Contrary-to-Fact Conditions
A contrary-to-fact (CTF) condition says "if X were true — but it isn't." Latin signals the falsity by yanking BOTH clauses into the subjunctive: imperfect on each side for present time (sī vīveret, audīrētis — "if he were alive, you would be hearing him"), pluperfect on each side for past time (sī adfuisset, vīdisset — "if he had been there, he would have seen").
The matching tense IS the unreality signal — no English "but" required.
This is the AP exam's favorite conditional, especially in Cicero's courtroom what-ifs. The trap is the future-less-vivid (sī veniat, gaudeam — "should he come, I'd be glad"): also subjunctive, also hypothetical, but the present subj. keeps the door open. CTF slams it shut.
"if X were…, Y would be…" (now) / "if X had…, Y would have…" (then) / "if X had…, Y would now be…" (mixed)
The matching tense is the WHOLE signal of unreality — there is no "but it isn't" word in Latin. Mismatch = mixed CTF (always allowed) or you're not in a CTF at all.
See It In Action
— Cic. Rosc. Com. 42
Textbook present CTF — imperfect subj. on BOTH sides, no English "but" required. The tenses themselves carry the "he isn't."
— Cic. Cat. M. 11
Past CTF — pluperfect subj. on both sides. Note nisi (not sī nōn): in CTF, "unless" is far more idiomatic than "if not."
— Cic. Phil. ii. 37
Mixed CTF in action: past protasis (valuisset) → present apodosis (egērēs) AND past apodosis (āmīsisset). Cicero piles consequences — one in your present, one in his recent past.
— Cic. Pis. 50
Cicero's rhetorical CTF — and a tense mismatch on purpose: esset (a continuing present-state) with ausus esset (a past act). A&G § 517. a notes the imperfect can stretch back over both timeframes when the unreal state would still hold.
"if X were …, Y would be …" — both clauses imperfect subjunctive in Latin
sī adesset, vidēret → "if he were here, he would see"
"if X had …, Y would have …" — both clauses pluperfect subjunctive
sī adfuisset, vīdisset → "if he had been here, he would have seen"
"if X had happened, Y would now be …" — pluperfect protasis, imperfect apodosis
sī cōnsilium valuisset, tū hodiē egērēs → "had my plan prevailed, you would today be poor"
"X was about to / was already Y-ing, if Z had …" — keep the English imperfect, don't add "would"
sī licitum esset, mātrēs veniēbant → "the mothers were coming if it had been allowed"
"X ought to / could / should have Y-ed" — oportuit, potuit, dēbuit
nōn potuit fierī sapiēns, nisi nātus esset → "he could not have become a sage, if he had not been born"
Both feel hypothetical and both use the subjunctive — but they sit in different timeframes. The tense is the only tell.
imperfect subj. both sides — "would be doing X (but isn't)"
sī adesset, vidēret
if he were here, he would see (he isn't)
present subj. both sides — "should X happen, Y would"
sī adsit, videat
if he should be here, he would see (still possible)
Tip: Ask: is the door still open in the future, or already closed? Present subj. = open ("should/would"). Imperfect subj. = closed ("were/would, but isn't"). The vowel difference (-e- vs -ē-) carries the whole rhetorical weight.
Cicero writes sī meum cōnsilium valuisset, tū hodiē egērēs. What kind of conditional is this and what does it mean?
Study Tips
- •Spot CTF by the matching pair: imperfect subj. ↔ imperfect subj. for present unreality, pluperfect subj. ↔ pluperfect subj. for past. If both sides match in those tenses, translate "were/would" or "had/would have" before parsing anything else.
- •Mixed CTF is fine and common — pluperfect protasis with imperfect apodosis means "if X had happened, Y would now be the case." Sī cōnsilium meum valuisset, tū hodiē egērēs — Cicero's actual move at Phil. ii. 37.
- •When Cicero builds a courtroom what-if ("if Milo had wanted Clodius dead…"), the unreality IS the rhetorical weapon. Read CTF as performance, not a bare conditional.
- •Nisi ("unless") is more common than sī nōn in CTF — nisi tū āmīsissēs, numquam recēpissem ("unless you had lost it, I should not have recovered it," Cat. M. 11).