  considéré comme un mode (du moins pour certains de ses emplois, car on  distinguait souvent un conditionnel-temps [de l’indic.] et un  conditionnel-mode). Les linguistes s’accordent aujourd’hui pour le ranger parmi  les temps de l’indicatif, comme un futur particulier, futur dans le passé ou  futur hypothétique (postérieur ou du moins consécutif au fait exprimé, par ex.,  dans une proposition de condition).


----------



## Thomas1

I think that this point may be an additional grist for the conditional's mill in the thread. 
Académie française takes a different stance on this:


> GRAMM.   _Mode conditionnel _ ou, subst.,  _conditionnel, _ mode du verbe qui, dans une proposition principale, présente l'action  comme une éventualité ou comme la conséquence d'une condition  hypothétique.  _Conditionnel présent _ ou  _présent du conditionnel. Conditionnel passé. _ •  _Proposition subordonnée conditionnelle _ ou, ellipt.,  _proposition conditionnelle _ et, subst.,  _conditionnelle, _ proposition qui présente une hypothèse, une éventualité dont la  réalisation est indispensable pour que s'accomplisse l'action évoquée  par le verbe de la proposition principale.
> http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/academie9/conditionnel


And so does _Le Grand Robert_:


> Se dit aussi du «  futur du passé  », qui a la forme de ce  mode, mais une tout autre valeur sémantique, et qui s'emploie dans la  concordance des temps (ex. : j'affirmais qu'il _viendrait_).


----------



## Maître Capello

There are visibly two sides among grammars here, and the BDL is on Grevisse's :


> Longtemps présenté comme un mode, le conditionnel est maintenant  considéré par la majorité des linguistes et grammairiens comme un temps  du mode indicatif.
> 
> La différence entre mode et temps n'est pas toujours clairement  établie et expliquée dans les grammaires, car plusieurs temps  grammaticaux ont des aussi valeurs modales; c'est le cas du  conditionnel, bien sûr, mais aussi du futur et de l'imparfait de  l'indicatif. Le fait que le conditionnel ait des valeurs modales n'est  donc pas une raison suffisante pour en faire un mode puisque, à ce  compte, le futur et l'imparfait devraient eux aussi être des modes.
> 
> Les désinences du conditionnel, c'est-à-dire les finales des différentes formes qu'il peut prendre selon la personne, montrent clairement sa parenté avec le mode indicatif. Ces désinences comportent le _-r-_, marque propre de l’époque future et qu'on trouve aussi dans le futur simple. Ce _-r-_ est suivi des mêmes désinences que les formes de l'imparfait : _-ais_, _-ais_, _-ait_, _-ions_, _-iez_ et _-aient_. Le conditionnel est donc un proche parent du futur simple et de l'imparfait de l'indicatif.


[…]


----------



## CapnPrep

Maître Capello said:


> There are visibly two sides among grammars here


There is a third side, which is that most verb forms express both tense and mood. The question "Is the _conditionnel_ a tense or a mood?" presupposes a strict separation between the two categories that does not really exist in the language. I think that the majority of linguists/grammarians would agree on this, if they were not so fond of terminological arguments.


----------



## Hulalessar

CapnPrep said:


> There is a third side, which is that most verb forms express both tense and mood. The question "Is the _conditionnel_ a tense or a mood?" presupposes a strict separation between the two categories that does not really exist in the language. I think that the majority of linguists/grammarians would agree on this, if they were not so fond of terminological arguments.



Quite. I think there are two ways of classifying the forms verbs take.

The first is imprecise, but useful for didactic purposes. It tries to avoid describing one language in terms of another.

The second, needed if you are to engage in describing language, is precise, or rather aims to be precise but like most attempts at classification runs into difficulties because categories have an annoying tendency to overlap. It has a tendency to assume that all grammatical categories apply to all languages.

I think it comes down to what a particular language emphasises and how it goes about achieving that emphasis. As a generalisation we can say for example that in Slavic languages whilst the verb can express time it is more interested in aspect, whereas in Romance languages whilst the verb can express aspect it is more interested in time  - indeed the very fact that in Latin and the Romance languages (at least in Italian, Spanish and French) the same word is used for "time" and "tense" does I think confirm it. When I was taught French, Latin and Spanish and the word "aspect" never came up; however, Russian lessons did not get too far before it did.

