So far, we have looked at the subjunctive in independent clauses — sentences that can stand on their own, for example:
Veniat │ Let him / her come.
Requiēscat in pāce │ May he rest in peace.
Utinam vēnisset │ If only he had come.
Vivāmus, mea Lesbia, atque amēmus │ Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love.
Now we are going to look at the subjunctive in dependent clauses.
A dependent clause (also called a subordinate clause) has a subject and a verb but does not express a complete thought. It cannot stand alone as a sentence and depends on a main (independent) clause to make sense. Subordinate clauses are most often introduced by a conjunction e.g. ‘because’, ‘when’, ‘although’ etc.
(1) I am going to ask her for money ¦ (2) so that I can buy a present.
(1) Let’s go to the seaside ¦ (2) even though it’s raining.
(1) is the principal / main clause; it could stand alone as a separate sentence and still be understood.
(2) is a subordinate clause; it cannot stand alone and is dependent upon the main clause to make sense.
There are many different types of subjunctive use and, as with the independent uses, each type has its own name. Sometimes, the modern English translation does not convey these distinctions. However, slightly older forms of English do convey these distinctions, so we will also use them to make the meaning clear.
the subjunctive of purpose
[1]
(1) John went to the baker’s ¦ (2) (in order) to buy a cake.
(1) John went out of the room ¦ (2) (in order) to avoid her.
French, German and Russian can express (2) in the same way i.e. Fr. pour + infinitive; Gmn. um … zu + infinitive; Russ: chtoby + infinitive
Latin does not express the idea in that way, and, in now rather ‘old fashioned’ English, it can be matched:
(1) John went to the baker’s ¦ (2) in order that / so that he might buy a cake. Yes, it sounds stilted, but it isn’t wrong.
(1) John went out of the room ¦ (2) in order that / so that he might avoid her.
Latin uses the conjunction ut (in order that) + the subjunctive, and the thinking behind both the Latin and the somewhat archaic English equivalent is the same.
John went to the baker’s ¦ (2) to buy a cake.
At the moment statement (2) was made, had John bought the cake? The answer is, of course, no. Whether John did buy a cake, or bought doughnuts instead has nothing to do with it.
The subjunctive expresses an action viewed as intended or anticipated, not asserted as fact.
In other words: (1) John went to the baker’s (2) to buy a cake. (3) The cake which he bought was very expensive. In grammatical terms, (3) is irrelevant. Yes, John did buy a cake, but when statement (2) was made, he hadn’t yet bought it, and Latin would express (2) with the subjunctive.
Mīlitēs pugnant ¦ ut patriam dēfendant. │ The soldiers fight in order to / so that they may defend the homeland.
Imagine that, at the moment the statement is made, a “door” shuts — you cannot see what comes next, because all that matters is that defending the homeland was the purpose, the intention.
[2] The word to look out for is ut (or: utī); while ut has other meanings, it is often the ‘sign’ that a purpose clause is to follow.
With the present subjunctive: future intention
Mīlitēs veniunt ¦ (1) ut oppidum (2) capiant.
Literally: The soldiers are coming ¦ (1) in order that / so that (2) they may capture the town.
> The soldiers are coming to capture the town.
Rōmam īs ¦ (1) ut cīvēs (2) dēfendās.
Literally: You are going to Rome ¦ (1) in order that (2) you may defend the citizens.
> You are going to Rome to defend the citizens.
[ii] A negative purpose i.e. in order not to do something is expressed either with nē alone or with ut … nē … + the subjunctive:
Librum cēlat ¦ (1) nē puerī eum (2) videant.
Literally: He hides the book ¦ (1) in order that (2) the boys may not see it.
> He hides the book so (that) the boys won’t see it.
Some books on Latin grammar use the English word ‘lest’ to illustrate this idea, which, although it means the same, is rather archaic and a little confusing. I only refer to it here since you may come across it:
He hides the book ¦ lest the boys (may) see it [ = so that they don’t see it]
[iii] Examples from Cicero:
Lēgum idcircō servī sumus, ut līberī sīmus. │ For this reason we are subject to the laws, so that / in order that we may be free.
Tusculānum vēnditat, ut … emat Paciliānam domum │ He is selling his place at Tusculum (in order) to buy Pacilius’ house.
[iv] negative purpose clauses
In Catullus 5, the author, talking about how many kisses he and Lesbia should ‘steal’, suggests it should be thousands:
conturbābimus illa, nē sciāmus, │ we shall shake them into confusion in order that we may not know,
aut nē quis malus invidēre possit │ and so that nobody evil (no wicked person) may be able to envy us,
scālās parārī iubet, nē quam facultātem dīmittat (Caesar)│ he orders ladders to be prepared in order not to let any opportunity slip [literally: in order that he may not let slip …]
A key point to remember – which will become more apparent in later posts – is that subjunctive of purpose does not express what was done, but why it was done.
