|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 19:40|
En réponse à Roger Mills <romilly@...>:
> Christophe wrote:
> > En réponse à "John C." <Grex37@...>:
> Can you use it
> > > with a
> > > past, present, AND future tense (my language has a future tense
> > > English)?
> > Portuguese does it, so you can too ;))) .
> Is it actually used, or just a relic in the official grammar books?
From what I know, it's still used in Portugal at least. How often I don't know.
Maybe it's like the French simple past, still alive but restricted to the
> has a future subj. (according to the grammar of the Real Academia, but
> unmentioned in teaching grammars)-- amare, amares, amare, etc., app.
> from the old Latin impf. subj.???? (I don't recall the forms for
> verbs like haber, ser etc, nor whether there is a fut.perf. subj.)
Haber: hubiere, ser: fuere, etc... It's indeed derived from the Latin imperfect
subjunctive. And there is indeed a future perfect subjunctive, simply haber in
the future subjunctive followed by the past participle: hubiere comido.
> across it once, in a legal document. Nowhere else in years of
I actually never saw it in my life except in an old grammar book :)) .
> in order to avoid cloning Latin/Romance, devise some unexpected places
> a subjunctive must occur.
Or add other moods, which will oblige to restrict the use of the subjunctive
and make the language look less like a clone of a Romance tongue. For instance,
add an optative, mood of the wish :)) (I think Ancient Greek had both a
subjunctive and an optative, didn't it? So it could be a place to look to see
how it was handled).
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.