3

Can Latin imperfect be "stopped" in the past or only in the present?

from A&G 471.b:

b. With iam diū, iam dūdum, and other expressions of duration of time, the imperfect denotes an action continuing in the past but begun at some previous time (cf. § 466). In this construction the imperfect is rendered by the English pluperfect.

Iam dūdum flēbam. (Ov. M. 3.656) I had been weeping for a long time.

cōpiās quās diū comparābant (Fam. 11.13.5) the forces which they had long been getting ready

To judge by the Ovid example it then followed by present tense (:lacrimas manus inpia nostras ridet et inpellit properantibus aequora remis); while the Cicero example it followed by the perfect tense (subito ad patriae periculum converterunt.).

Specifically, In Cicero there are versions that read compararant (pluperfect) and not comparabant. Is the imperfect valid or natural choice despite being stopped in the past? or the pluperfect has to be preferred? What are other examples?

d_e
  • 11,021
  • 2
  • 21
  • 40
  • Are you really asking for every possible tense corresponding with every possible time every possible action might end? or did you have any more specific request? As it stands, the answer is "all of them, depending". – lly Jun 22 '23 at 14:31
  • 2
    @lly, I ask if iamdiu flebam donec(?) te vidi is valid. If so, I would like to know what might be the difference between using video.(... sed nunc te video) According to A&G 66, if we use the present tense instead of the imperfect iamdiu fleo it means that the action still happening and haven't stopped yet. But if we use the imperfect it suggests I believe the action has already stopped: I ask can it be stopped in the past? (we might not even provide additional verbs.); or merely using this construction implies this stopped only now? – d_e Jun 22 '23 at 15:35
  • 4
    If you look at more of the the Ovid passage, you'll see that those present tense verbs are the 'historical present,' representing the perfect. Practically speaking, the imperfect in both examples is followed by a perfect. – cnread Jun 22 '23 at 15:43
  • @cnread, interesting. But now we are left with the question of if the imperfect felbam is not "historical imperfect" (if there is such a thing) representing the pluperfect? :) – d_e Jun 22 '23 at 15:50
  • @cnread: In this answer from Seb, =https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/16328/1982, should (historical) present, "minatur", be seen as a perfect tense? The complementary verb, "restituissent", is a pluperfect-subjunctive being used to represent the future. The anteriority, Seb describes, is perfect then pluperfect (originally future-perfect), is that correct? – tony Jun 24 '23 at 11:54
  • @tony, I'm not seeing what that has to do with the current question, which involves no subjunctives; so sequence of tenses and the behavior of conditions in complex constructions don't apply at all. Maybe your comment would be better as a separate question? – cnread Jun 24 '23 at 18:27
  • @cnread: It was the point about the historic present representing the perfect. The pluperfect-subjunctive being used to represent the future, in indirect speech, takes a bit of understanding (the OP, here, is also concerned about timings). That historic present, "minatur", should be seen as a perfect makes Seb's analysis of anteriority much clearer. – tony Jun 25 '23 at 08:05

0 Answers0