Potential Subjunctive
The potential subjunctive is Latin's softener: a main-clause verb in the subjunctive with no ut or nē in sight, marking the action as conceived rather than asserted.
English reaches for would, should, may, might, can, could — velim is "I'd like," crēderēs is "you would have thought," dīcat aliquis is "someone might say."
Cicero leans on it constantly to soften a claim he doesn't want to plant his flag on: haud sciam an — "I should incline to think," pāce tuā dīxerim — "I would say, by your leave." Tense controls when, not whether: present (or perfect) for present/future possibility, imperfect (or perfect) for past.
The trap is mistaking it for a deliberative subjunctive — a deliberative asks what to do; a potential softens a statement.
"would, should, may, might, can, could X" — the speaker conceives the action as possible rather than asserting it.
Negative is nōn (not nē). Watch the signals: velim, putem, crēdiderim, dīxerim, ausim, haud sciam an; the indefinite 2nd sg. (crēderēs, putārēs, vidērēs); and forsitan (subj.) vs. fortasse (indic.).
See It In Action
— Cic. Mil. 103
Cicero's textbook hedge. The perfect subjunctive dīxerim doesn't mean past time — it points at present/future possibility. "I would say," not "I said."
— Cic. Fam. xii. 6
Velim is the most common potential of all — Cicero's softer alternative to volō. It introduces a wish without quite asserting it, then governs a substantive subjunctive (exīstimēs) for what's wished.
— Liv. ii. 43. 9
The historian's idiom: an indefinite second-person crēderēs (or vidērēs, putārēs, dīcerēs) drops the reader into the scene — "you, an imagined onlooker, would have…" The imperfect carries it into past time.
— Cic. Rosc. Am. 5
Forsitan contains a buried subjunctive (sit — "there'd be a chance whether"), so it pulls the verb after it into the subjunctive too. Cicero uses it to invite a question he wants to answer.
"I would / should / might say / think / wish…" — softens commitment
dīxerim → "I would say"; crēdiderim → "I should be inclined to think"
"you would / might X" — generic "one," not the specific addressee
crēdās → "you would think," "one would think"
"you would have X-ed" — drops the reader into past time
crēderēs victōs → "you would have thought them conquered"
"perhaps X may / will…" — the modal IS "perhaps"; don't double it
forsitan quaerātis → "perhaps you may inquire" (not "perhaps you might possibly inquire")
"X might have happened" — the only true past-counterfactual potential
crēdidissēs → "you might have believed" (very rare)
Both are main-clause subjunctives without ut/nē. The difference is whether you're softening a statement (potential) or asking what to do (deliberative).
softens a STATEMENT — "would / might / could…"
dīcat aliquis
someone might say — assertion softened
asks a QUESTION about what to do — "am I to…?"
quid dīcam?
what am I to say? — question, no answer expected
Tip: Ask: is this a question demanding an answer, or a statement being softened? Punctuation helps (deliberatives are usually questions), and a 1st-sg. verb with quid, quō, cūr fronted leans deliberative; a softener verb (velim, putem, dīxerim, ausim) or a context cue (forsitan) leans potential.
In certum affirmāre nōn ausim (Livy iii. 23), what work is ausim doing?
Study Tips
- •When you see a main-clause subjunctive with no ut/nē/cum/sī governing it, scan first for the three signals: a softener verb (velim, putem, crēdam, dīcam, ausim), an indefinite second person (crēderēs, vidērēs), or forsitan.
- •Translate it with a modal — would, should, may, might, could — before reaching for any other rendering. If a modal lands cleanly, it's almost certainly potential.
- •Tense ≠ time the way you're used to: present/perfect both point at present-or-future possibility; imperfect (and sometimes perfect) carry the meaning into the past.
- •Forsitan takes the subjunctive (it's fors sit an — "there'd be a chance whether"); fortasse takes the indicative. Same English ("perhaps"), different mood — memorize the pair.