Level 3+; Subjunctive [31] tenses; spot the difference; the perfect subjunctive [ii] practice

In this exercise tick the tense, person and number of each verb; where there are two possibilities of tense, tick both. The first set indicate the markers to help you. The second set are random – but the markers are still there. Macrons are meaningful and determine tense/mood in this exercise, but it must be remembered that, in original Classical Latin literature, those distinctions are not shown and only context and sentence structure will determine what verb form is being used. This will become more apparent when the subjunctive in subordinate clauses is discussed.

Level 3+; Subjunctive [30] tenses; spot the difference; the perfect subjunctive

The perfect subjunctive also has a distinctive marker: -ERI- / -ERĪ-

amāvERIm

amāvERĪs

amāverit

amāverīmus

amāverītis

amāverint

[i] -im, as an ending also appears in the 1^st person singular present subjunctive of a few irregular verbs

sum, esse > sim

mālō, mālle > mālim

nōlo, nōlle > nōlim

possum, posse > possim

volō, velle > velim

[ii] Likewise, -int is the 3^rd person plural present subjunctive of those verbs:

sint

mālint

nōlint

possint

velint

Therefore, look for the -ERI- marker that indicates the perfect subjunctive:

nōlim (present subjunctive) │ nōluERIm (perfect subjunctive)

mālint (present subjunctive) │ māluERInt (perfect subjunctive)

[iii] This was mentioned in the post entitled:

xx.yy.26: Level 3; Subjunctive [9]; the tenses [2] perfect subjunctive

There is very little difference between the future perfect indicative and the perfect subjunctive, the main distinction being:

[i] first person singular:

amāverō (future perfect indicative) │ amāverim (perfect subjunctive)

the future perfect indicative is formed by the perfect stem + the future of esse

amāv¦ERŌ

the perfect subjunctive is formed by the perfect stem + -eri + personal ending -m

amāv¦ERIm

[ii] In unedited texts without macrons – both tenses are identical in form.

[a] When macrons are used, a distinction is indicated in:

(1) the 2nd person singular:

amāveris (future perfect indicative) │ amaverīs (perfect subjunctive)

(2) the 1^st and 2^nd person plural; the distinction is only between long and short /i/ of the ending:

amāverimus (future perfect indicative) │ amāverīmus (perfect subjunctive)

amāveritis (future perfect indicative) │ amāverītis (perfect subjunctive)

[b] In the 3^rd person singular and plural, both are identical i.e. a long /i/ is never used:

amāverit (future perfect indicative: amāv¦ERIT / perfect subjunctive: amāv¦ERI¦t)

amāverint (future perfect indicative: amāv¦ERINT  / perfect subjunctive: amāv¦ERI¦nt)

In other words, apart from the first person singular, there is no way superficially of identifying whether the verb is future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive. Context and the particular structure e.g. clause type will determine which one is being used.

Level 3+; Subjunctive [10] tenses [2] the perfect subjunctive [ii] practice

Change the indicative forms of the verb to the perfect subjunctive forms. Remember: Begin with the 3^rd principal part and remove the ending to create the perfect stem:

dīcō, dīcere, dīxī

> dīx-

To the stem add the endings:

-erim

-erīs

-erit

-erīmus

-erītis

-erint

> dīx¦erim, dīxerīs, dīxerit etc.

This applies to all verbs whether they are irregular or not:

sum, esse, fuī

fu¦erim, fuerīs, fuerit etc.

Some of these forms are rare, but the aim is for you to become familiar with the endings.

[1]

[i] laudō

[ii] stās

[iii] habitat

[iv] festināmus

[v] amātis

[vi] iuvant

[2]

[i] docētis

[ii] habeō

[iii] manēmus

[iv] rīdent

[v] tenēs

[vi] videt

[3]

[i] scrībunt 

[ii] mittimus 

[iii] legō 

[iv] dūcitis 

[v] dīcis 

[vi] currit 

[4]

[i] venit 

[ii] faciō 

[iii] capis 

[iv] audīmus

[v] fugitis

[vi] inveniunt

[5]

[i] adsum

[ii] mālō

[iii] nōn vīs

[iv] exit

[v] possumus

[vi] vultis

[vii] ferunt

[viii] trānseunt

____________________

[1]

[i] laudāverim

[ii] steterīs

[iii] habitāverit

[iv] festīnāverīmus

[v] amāverītis

[vi] iūverint

[2]

[i] docuerītis

[ii] habuerim

[iii] mānserīmus

[iv] rīserint

[v] tenuerīs

[vi] vīderit

[3]

[i] scrīpserint

[ii] mīserīmus

[iii] lēgerim

[iv] dūxerītis

[v] dīxerīs

[vi] cucurrerit

[4]

[i] vēnerit

[ii] fēcerim

[iii] cēperīs

[iv] audīverīmus

[v] fūgerītis

[vi] invēnerint

[5]

[i] adfuerim

[ii] māluerim

[iii] nōluerīs

[iv] exierit

[v] potuerīmus

[vi] voluerītis

[vii] tulerint

[viii] trānsierint

Level 3+; Subjunctive [9] the tenses [2] perfect subjunctive [i]

The perfect subjunctive will have its first mention in the next post on usage (negative jussive / prohibitive) and so we will look at its forms here:

Image #1: The perfect subjunctive is formed from:

[i] perfect tense stem (from the 3^rd principal part)

amō, amāre, amāv¦ī > amāv-

habeō, habēre, habu¦ī > habu-

vīvō, vīvere, vīx¦ī > vīx-

capiō, capere, cēp¦ī > cēp-

audiō, audīre, audīv¦ī > audīv-

[ii] + the endings: -erim, -erīs, -erit, -erīmus, -erītis, -erint [-eri- / -erī- + personal endings]

amāverim, amāverīs, amāverit, amāverīmus, amāverītis, amāverint

habuerim, habuerīs etc.

vīxerim, vīxerīs etc.

cēperim, cēperīs etc.

audīverim, audiverīs etc.

Image #2: all verbs – including irregular verbs – form the perfect subjunctive in the same way.

Image #3: An important point to note about the perfect subjunctive is that, apart from the first person singular, the formation and endings look the same as the future perfect tense. There are differences in terms of the use of long vowels (marked in the table and referred to in the video), but in a text which has not been edited with macrons, it is not always easy to distinguish them. Remember: slow and steady! Don’t try to juggle too many concepts at the same time, and simply focus on the use of the perfect subjunctive in the different contexts discussed in subsequent posts.