2

The sentence from Nepos 'Hannibal' 7.3 is the Romans refusing to return hostages "...quod Hannibalem, cuius opera susceptum bellum foret, ..." Loeb, and Dickinson College Commentary, treat 'susceptum bellum foret' as pluperfect, 'through whose effort the war had been undertaken.' But fore = futurum esse, so should not the translation be 'through whose effort war would be undertaken'?

user14099
  • 21
  • 2
  • 2
    Welcome to the site! Take a look at this old question on comparing forem and essem. Does it, with its answer, answer your question? – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 04 '24 at 05:45
  • I closed your question as a duplicate, but it can be reopened if you [edit] to describe what's missing. Don't worry; this linking of questions is just to make our database of questions and answers more useful. Your question is good and I hope you'll stick around and ask more. – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 04 '24 at 07:39
  • Thank you for the reference to the article on esse and fore. It leaves open the possibility that fore is, in fact, being used with future reference, or is deliberately ambiguous, and also suggests stylistic considerations. – user14099 Mar 05 '24 at 20:33
  • 1
    It's hard to tell: does your last comment indicate you have further questions about this? If so, make sure you [edit] your question to take into account the new information and we can evaluate it again afterward. – cmw Mar 06 '24 at 17:46

0 Answers0