# Subjunctive use: “Who would do this?”



## Advocatus Separatus

The title shows an example of what I am seeking. I know about the Jussive Subjunctive, the Purpose Clause and the Result Clause, conditions and so forth, but what about that phrase “Who would do this?” Intuitively, I would think that *Quis hoc faciat?* is correct. Does anyone know?


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Yes, but I think, you can only ask that question if the _*hoc* _part is a reference to a neuter word you used prior to your question.

Unless you're standing next to whatever may be there, even then, the reference should be clear.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

_quis hoc faciat?_ can be construed as a sort of incomplete conditional apodosis—as in, for example, _quis hoc faciat nisi insanus sit? 
_
At any rate it suggests a distinct incredulity on the part of the author of the utterance, and that there is only the faintest remote possibility that such an action could be perpetrated. Strictly, present subjunctives in conditional clauses refer to _future_ time, and of course in one sense no future event or action can be 100% ruled out, as past or present impossibilities or non-states of affairs can be (which use pluperfect and imperfect subjunctives respectively).

Σ


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> quis hoc faciat nisi insanus sit?



Who would do this, if not (he) the insane (one) would be there?
Is that correctly translated, Scholiast?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!


P2Grafn0l said:


> Who would do this, if not (he) the insane (one) would be there?


No, sorry: 'Who could conceivably ever do this [I don't believe it possible], unless a madman?'
Σ


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> 'Who could conceivably ever do this [I don't believe it possible], unless a madman?'


Salve, mens clara.

So sorry, too.
How are the readers supposed to read the words "conceivably" and "ever" when the words are not present in your Latin sentence?
Who decided that the two adverbs can be understood from nothing, and that _*nisi *_+ _*sit *_(the present third person singular subjunctive verb of esse) together mean "unless"?
It would have made more sense with some Latin context.
Also, in '_Who would do this, if not (he) the insane (one) would be there?_' the _there_ part is an expletive.
Considering the fact that there was no extra context, I did a pretty good job in translating the meaning, didn't I?


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> and that there is only the faintest remote possibility that such an action could be perpetrated.



I suppose "could be perpetrated" was most essential to take into consideration when translating your Latin sentence.


----------



## Scholiast

Hello once more


P2Grafn0l said:


> How are the readers supposed to read the words "conceivably" and "ever" when the words are not present in your Latin sentence?


P2 is right, these words are not in the Latin, they are intended to convey idiomatically the 'tone of voice' or the nuances implicit in the Latin sentence. Arguably I should have put them in square brackets.

Σ


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> Σ



Gratias tibi ago, magister latinitatis.

Yet his/the question still remains: Who would do this?
Both you and I have added to it, like in this example of mine:
_Who would do this,_ _if not (he) the insane (one) would be there? _
So how would the cursive sentence above translate into Latin, if *faciat* is _*could do *_only?

(In a previous post, I accidentally said "salvete", which I have changed into 'salve', as the rest was singular also.)


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo.


P2Grafn0l said:


> _Who would do this,_ _if not (he) the insane (one) would be there?_


I regret to say that I find it difficult to make sense of this in English, but on the assumption that what you mean is:

Who would do this, if the madman were* not there?​This could be rendered into Latin as:

(a) _quis hoc faciat, nisi insanus ibi sit?
_​or:

(b)_ quis hoc faceret, nisi insanus ibi esset?
_​Which version would depend on whether this is referring to a hypothetical future event or action (a); or a hypthetical but unreal present (b). Latin makes here finer distinctions than English, which (like German) lacks a conjugated future tense.

*'were' here is in fact an English subjunctive, not a past tense (cf. German _wäre _as opposed to the preterite indicative _war_). It happens to have the same spelling as the (plural) preterite.

Σ

PS incidentally, the vocative of _magister_ is _magister_—only _-us_ nouns of the 2nd declension have a distinct vocative form, and not even all of them ('Domine *Deus*').


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> Who would do this, if the madman were* not there?



Honestly, at first, I (needlessly) thought that the word _insanus_ in that Latin sentence, was an insinuation fired at, well, the very mind responsible for strange sentences.
That aside, I was well aware of the possibility of such a construction and I could have written it so...if that was the intention, but it's not.
What I really mean, is:
_
Who would do *this*, if not _(as a hypothetical)_ the__/a__ madman __is__/exists_ _there?_
(Ergo, would be. And "there" as an expletive, because it does not refer to a place close to the *this*, nor any other real place.)
_
Who would do _*this*_, if not(,) the/a madman __would be__ there? _
(And *this* here, roughly meaning *a better say in the topic*.)
Yeah, I know *this* seems a little incomplete.

So taking into account "there" can be an unreal "place", it could also be reduced to an expletive, meaning that it has no meaning and is not a real place.
The internet is not a real place, right?
How then should I know what is idiomatically correct in Latin?
I do admit, I have never thought of "were" as an English subjunctive.

There, with compliments of mine, I certainly like your Latin sentences and the clear explanations you have given to this forum.

(About the vocative case of magister, I did that on purpose, for a source says it may also be "magistre"; so it truly was no typo like in your English explanation #b.)

Worry not, I like magister for the vocative case.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again


P2Grafn0l said:


> _Who would do *this*, if not _(as a hypothetical)_ the__/a__ madman __is__/exists_ _there?_
> (Ergo, would be....)


The trouble is, English does not use the word 'would' in the protasis of 'unreal' conditional sentences. It uses the subjunctive, which for almost all verbs apart from 'to be' is identical in form with the preterite indicative. It has to be acknowledged that few native speakers are aware of this distinction, any more than they are aware of the difference between present participles and gerunds (the '-ing' words)—distinctions of which learning Latin enforces awareness—but using 'would' in 'if'-clauses is an error to which German students of English are particularly prone, and perhaps therefore speakers of Dutch as well.
Σ


----------



## P2Grafn0l

_quis hoc *faciat*, nisi insanus ibi sit?
quis hoc *faceret*, nisi insanus ibi esset?_

The verbs in the first sentence are in the present tense of the subjunctive mood,
and the verbs in the latter are in the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood. 
I do not understand how both of these sentences can mean: _Who *would do* this, if the madman __were__ not there?_


----------



## Scholiast

salvete collectores


P2Grafn0l said:


> quis hoc *faciat*, nisi insanus ibi sit?
> _quis hoc *faceret*, nisi insanus ibi esset?_


Both formulations are grammatical. In unreal conditionals, the Latin imperfect subjunctive refers to present time. The present subjunctive refers to future time ("Were I ever to...").
The chief point here is that English "would" does service for quite a lot.
Σ


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Scholiast said:


> In unreal conditionals, the Latin imperfect subjunctive refers to present time. The present subjunctive refers to future time ("Were I ever to...").



Does _*faciam*_ in an unreal conditional construction, equal: *were I ever to do*? 

Maybe like:
_I would die in boredom, if I ever were to do the work of school (schoolwork), again. = In taedio moriar, si laborem scholae faciam, de novo._

Am I correct?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again

At the risk of veering off-topic...


P2Grafn0l said:


> Does _*faciam*_ in an unreal conditional construction, equal: *were I ever to do*?
> 
> Maybe like:
> _I would die in boredom, if I ever were to do the work of school (schoolwork), again._


'If xxx were to...' is a conventional way of expressing a remote conditional in English, but English idiom (and grammar) for conditional clauses is more flexible than Latin. 'If you were to do school-work again, you would die of  boredom' certainly implies that you will not. But 'If you were to visit Paris, you would see the Eiffel Tower' does not, or not completely, rule out the possibility that you will, one day, do that.

Incidentally, _taedium_ does not mean 'boredom' (though English 'tedium' is derived from it). It means 'loathing' or 'disgust'. And if you want to 'die of disgust', it would be ablative without the preposition _in._

Σ


----------

