Coniūnctīvus · ūsus

The Latin subjunctive (modus coniūnctīvus) expresses what is not asserted as fact. It is the mood of will, possibility, doubt, contingency, command, exhortation. While the indicative makes statements about reality, the subjunctive presents thought, wish, conception, or contingency.

In independent clauses the subjunctive has four primary uses:

(1) Volitive (will, command, exhortation, prohibition); (2) Optative (wish, attainable or unattainable); (3) Potential (possibility, "may, might, would"); (4) Deliberative (deliberation, perplexity in question).

In subordinate clauses the subjunctive is required by many conjunctions and constructions: purpose, result, indirect question, indirect command, fearing, characteristic, anticipation, restriction, and certain causal/concessive uses. The choice between subjunctive and indicative often shifts a sentence from "this is" to "may this be / might this be / let this be / could this be" — Latin's most subtle and rigorous grammatical distinction.

The subjunctive has only four tenses (no future or future-perfect): present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect. Future time, when needed, is supplied periphrastically with the future active participle + present subjunctive of sum: amātūrus sim "I should be about to love".

The volitive subjunctive expresses the speaker's will. Tense: present (always for present/future will). Negative: nē, never nōn.

Hortatory subjunctive (1st person, plural mostly): expresses an exhortation or summons to action. Translatable as "let us..." or "we should...".

Jussive subjunctive (3rd person): a milder, less direct command than the imperative. Often used where English would say "let him / let them / he must / they should".

Prohibitive subjunctive (perfect, with nē): a polite, generic prohibition. nē fēceris "don't do (it)" — addressed to a single hearer; nē fēceritis for plural. The perfect tense is preferred to the present in classical prose. (The other Latin prohibition is nōlī(te) + infinitive: nōlī fugere "do not flee".)

The optative subjunctive expresses a wish. The particle utinam (or, less commonly, ō sī) often introduces it; without utinam, it can be ambiguous with the volitive. Negative: nē (or utinam nē).

Three patterns by tense:

Present subjunctive — for a wish about the future or a possible present: vīvās! "may you live!"; floreās! "may you flourish!"; utinam veniat "may he come".

Imperfect subjunctive — for an unattainable wish about the present: utinam venīret "would that he were coming (now — but he isn't)".

Pluperfect subjunctive — for an unattainable wish about the past: utinam vēnisset "would that he had come (then — but he didn't)".

This is exactly parallel to the protasis of contrary-to-fact conditions: imperfect for present-CtF, pluperfect for past-CtF.

The potential subjunctive softens an assertion or expresses a hypothetical possibility. Three tense uses:

Present or perfect subjunctive: present-time possibility, "may, might, can". velim (more polite than volō) "I should like"; quis crēdat? "who would believe?"; fortasse aliquis dīcat "perhaps someone may say".

Imperfect subjunctive: past-time possibility, "would, could (have)". crēderēs "you would have believed (had you been there)"; diceret "he would say".

The potential approaches the conditional in feeling and is often interchangeable with the apodosis of an "ideal" condition (Lectiō XXXI). It is the basis of polite Latin: velim, nōlim, nē dīxerim — softer alternatives to direct assertion.

The deliberative subjunctive expresses a question in which the speaker is genuinely perplexed about what to do, think, or say. It is not a request for information but an expression of doubt. Tenses:

Present: present-time doubt. quid faciam? "what am I to do?"; quō eāmus? "where are we to go?".

Imperfect: past-time doubt. quid facerem? "what was I to do?"; quō īrem? "where was I to go?".

The negative is nōn (not nē): cūr nōn veniat? "why should he not come?".

Distinguish from the indicative question (asking for information): quid facis? "what are you doing?" (genuine inquiry) vs quid faciās? "what are you to do? / what should you do?" (perplexed deliberation).

Purpose clauses (clāusulae fīnālēs) express the reason or aim of the main verb's action. Always introduced by ut (positive) or nē (negative); always subjunctive. Tense follows the sequence of tenses (Lectiō XXIX):

Primary main verb → present subjunctive in purpose clause: scrībō ut discās "I am writing in order that you may learn".
Secondary main verb → imperfect subjunctive: scrīpsī ut discerēs "I wrote in order that you might learn".

Special purpose conjunctions: quō + comparative (= "in order that ... more"): scrībō quō melius discās "I write so that you may learn the better"; quōminus after verbs of preventing.

Latin also uses relative clauses of purpose: mittit lēgātōs quī pācem petant "he sends ambassadors to seek peace" (literally "who should seek peace"). The relative quī + subjunctive replaces ut eī.

Result clauses (clāusulae cōnsecūtīvae) describe an outcome or consequence. Introduced by ut (positive) or ut nōn (negative — not nē!). The main clause typically contains a "lead-in" word: tantus, tālis, tot, ita, sīc, adeō.

tantus est terror ut omnēs fugiant "so great is the terror that all are fleeing" (primary, present subj.). tantus erat terror ut omnēs fūgerint "so great was the terror that all (in fact) fled" (secondary, but perfect subj. is allowed in result clauses to emphasize that the result actually occurred — a key distinction from purpose clauses).

Distinction: purpose looks forward from intent; result looks back from outcome. Purpose negative: nē. Result negative: ut nōn. In secondary sequence, purpose always uses imperfect subj.; result may use either imperfect (process) or perfect subj. (single completed result).

The conjunction cum (also spelled quom) is the most versatile of Latin subordinators. Its mood depends on its meaning:

Temporal cum + indicative ("at the time when"): a simple temporal coincidence in present, future, future-perfect, or genuinely past time. cum vēnit, dīxit "when he came, he said" (simple narrative).

"Circumstantial" cum + subjunctive (the most common in classical narrative): describes the historical setting or background of the main action. The subjunctive marks cum as setting the stage rather than just locating in time. cum vēnisset, dīxit "when he had come (i.e., having come), he said". Imperfect subj. for simultaneous-past background; pluperfect subj. for prior-past background.

Causal cum + subjunctive ("since, because"): when cum = quoniam. cum hostēs adventārent, oppidum mūnīvit "since the enemy were approaching, he fortified the town".

Concessive cum + subjunctive ("although"): when cum = quamquam. Often reinforced with tamen in the main clause. cum esset Caesar in citeriōre Galliā, ... tamen ... "although Caesar was in nearer Gaul, ... yet ...".

Iterative cum + indicative ("whenever"): with cum + perfect ind. (or pluperf.) used to describe repeated past action. cum lūx erat, surgēbat "whenever it was light, he would rise".

Causal clauses: quod, quia, quoniam, quandō + indicative (asserted fact); + subjunctive (reported / virtual indirect discourse): discēdit quod nōn pugnāre vult "he leaves because he does not want to fight (objective fact)" vs discēdit quod nōn pugnāre velit "he leaves because (as he says) he does not want to fight (alleged reason)".

Concessive clauses distinguish the speaker's stance:

quamquam + indicative ("although" — concedes a fact): quamquam abest, eum amō "although he is absent, I love him".

quamvīs + subjunctive ("however much" — granted hypothetically): quamvīs sit pulcher, mihi nōn placet "however handsome he may be, he does not please me".

etsī, etiamsī, tametsī + indicative (fact) or subjunctive (hypothetical): etsī sciō, dīcō vs etsī sciam, dīcam.

licet ("granted that, although") + subjunctive: licet īrāscantur, mē nōn movēbunt "granted that they may rage, they will not move me".

An indirect question is an interrogative clause embedded in another sentence (rather than asked outright). The verb is always subjunctive in classical Latin. The interrogative word (quis, quid, ubi, quandō, cūr, quōmodo, num, an, utrum...an, etc.) retains its form. Tense follows sequence-of-tenses (Lectiō XXIX).

Direct: Quid faciet? "What will he do?". Indirect: nesciō quid factūrus sit "I do not know what he will do" (primary, fut. periphrastic). Nesciēbam quid factūrus esset "I did not know what he would do" (secondary).

The future in indirect questions is supplied by the periphrastic -ūrus sim/essem, since the subjunctive lacks a true future tense.

Common introducing verbs: quaerō, rogō, interrogō (ask); nesciō, sciō, scīscō (know/not-know); videō, audiō, sentiō (perceive); cōnsīderō, cōgitō, dubitō (consider, doubt); memorō, dīcō, nōminō (mention, name); doceō, ostendō (show, teach).

Fearing-clauses: after verbs of fear (timeō, vereor, metuō, paveō, periculum est), the subordinate clause uses subjunctive. The conjunctions are logically inverted — opposite of what you'd expect:

nē = "that ... will happen" (positive fear: I fear THAT something will happen).
ut (or nē nōn) = "that ... will not happen" (negative fear: I fear that something will NOT happen).

The logic is historical: timeō nē veniat originally meant "I fear; may he not come!" — two clauses fused. Hence nē reads as "fearing he may come".

timeō nē veniat "I fear that he will come (which I don't want)".
timeō ut veniat = timeō nē nōn veniat "I fear that he will not come (which I do want)".

Verbs of preventing, hindering, refusing: take nē + subj. (positive main: "I prevent X from happening"); quōminus + subj. (similar sense, often after preventing-verbs); quīn + subj. (after negative main: "X is not prevented").

impedīō nē veniat "I prevent him from coming" (lit. "I hinder lest he come"). nōn impediō quōminus eat "I do not prevent him from going". nōn dubitō quīn vēnerit "I do not doubt that he has come" (positive thrust through double negative — the standard Latin idiom for confident assertion).

Relative clauses of characteristic: a relative clause whose verb is in the subjunctive describes a characteristic, definition, or generic class — not a particular individual. est quī hoc dīcat "there is (the kind of person) who would say this"; nōn is sum quī haec faciam "I am not the (kind of) man to do these things". The subjunctive marks the antecedent as generic or hypothetical, distinguishing from a factual relative.

Anticipatory clauses: subordinate clauses introduced by antequam, priusquam, dum, dōnec, quoad:

antequam, priusquam ("before"): + indicative for fact ("the action did occur before X"); + subjunctive when the action is anticipated, prevented, or hypothetical: antequam vēnit, dīxit (factual) vs antequam veniat, fugiāmus ("let us flee before he comes").

dum, dōnec, quoad ("while, until"):
+ indicative when expressing simple coincidence ("while X is happening, Y").
+ subjunctive when expressing anticipation or purpose ("until X may happen", "till such time as").

Proviso clauses: dum, dummodo, modo + subjunctive ("provided that"): ōderint, dum metuant "let them hate, provided that they fear" (Caligula's motto).