The Latin Tutorial videos (from Youtube) have a good series concerning the subjunctive. At times, however, the presenter moves into other areas and so the videos uploaded here may be edited to focus only on the point being discussed at this stage, in this case a brief overview of subjunctive usage and the forms of the present subjunctive. The full video is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HARMeEMRsAg&t=2s
Change the indicative forms of the verb to the present subjunctive forms. Remember: we fear a liar i.e. the letters in bold tell you the changes in the stems for all the conjugations. The answers are given at the end of the post.
1st: -e/ē-
2nd: -ea/eā-
3rd: -a/ā-
3rd-iō / 4th: -ia/iā-
[1] 1st conjugation:
[2] 2nd conjugation:
[3] 3rd conjugation:
[4] 3rd-iō conjugation:
[5] 4th conjugation
____________________
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The subjunctive has different tenses and those tenses are not confined to specific uses i.e. you will see them operating in a range of contexts. We will begin with the present subjunctive before looking at some uses where it frequently occurs.
[1] All forms of the present subjunctive have the same personal endings as other verb forms:
-m
-s
-t
-mus
-tis
-nt
[2] Image #1: the stems to which those endings are added are different, and the most common way of remembering them is the phrase wE fEAr A lIAr. Note the vowel lengthening in the 2nd person singular and the 1st / 2nd person plural:
1st conjugation: -E- (-ē-)
“wE”: amEm, amēs, amet, amēmus, amētis, ament
2nd conjugation: -ea- (-eā-)
“fEAr”: habEAm, habeās, habeat, habeāmus, habeātis, habeant
3rd conjugation: -a- (-ā-)
“A”: vīvAm, vīvās, vīvat, vīvāmus, vīvātis, vīvant
3rd-iō / 4th conjugation -ia- (-iā-)
“lIAr”: capIAm, capiās, capiat, capiāmus, capiātis, capiant
“lIAr”: audIAm, audiās, audiat, audiāmus, audiātis, audiant
[3] Image #2: Irregular verbs also form their present subjunctives from a single stem + the personal endings:
[i] eō, īre: go
eām, eās, eat, eāmus, eātis, eant
And compounds will be formed in the same way:
[ii] sum, esse: be
sim, sīs, sit, sīmus, sītis, sint
[iii] possum, posse: be able (i.e. formed from sum, esse)
possim, possīs, possit, possīmus, possītis, possint
Bibēbant vīnum, et laudābant deōs suōs aureōs et argenteōs, aereōs, ferreōs, ligneōsque et lapideōs. (Vulgate) │ They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
As in English, Latin can have different ways in which to describe the material from which an object is made. We will take aurum (gold) to show these:
[i] noun
aurum, -ī [2/n]: gold (the precious metal)
aurum mundum: pure gold
mundus, -a, -um: pure
[ii] ē / ex (+ ablative) + noun
dē + ablative may also be used in this sense although ē / ex is more common and will be the one listed in examples:
08.03.24: the ablative of source / material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/04/080324-ablative-of-source-material.html
21.05.25: Level 3; summary of the uses of the ablative case [5]: the ablative of source / material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/02/210525-level-3-summary-of-of-uses-of_25.html
[iii] adjective; -eus, suffix used to from adjectives from nouns
aurum (noun) + -eus > aureus, -a, -um: golden; (made of) gold
Further examples are listed in the separate entries e.g.
08.03.24: adjectives of material
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/04/080324-adjectives-of-material.html
[iv] aurum (noun) + -ātus, -a, -um; the use of this suffix indicates that the object (or person) has the feature of the noun rather than it being made from the raw material:
aurātus, -a, -um: gilded; gold-coloured
Examples:
Veterēs scrībēbant in tabellīs cērātīs (Comenius) │ The Ancients writ in tables (tablets) done over with wax
Aethiopia generat multaque alia mōnstrīs similia, pinnātōs equōs et cornibus armātōs, quōs pēgasōs vocant, (Pliny the Elder) │ Ethiopia produces many other creatures similar to monsters, winged horses armed with horns, which they call Pegasi
The following quotation, from the Satyricon by Petronius, depicts the ostentatious Trimalchio; the impression the latter tries to create is superficial, hence the description of the ring:
Habēbat etiam in minimō digitō sinistrae manūs ānulum grandem subaurātum (Petronius) │On the little finger of his left hand he had an enormous gilt / somewhat gilded ring (sub- indicates that it was ‘slightly’ gilded) i.e. “All that glisters is not gold”
[v] fiō, fierī, factus sum [3-iō/deponent]: become; be made
focus on the participle: factus, -a, -um i.e. (having been) made
Metals │ metalla
Lead, 1. is soft, and heavy. │ plumbum, 1. est molle & grave.
