Conditional clauses are dependent clauses that indicate what happens if something else occurs. We might
Conditions are composed of two clauses:
For example:
If we study for the exam, we will get good grades.
“If we study for the exam” is the protasis, while “we will get good grades” is the apodosis.
Protases are usually introduced by the subordinating conjunction sī, “if”, or nisī, “if … not” or “unless”.
The following chart indicates the six types of conditions that they are in Latin. This is meant as a summary and a convenient study aid that collects all the possibilities in one place. The remaining sections of this module will explain each condition in detail and the guidelines for the formation and translation of each.
| Conjunction | Protasis | Apodosis | Condition Type | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sī/nisī | past indicative | past indicative | past simple | translate normally |
| sī/nisī | present indicative | present indicative | present simple | translate normally |
| sī/nisī | future or future perfect indicative | future or future perfect indicative | future more vivid / future simple | translate normally; optionally, translate protasis as present tense |
| sī/nisī | pluperfect subjunctive | pluperfect subjunctive | past contrary-to-fact | “had / would have” |
| sī/nisī | imperfect subjunctive | imperfect subjunctive | present contrary-to-fact | “were / would” |
| sī/nisī | present (or perfect) subjunctive | present subjunctive | future less vivid | “should / would” |
For the following examples, we will use the same sentence to illustrate how each of the different conditionals works:
“If he does it, he is wise.”
Conditionals that use the indicative mood in both clauses express general truths; for that reason, they are often called general conditions. We can always translate an indicative verb at face value depending on its tense: for example, if you see an imperfect tense indicative verb, translate it as a straightforward imperfect. There will be some options for translation when it comes to the future more vivid.
A past simple condition uses past tenses in the indicative in both the protasis and apodosis and explains a general truth about an action in the past. The use of the indicative indicates that the speaker is reasonably certain that the actions in question were actually performed.
A present simple condition uses the present tense in the indicative in both clauses to explain a general truth in the present. The use of the indicative indicates that the speaker is reasonably certain that the actions in question are actually happening.
The future more vivid or future simple condition uses either the future or the future perfect tense in both clauses to indicate a general truth in the future. The use of the indicative indicates that the speaker is reasonably certain that the actions in question will actually happen; there is no doubt.
Note that with the future more vivid, you have the option of translating the verb in the protasis, whether it’s future or future perfect, as a present tense:
In this case, using a present tense to translate the apodosis contributes to the generalizing quality of the condition; it also sounds better in English, especially if the verb in your protasis is in the future perfect, the translation of which usually sounds stilted and odd in modern English.
Identify the type of condition contained in each of the following sentences and translate.
tē nōn vidēbimus nisī in domō manēbis.
sī illud dīxit, mentītus est. (mentior, -īrī, -ītus sum - to lie)
ea canere vult sī carmina discere potest.
Two conditions that use the subjunctive indicate actions that would have happened upon the enactment of some condition; however, that condition was not met, so the entire condition is just a thought experiment that is contrary to what factually happened or is happening. A third condition that uses the subjunctive indicates an action that may occur in the future contingent upon the completion of a condition, but it’s uncertain whether it will happen.
A past contrary-to-fact (or “past contrafactual”) condition indicates what would have happened if something had happened. Both clauses will use the pluperfect subjunctive.
The protasis will translate the pluperfect subjunctive straightforwardly: “had [verb]ed”.
The apodosis will translate the pluperfect subjunctive with the auxiliaries “would have [verb]ed.”
A present contrary-to-fact (or “present contrafactual”) condition indicates what would happen if something were happening. Both clauses will use the imperfect subjunctive.
The protasis will translate the imperfect subjunctive with the auxiliary “were [verb]ing.”
The apodosis will translate the imperfect subjunctive with the auxiliary “would [verb].”
The future less vivid condition indicates an action that would happen in the future, if another action should happen first. Both clauses will use the present subjunctive.
The protasis will translate the present subjunctive with the auxiliary “should [verb].”
The apodosis will translate the present subjunctive with the auxiliary “would [verb].”
Note that the translation of the apodosis is the same as the apodosis of a present contrary-to-fact; the difference lies in the time when the action of the protasis would be completed: in the present for a present contrary-to-fact; in the future for a future less vivid.
Rarely, you may see a perfect subjunctive instead of a present subjunctive in the protasis:
Identify the type of condition in each of the following sentences and translate.
nostrī mīlitēs hostem vicissent sī eī acrēs fuissent.
nostrī mīlitēs hostem vincant sī eī acrēs sint.
nostrī mīlitēs hostem vincerent sī eī acrēs essent.
A condition may be composed of different types of protases and apodoses or, sometimes, even entire other grammatical constructions like hortatory subjunctives or imperatives. In such cases, analyze each half of the condition on its own terms and translate accordingly before putting the two halves together. For example:
The protasis of this mixed condition uses a pluperfect subjunctive verb: that makes it the protasis of a past contrary-to-fact, translated as “had [verb]ed.” The apodosis, on the other hand, uses an imperfect subjunctive verb: that makes it the apodosis of a present contrary-to-fact, translated as “would [verb].” When we put the two halves together, we come up with the following translation:
You can also use other grammatical structures in place of an apodosis, such as a command:
Note also that ablative absolutes can also be translated as conditionals, if such a translation makes sense in the context of the narrative:
