Re: "I didn't know that..."

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Mark J. Reed wrote:
[snip]
>>AFAICT, Englishhas somewhat free variation between the past and
>>present indicative here, although the present is only an option when
>>the statement continues to be true.  Spanish (and, I suppose, other
>>romlangs) uses the present subjunctive, which seems odd since it's not
>>a counterfactual statement.  I'm interested in other natlang examples
>>as well as conlang ones, since I'm trying to decide how to handle this
>>case...
>
>
> The use of the present subjunctive in Spanish for
> "I didn't know that he is a bullfighter" seems quite
> reasonable to me.  It's not so much that his (now)
> being a bullfighter is counterfactual, as that "he is
> a bullfighter" is a subordinate or subjoined clause.
Exactly. Although way back in PIE times the 'proto-subjunctiv' did have
an irrealis usage (not always counterfactual, however, as it seems to
have covered also the sort of meanings many langs cover with future
forms). Latin does retain some of this, but it is already starting to be
used simply because it is in a subordinate or subjoined clause (hence
BTW the term "subiunctiuus" 'subjoined'). This dual use has survived
into modern Romance to a lesser or greater degree (according to the
language).

> Isn't this also the pattern in other Romance
> languages?
No - the subjunctive is very much more restricted in use in French. In
the sort of clauses Mark is asking about it uses the indicative as
English does.

> In Latin,these types of subordinate
> clause require a verb in the subjunctive mood:
> result, purpose and indirect question clauses.
...and indirect commands & exhortations as well as _all_ subordinate
clauses (whatever their type) in reported speech.

> Here is a simple example where Latin uses the
> subjunctive to frame the answer of an indirect, ie
> reported question:
> "Scit quanta insula sit."
> "He knows how great the island is [may be]."
Yep - spot on!

> (Rather than:
> "Scit quanta insula est.")
Which is certainly ungrammatical as far as Classical Latin is concerned.
But such things are found in medieval Latin, where the difference
between indicativ & subjunctiv is less marked and varies from region to
region, from time to time, and from writer to writer.

For the type of sentence Mark asked about, Classical Latin used neither
the indicativ nor the subjunctiv - it used the 'accusativ and
infinitiv'. Thus:
I did not know elephants could swim = nesciui elephantos natare posse.

But in medieval Latin one would also find: nesciui quod elephanti natare
possent [subj.] _or_ nesciui quod elephanti natare potebant (indic.).
Probably also: nesciui quod elephanti natare possunt (present indic. in
those parts of Europe where 'sequence of tense' does not occur in such
clauses, e.g. the Slav langs)

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Reply