Iron, 2. is hard, and steel, 3. harder. │ ferrum, 2. est dūrum, & c(h)alybs, 3. dūrior.
They make tankards (or cans), 4. of tin. │ faciunt cantharōs, 4. ē stannō.
Kettles, 5. of copper, │ ahēna, 5. ē cuprō,
Candlesticks, 6. of latten*, │ candēlābra, 6. ex orichalcō,*
Dollers, 7. of silver, │ thalerōs, 7. ex argentō,
Ducats and crown-pieces, 8. of gold. │ scūtātōs et corōnātōs, 8. ex aurō.
Quick-silver is always liquid, and eateth thorow (through) metals. │ argentum vīvum, semper liquet, & corrōdit metalla.
[1]
*orichalcum, -ī [2/n]: the translator actually used the word ‘Latin’ to describe this metal (maybe a 17th century auto-correct!), but I’ve changed it to what it should be i.e. latten; in Roman times it referred to yellow copper ore, or an alloy of gold and copper; Late / Mediaeval Latin: brass
argentum, -ī [2/n]: silver
aurum, -ī [2/n]: gold
chalybs, chalybis [3/m]: steel
cuprum, -ī [2/n]: (Late Latin) copper
ferrum, -ī [2/n]: iron
metallum, -ī [2/n]: metal; in Classical Latin it most often referred to a mine from where the metals were quarried
plumbum, -ī [2/n]: lead
stannum, -ī [2/n]: tin
[2]
ahēnum: alternative spelling of aēnum, -ī [2/n]: copper vessel, cauldron (i.e. not the kettles we envisage today; see #5 in the original image); in Roman times it was hung over a fire and used in boiling
The text refers to contemporary coinage (not, of course, from the Roman period):
[i] thalerus, -ī [2/m]: thaler, monetary unit used in central and northern European countries > Gmn: T(h)aler > Engl. dollar
[ii] an important feature of Latin appears in two references to coins in the text (which will be discussed more in the next post):
(1) scūtātus, -a, -um: (literally) armed with a shield < scūtum, -ī [2/n]: shield
(2) coronātus, -a, -um: (literally) crowned < corona, -ae [1/f]: crown
i.e. these terms describe features of several different coins
in Mediaeval and later texts:
(1) any coin whose obverse showed a coat of arms or shield
nummus scutātus = a coin with a shield on it > Fr. écu; Port. escudo
(2) any coin with the design of a crown on it: nummus coronātus
(3) the term ‘ducat’ used as the translation: ducātus, -ūs [4/m]: (Late / Mediaeval) leadership; duchy. The coin originated in Venice in 1284 and although Venice was never a duchy, the coin acquired that name and was one of the most trusted trade coins in Europe
[3]
dūrus, -a, -um: hard
gravis, -e: heavy
mollis, -e: soft
[4] Apart from the abbreviations of the chemical elements, bear in mind the great number of English derivatives. While these derivatives may have had ‘journeys’ through, for example, Old French – and their meanings may have changed – those meanings have never deviated so far that you cannot identify the origin.
An interesting feature is the co-existence of Latin and Germanic words in English where Latin did not replace the original Old English word, but is used in words related to it even if some of them are not common:
Old English: heard
La: dūrus, -a, -um: hard > durable; endure
Old English: hefiġ
La: gravis, -e: heavy > grave (serious)
Old English: sēfte (sōfte)
La: mollis, -e: soft > mollify (soften)
Old English: (various spellings) īsern
La: ferrum, -ī: iron > ferrous; ferric
Old English: gold
La: aurum, -ī [2/n]: gold > aurous (containing gold)
Old English: lēad
La: plumbum, -ī: lead > plumber c.f. plumbārius, -ī [2/m], but we also use leadworker; plumb line; plummet
Old English: tin
La: stannum, -ī [2/m]: tin > stannic (containing tin)
Before moving on to the next (lengthy) topic, it is worth pausing to reflect on whose voices we usually hear when we study the ancient world.