When it comes to the Romance languages (at least those I know) and the conditional you have to distinguish between form and function. There are forms of the verb which are traditionally, and for didactic purposes at least usefully, referred to as "the conditional." This _form _may be considered a mood distinct from both the indicative and subjunctive; if it is then "conditional subjunctive" has to be a contradiction in terms. The complication is, and this can perhaps be seen more clearly in Spanish than French, that (a) the conditional form may be used other than to express conditions and (b) conditions may be expressed without using the conditional form.


----------



## berndf

One thing I've always wondered: The modern indicative imperfect comprises uses of the Latin indicative and subjunctive imperfect (the modern French _subjonctif de l'imparfait_ is derived from a pluperfect form). Do the future-in-the-past and truely conditional uses of the _conditionnel_ maybe also have two different origins, i.e. _amare habebam > aimerais _&_ amare haberem > aimerai_s?
Compare
Latin _Si haberem darem/donarem _(both imperfect subjunctive)
French _Si j'avais, je donnerais_ (imperfect indicative & conditional)


----------



## elianecanspeak

sylber said:


> I like that. It's very much like English modals: you can't associate two modals in the same verb phrase (though some of my students see nothing wrong with, for instance: I won't can answer that question)



This almost sounds like some southern American English dialects that use double modals like "might could  + verb. . . ", meaning "it is possible that I might . . ."


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> The modern indicative imperfect comprises uses of the Latin indicative and subjunctive imperfect (the modern French _subjonctif de l'imparfait_ is derived from a pluperfect form). Do the future-in-the-past and truely conditional uses of the _conditionnel_ maybe also have two different origins, i.e. _amare habebam > aimerais _&_ amare haberem > aimerai_s?


Not sure what you mean by "also" here… The French _imparfait_ does not have two different origins. Its functions correspond to the Latin imperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive, but its form derives from the Latin imperfect indicative (with a lot of analogical/irregular evolution). E.g. _amabam _→ _aimais_ and not _amarem_ > _aimais_. As far as I know there is no trace of the Latin imperfect subjunctive form in French. 

Similarly, the _conditionnel _has taken over the functions of various Latin verb forms, but the form has a single origin: [infinitive + imperfect indicative of _habere_], e.g. _amare habebam_ → _aimerais_.

In languages where the Latin imperfect subjunctive has survived (e.g. Spanish, Portuguese), its endings don't look anything like those of the conditional. So I don't think there is any support for the derivation _amare haberem > aimerais_.


----------



## berndf

Thanks Capn.

Let me rephrase then: Irrespective of the morphological history of the French imparfait, succeeds at least in part the Latin subjunctive imperfect. Is there any evidence that two different forms, infinitive+indicative imperfect of _habere_ and infinitive+subjunctive imperfect of _habere, _ever existed in VL/early Romance which were later succeeded by the conditional?


----------



## Istriano

In Brazilian Portuguese,
conditional is a tense called * Futuro do pretérito *(Future-in-the-past)
because that is its original form:

He will come.  ---> He said he *would come.*
Ele chegará.   ---> Ele disse que *chegaria*.

In Continental Portuguese it's called _condicional _(and I think it's considered a mood there, but I'm not sure).


In Brazilian Portuguese, a conditional can be expressed with:

1. Se eu tivesse dinheiro, *viajaria  *(Future-in-the-Past) [the most common in writing]
2. Se eu tivesse dinheiro, *viajava  *(Past simple [imperfect])
3. Se eu tivesse dinheiro,* iria viajar* (Future-in-the-Past of the verb IR (to go)+ the main verb)
4. Se eu tivesse dinheiro, *ia viajar *(Past simple [imperfect] of the verb IR (to go) + the main verb) [the most common in speech]

(If I had money, I would travel)

Conditional would be a general syntactic name for all these 4 forms. 
All 4 forms mean the same.

 It's interesting that the -ir form is now used before the verb:_ viajar*ia-*->*ia* viajar  _
The simple tense form is being split morphologically into compounds.


----------

