I think that the recommendation of Latin grammar books, such as Wheelock's, to translate future-less-vivid conditionals (which use a present [imperfect] subjunctive verb in both the protasis and apodosis) with should in the protasis and would in the apodosis are making use of archaic English. In modern English the protasis should use the simple past or were if the verb is to be (I still consider was ungrammatical).
Take, e.g., a colloquial phrase like "I'd be happy if you came with." This represents something improbable in the future, i.e., "I'd be happy if you came with (but you probably won't)," and would be conveyed in Latin by a future-less-vivid conditional: si [mecum] uenias, gaudeam. You don't say, "I'd be happy if you should come with." Or consider the question, "What would you do if you won the lottery?" You don't say, "What would you do if you should win the lottery?"
I'm not saying that the should/would approach is bad English; it just sounds rather stuffy, and I wouldn't want to use it when translating if I could help it. We do sometimes use should in a protasis to make a condition doubtful, but in such cases the apodosis is still in the simple future: "If he should call (which is unlikely), you will need to take a message." But we can always just use a simple conditional, no matter how unlikely we think the condition is: "If you are ever abducted by aliens (which is very unlikely), you will need this aluminum hat." Either of these translations or the one above seems better to me for translating a future-less-vivid conditional than the "should/would" approach.
What do you think?
(Incidentally, I think that Future Less Vivid would be a great title for a sci-fi book!)
|comments: Leave a comment|