At university I read Bertolt Brecht’s poem Fragen eines lesenden Arbeiters (Questions from a Worker Who Reads), a text that repeatedly challenges how history is written and remembered. The poem opens with a deceptively simple question:
Brecht immediately contrasts the reality of labour with the way history is recorded:
The poem presses the point further. Cities are destroyed and rebuilt, empires rise and fall, and yet the people who physically made this happen are absent from the narrative:
Triumphs are commemorated in stone, but the builders remain invisible:
Brecht’s questions become increasingly pointed, even ironic:
The poem ends with a relentless accumulation of victories — and questions:
There is no doubt where Brecht’s sympathies lie. He condemns a historical narrative that celebrates the “great and the good” while ignoring the labour that enabled their achievements. From a modern perspective we may feel that this is obvious, but the poem exposes how strongly historical writing — ancient and modern — directs our attention toward certain individuals and away from others.
At the same time, Brecht’s position is itself not without bias. Societies do require leaders, and ancient authors are capable of recognising more than just elite heroics. Caesar, for example, praises not only the bravery and endurance of his own soldiers, but also the determination of the enemy. Roman culture itself did not solely glorify gods and emperors; it also acknowledged the realities of daily life, work and production.
This tension is particularly relevant to the study of Latin. When we read Classical Latin literature, we overwhelmingly read the voices of senators, generals and intellectuals: Catullus, Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus — figures who dominate politics, war and philosophy. These authors are essential, but they do not represent the whole of Roman experience.
Beyond the battlefield and the senate lies another world: the world of cooking, shopping, farming, building, medicine and manufacturing — the world the Romans talked about every day. These voices are quieter, but they survive. They appear in Apicius’ cookbook, in Celsus’ medical writings, in Vitruvius’ detailed descriptions of building materials and techniques, in agricultural treatises, and in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, which attempts to catalogue almost everything.
The Romans were not only politicians and philosophers. They were stonemasons and shipbuilders, chefs and launderers; they sold meat and pillows; they built ships, aqueducts and roads. They worked with brick, marble, clay, lead and concrete. When we explore this area of language, we acquire not only a wide and practical vocabulary, but also a clearer understanding of ordinary Roman life — not just their victories.
The next topic therefore focuses on describing objects and materials: the many terms Latin uses to describe what things are made of, how they are constructed, and how they are used. In doing so, we move closer to the people who built Rome — even if their names were never written in the books.
You first need to become familiar with two terms: (i) the indicative mood and (ii) the subjunctive mood.
The word mood does not refer to a specific tense. Each mood contains its own set of tenses — for example: present indicative, present subjunctive, imperfect indicative, imperfect subjunctive, and so on. The term is not easy to define neatly, but it refers to the speaker’s attitude toward the action or state — the perspective from which the action is expressed.
[i] All the verb tenses so far – both active and passive – have been in the indicative mood. They express real actions or states, for example:
Rōma in Ītaliā est. │ Rome is in Italy.
Rōmae habitābam. │ I used to live in Rome.
Mīles rēgem interfēcit. │ The soldier killed the king.
Mīlitēs hostēs interfēcerant. │ The soldiers had killed the enemy.
Rūs crās ībō. │ Tomorrow I’ll go to the country.
Vēxillum ventō movētur. │ The flag is being moved by the wind.
Gladiō vulnerātus est. │ He was killed by a sword.
Ab hostibus captus erat. │ He had been captured by the enemy.
If, for example, you look up interfēcit in Wiktionary, you will find its description: “third person singular perfect active indicative of interficiō”
[ii] The subjunctive mood, by contrast, does not express actions as real, factual events. If you look up interficiat, you will find: “third person singular present active subjunctive of interficiō.” What’s the difference?
Image #1: A good starting point is to look at some examples in English which, although not usually labeled as “subjunctive,” convey subjunctive ideas. First, compare Column A with Column B(1). Then, look at the headings in B(2), which identify the speaker’s “attitude” or perspective.
Consider the terms in B(2), for example: possibility, suggestion, hypothetical, unfulfilled — unreal. Pause and ask yourself: have any of these actions actually happened, or can the speaker guarantee that they will happen?
For instance, is “Yes, I can help you” the same as “Well, yes, I would like to help you”? Or is “He spoke clearly and everybody understood him” the same as “He spoke clearly hoping that everybody might be able to understand him”? Clearly not.
This is why English often adds modals — might, could, would — to give a different perspective on what is being said. The aim of the examples in the table is to give you a “feel” for the subjunctive. Sometimes translations of Latin subjunctives won’t use words like might, could, or would (though many do), but they reflect the way the subjunctive shapes the speaker’s thinking.
Image #2: In general, the indicative describes reality — what has happened or can be stated as fact — while the subjunctive expresses non-reality, uncertainty, desire, or suggestion.
Those headings – and others – are used to categorise different uses of the Latin subjunctive, and we will look at them all individually.
