previous next

In Dependent Clauses the use of the Subjunctive in Plautus' colloquial language was not at all so strictly regulated as in the literary language of the Augustan Age. It is extremely difficult to say with certainty: ‘in this or that Dependent Clause Plautus could not use the Indicative’ or ‘could not use the Subjunctive’ In most types of clause we find both Moods used, but never quite at random. There is always a particular nuance of thought expressed by the one and the other. The use of the Indicative makes the statement more a definite statement of actual fact, the use of the Subjunctive makes it more indefinite, more dependent on external agency. The distinction is most clearly seen in Oratio Obliqua, where the Plautine and the classical usage scarcely differ, e.g.

Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nec recte, pater,
quia tibi aurum reddidi et quia non te defraudaverim.

Here quia non defraudaverim is Chrysalus' remark, while quia aurum reddidi is the remark of the speaker himself. Cf. Mil. 981 and 974, Mil. 300 and Epid. 19. Also in sentences not far removed from Oratio Obliqua, e.g.:

Similarly after an Impersonal Verb, the use of the Subjunctive makes a dependent clause less definite, more a possibility than a fact, e.g.:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: