Future Conditions (Vivid & Less Vivid)
Future conditions in Latin come in two flavors, and the difference is one of distance, not grammar. The MORE VIVID future ('if X happens, Y will happen') puts both verbs in the future indicative — the speaker treats the supposition as a real possibility on the horizon.
The LESS VIVID future ('if X should happen, Y would happen') puts both verbs in the present subjunctive — the speaker holds the supposition at arm's length, hypothetically.
English marks the split with verb forms ("will" vs. "should/would"); Latin marks it with mood. The trap on the AP exam: less-vivid present subjunctive looks identical to the present contrary-to-fact, but CTF needs the IMPERFECT subjunctive — same mood, different tense.
more vivid = "if X happens, Y will happen"; less vivid = "if X should happen, Y would happen"
Both verbs match: indicative with indicative (more vivid), or subjunctive with subjunctive (less vivid). Don't mix moods unless the writer is shifting viewpoint.
See It In Action
— Cic. Tusc. iii. 13
Textbook MORE VIVID: future indicative on both sides. English flattens the protasis to "if we wish," but Latin keeps the future tense honest — the wishing hasn't happened yet.
— Cic. Cat. i. 19
Textbook LESS VIVID: present subjunctive on both sides. "Should…would" in English is the giveaway — Cicero is hypothesizing, not predicting.
— Sall. Cat. 58
Two future tricks in one sentence: a present indicative vincimus substitutes for the future (note 516.a), and cesserimus in the second protasis is future perfect — the yielding must be COMPLETE before the consequence kicks in.
— Cic. Cat. M. 83
Cicero is rejecting a hypothetical gift no god has actually offered — pure less-vivid territory. "Were to grant"…"should refuse" is the standard English mapping for present-subjunctive pairs.
Both use the subjunctive in protasis AND apodosis — the only signal is TENSE. Less vivid uses present; CTF uses imperfect.
hypothetical, not yet decided
sī veniat, gaudeam
if he should come, I would be glad (still possible)
false right NOW; speaker knows it
sī venīret, gaudērem
if he were coming (but he isn't), I would be glad
Tip: Look at the TENSE of the subjunctive. Present (veniat, gaudeam) → less vivid future. Imperfect (venīret, gaudērem) → present CTF. Same mood, different worlds.
In sī haec patria tēcum loquātur, nōnne impetrāre dēbeat? (Cic. Cat. i. 19), what kind of condition is this and how should the verbs be translated?
Study Tips
- •Two questions diagnose the form: (1) Future or present time? (2) Indicative or subjunctive? Future + indicative = more vivid. Present + subjunctive = less vivid.
- •Translate less-vivid as "should…would," not "might" or "could" — the should/would pairing is the standard English signal that Latin used the present subjunctive.
- •If the action of the si-clause must be COMPLETE before the apodosis, swap the future for the future perfect (more vivid) or the present subjunctive for the perfect subjunctive (less vivid).
- •Watch for present indicative in the si-clause with a future apodosis — Latin slides into this when the supposition feels especially live (sī vincimus, omnia tūta erunt).