Does anyone understand how conditionals work in indirect discourse? Either can be confusing by itself but together they can be really confusing (for me).
For example: [Scribis] Caesarem, si ad me ire coepisset, in Samnium ad me venturum.
The protasis is ppf. subj. (coepisset) and the apodasis is fut. (venturum, presumably subj.). How is this translated? The ppf. protasis makes me think of a contrary-to-fact past, in which case it would be translated, "You write that if Caesar had begun to come to me, I would go into Samnium." However, my workbook claims that it's a future-less-vivid, which would be, I guess, "You write that if Caesar should begin to come to me, I would go into Samnium." Is the workbook correct? How do you figure that out?
Likewise the second example: [Scribis] Sin autem ille circum istaec loca commoraretur, te ei, si propius accessisset, resistere velle."
Now there are two protases, the first being impf. subj. (commoraretur) and the second being ppf. subj. (accessisset), and the apodasis is a pres. infin. (velle). The impf. subj. could be a contrary-to-fact present while the ppf. subj. could be a contrary-to-fact past, which would translate, "But if he were being mentioned around such places, and if he had drawn near, you would want to resist him." My workbook simply calls this a "present general condition," which is not a phrase I'm familiar with. Given that this conditional comes immediately after the previous one (they are connected by "sin), it seems that perhaps it is somehow also a future-less-vivid (assuming that the previous one is, somewhat).
In any case, I am at a loss to properly translate these. Help!
|comments: Leave a comment|