Conditional.
(C. Lindskog:
de enuntiatis apud Plautum et Terentium condicionalibus. Lund, 1895.)
The Conditional Conjunctions,
si, nisi (and
ni) follow in
classical Latin more strict laws than in the time of Plautus. We do
not find in his plays that monotony of type which is taught
in our School Grammars:
(1) si habeo, do, (2) si habebo, dabo,
(3) si habeam, dem, (4) si haberem, darem, (5) si habuissem,
dedissem. There is not so clear a line of division separating a
Conditional Protasis from other kinds of Dependent Sentence, or
even between the treatment of a Verb in a Dependent Sentence and
in a Main Sentence. In Plautine Latin we cannot separate
si
habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo from
quod habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo,
or
quom habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo; nor is the Old Latin quasi-Future
use of the 1 Singular Present Subjunctive (see
V. 26) in a Main Sentence
like
sed maneam etiam opinor, ‘but I think I will wait,’ ‘I
had better wait,’ to be distinguished from its use in a Protasis like
si habeam. The Indefinite use of the 2 Singular Subjunctive (see
V. 31) is
used by Plautus as freely in a Conditional Protasis as elsewhere;
and such a Protasis is quite uninfluenced by the Mood of the Apodosis, e.g.
The elasticity of Plautine Conditionals may be illustrated by these three varieties of the expression of a threat:
And since the Comedies reflect the colloquial Latin of everyday
life, we find in them a number of imperfect types of Conditional
sentence, which, though not strictly logical nor expressed in the
normal form, are easily referred to this or that suppressed thought
in the mind of the speaker. Examples of these imperfect Conditionals
are:
Still, although it is not the same laws as in classical Latin that rule
Plautus' expression of Conditions, he obeys other laws; and
although the carelessness of colloquial speech permits occasional
divergence, there are certain normal types which we can clearly perceive.
In sentences of the form
siquid (haberem habuissem), (darem dedissem), Plautus follows
this rule with regard to the Tense of the Protasis. The Imperfect
Subjunctive is used if the Protasis refers to the same time as the Apodosis;
the Pluperfect, if it refers to a previous time, e.g.
- Men. 241 “nam invenissemus iam diu, si viveret”
- (cf. Accius 13 “quod si ut decuit, stares mecum aut meus maestaret dolor, iam diu inflammari Atridae naves vidissent suas”),
- Men. 460 “si id ita esset, non ego hodie perdi-dissem prandium”,
- Aul. 742 “ni vellent, non fieret, scio”,
- Aul. 828 “quid faceres, si repperissem?”
- Bacch. 217 “ni nanctus Venerem essem, hanc Iunonem dicerem”,
- Capt. 871 “igitur olim si advenissem, magis tu tum istuc diceres”,
- Mil. 1320 “si non mecum aetatem egisset, hodie stulta viveret”,
- Trin. 568 “si ante voluisses, esses: nunc sero cupis”,
- Aul. 669 “ni subvenisset corvus, periissem miser”,
- Trin. 927 “si appellasses, respondisset nomini.”
So that Plautus does not normally say
siquid habuissem, dedissem, that is if the ‘having’ and the ‘giving’
are thought of as contemporaneous. There are only two examples
of this abnormal assimilation of the Protasis to the Apodosis, viz.
And the Protasis shows an abnormal Pluperfect also in
Curc. 700 “
nam si is valuisset, iam
pridem quoquo posset mitteret.” As regards the Apodosis of this
type of sentence, the Imperfect and Plup. Subjunctive are apparently used
promiscuously by Plautus; sometimes
volui with Infinitive is used, e.g.
Cas. 440 “
volui Charinum, si domi esset, mittere”,
Mil. 1356. The
substitution of the Plup. Indicative for the Plup. Subjunctive (e.g.
Hor. Carm. 2.17.28 “
sustulerat
nisi . . levasset”) shows some traces of itself even in early Latin, e.g.
Mil. 52 “
ubi tu quingentos simul, ni hebes machaera foret, uno ictu
occideras” (v.l. -res).
The type
si habeam, dem is common in Plautus, e.g.
Mil. 1371
“
nam si honeste censeam te facere posse, suadeam”; and we find
occasionally ‘mixed’ forms like
Plautus' expression of threats follows strict laws, which however
are not the laws of classical Latin With
nisi (ni) the Present Indicative is used,
with
si the Future Perfect Examples are:
The origin of this curious distinction,
nisi facis and
si feceris, has
been very plausibly referred to the distinction between command
and prohibition,
da and
ne dederis. Thus
da—nisi das, vapulabis,
and
ne dederis—si dederis, vapulabis would be the full forms of the
two types of sentence. The exceptions to the law are mainly lines like
where the addition of the words
quom ego revortar and
semper necessitates the use of a Future Tense. A love of variety
1
may explain the abnormal Tenses in
And
si pergis with Infinitive occasionally takes the place
of
si with Future Perfect, e.g.
Bacch. 570 “
postremo, si pergis parvam
mihi fidem arbitrarier, tollam ego ted in collum atque intro hinc
auferam”. The Present Indicative (1 Pers.) is also found with
nisi in a sentence
like Ter.
Heaut. 730 “
faciet, nisi caveo”, which might be called
a threat to oneself; cf.
Similarly the Future Perfect
Indicative (1 Pers.) not only with
si, but also with
nisi in sentences like
In other types of Conditionals it is more difficult to lay down
rules for the use of the Indicative and Subjunctive, the Present and the Future
Colloquial Latin naturally substitutes the Present for the Future, and so
a type like this is very common (but not invariable) in Plautus:
Both
si vivo and
si vivam are found (with Future, never Future Perfect,
in Apodosis), e.g.
Bacch. 766 “
vorsabo ego illunc hodie, si vivo, probe”,
Most. 4 “
ego pol te ruri, si vivam, ulciscar probe.” Beside
si sapis
(i.e. if you are a wise man), we also find occasionally
si sapies (on
Poen. 351 see below), the Apodosis showing Future or Imperative, e.g.
In wagers (with
ni, never ‘nisi’) there is a puzzling variety of
Indicative and Subjunctive, the Subjunctive being perhaps to be explained as a kind of
Oratio Obliqua
2, e.g.
Dum, properly ‘while,’ ‘so long as’ (see
2 s.v.) acquires a Conditional
sense in a context like
Pers. 387 “
dum dos sit, nullum vitium
vitio vortitur”, whence arose
dum (negatively
dum ne) ‘provided that’
with the Subjunctive e.g.
Capt. 682 “
dum ne ob malefacta peream, parvi
existumo.” Sometimes the Verb is omitted, e.g.,
In this Conditional sense
dum was often accompanied by a Particle, such
as
quidem, e.g.
Aul. 211 “
dum quidem nequid perconteris”,
or
modo, e.g.
Amph. 644 “
absit, dum modo laude parta domum recipiat se”,
Ter. Heaut. 641 “
quidvis satis est, dum vivat modo.”
Hence
dummodo of classical Latin
On
ast, see above,
2 s.v.
