Conditions in Indirect Discourse
When a conditional sentence gets reported — "Caesar said that IF X, THEN Y" — both halves shift. The protasis (the sī-clause) goes subjunctive and follows sequence-of-tenses; the apodosis (the "then" half) becomes some form of the infinitive, just like any other main verb in indirect statement.
The genuinely hard part is past contrary-to-fact: direct sī fēcissem, vēnissem becomes dīxit sī fēcisset, sē ventūrum fuisse — that -ūrum fuisse covers BOTH present and past CTF, and if the verb is passive or has no supine stem, Latin swaps in futūrum fuisse ut + imperfect subjunctive instead.
Both halves transform: protasis becomes subordinate subjunctive; apodosis becomes infinitive — with a special periphrasis for past contrary-to-fact.
Future-more-vivid and future-less-vivid become indistinguishable once reported — both apodoses end up as future infinitive.
See It In Action
— B. G. i. 36
Direct: sī nōn praescrībō ... nōn oportet (present-general, indicative both halves). Reported: protasis goes subjunctive (praescrīberet, impf. by sequence after past dixit); apodosis present indicative oportet becomes present infinitive oportēre.
— B. G. i. 40
Future condition reported. Direct: sī sequētur ... ībō. The future indicative apodosis ībō becomes future infinitive itūrum [esse] — and notice the protasis would look identical whether the original was future-more-vivid (sequētur) or future-less-vivid (sequātur). OO erases the distinction.
— Liv. iii. 50. 7
The textbook shape of past CTF in OO. Direct: nōn superstes essem, nisi habuissem. Protasis stays habuisset (CTF protases freeze in tense — A&G §589.b.1); apodosis becomes futūrum fuisse — the -ūrum fuisse periphrasis is the unmistakable signal of past contrary-to-fact reported.
— B. C. iii. 101
Why the workaround? Āmittō CAN form āmissūrum, but here it's PASSIVE — passives have no future active participle. So Latin builds futūrum fuisse ut āmitterētur — "it would have been the case that the town be lost." Same meaning as -ūrum fuisse, but routed through fīō + ut-clause.
future inf. → "that he will / would do" (no counterfactual)
dīxit sē itūrum [esse] → "he said he would go" (and went, or will go)
past CTF apodosis → "that he would have done" (didn't happen)
nec dictūrum fuisse, ni cāritās vinceret → "he would not have spoken, did love not prevail" (Liv. ii. 2)
past CTF apodosis (passive / no supine) → "that it would have come about that…"
futūrum fuisse ut āmitterētur → "that the town would have been lost" (B. C. iii. 101)
perf. inf. of modal verb in CTF apodosis → "could have / ought to have"
sī voluisset, bellum potuisse fīnīre → "he could have ended the war, had he chosen" (B. C. iii. 51)
future-more-vivid AND future-less-vivid both render as "would " — direct cannot be recovered
(dīxit) sī sequerētur, sē itūrum → "he said that, if X should follow, he would go" — original could be either
These look almost identical but mean entirely different things. The fuisse is the past-CTF signal; esse is plain future.
future infinitive — "will do / would do" (factual or future)
dīxit sē factūrum esse
he said that he would do it (and presumably he will / did)
past CTF apodosis in OO — "would have done" (didn't happen)
dīxit sē factūrum fuisse
he said that he would have done it (counterfactual — he didn't)
Tip: Look for fuisse. If you see -ūrum fuisse, you're in a contrary-to-fact apodosis: translate "would have ," never "would ." The companion protasis will be pluperfect (or imperfect) subjunctive.
In quid inimicitiārum crēditis mē exceptūrum fuisse, sī insontīs lacessissem (Q. C. vi. 10. 18), what kind of condition is being reported?
Study Tips
- •Build the transformation in two steps: first turn the protasis into a subordinate subjunctive (apply sequence-of-tenses to the main verb of saying), then turn the apodosis into the right infinitive.
- •When you see factūrum fuisse (or any -ūrum fuisse), don't translate it as a future — it's the indirect-discourse signal for past contrary-to-fact: "would have done."
- •Futūrum fuisse ut + imperfect subjunctive is the workaround for verbs that can't form -ūrum (passives, defectives like posse). Recognize it as past CTF in disguise.
- •Future-more-vivid and future-less-vivid collapse into the same infinitive in OO — once a future condition is reported, you can't tell fēcerit from faciat in the original.