Result CLauses a.k.a. Consecutive Clauses

The basics ut + subjunctive distinguishing from purpose clauses intensifying adverbs or adjectives translation tips sequence of tenses

Examples usque eo male existimat ut hoc palam dictitet to such an extent does he despise that he openly repeats this... dictitare: (“keep on saying”) = first conjugation dictitet = 3rd singular, present subjunctive e

The same in the past (secondary sequence) usque eo existimabat ut dictitaret such was his opinion that he repeated... imperfect main verb ==> secondary sequence secondary sequence ==> imperfect subjunctive in subordinate clause

Negative Result “ut non...” contrast with purpose clause: “ne...” tantam spem recepi ut in exilium non eam I have gathered so much hope that I am not going into exile

Purpose v. result A purpose clause gives the reason or motivation for an action. it doesn’t imply that this desired action was achieved A result clause gives the action that results from a main clause action it does usually imply that the result happened (but see later) When positive, both use the connective ut and a subjunctive verb negative purpose (so that not, lest): ne + subjunctive negative result: ut non + subjunctive

intensifiers come in the main clause! They point out for us the verb (i.e. the action) which causes the result (though usually it is the manner of the action that matters) I was so happy that I cried He caught so many fish that he had to let some go I’ve had such a bad day that I’m going straight to bed He acted in such a way that we had to laugh God so loved the world that he gave his only son...

Intensifiers Adverbs adeo, eo, usque eo, "to such a degree" ita, "thus", "so" tam, "so" totiens, "so often" Adverbs adeo, eo, usque eo, "to such a degree" ita, "thus", "so" tam, "so" totiens, "so often"

Translating results Good translation depends on... recognising that “so... that” may express purpose or result in English. You shouldn’t let this remain ambiguous in your translation - we want to see that you know the difference translating the intensifier (in the main clause), the main verb and the resulting action so that they fit together elegantly. Occasionally you may need to choose a different structure in English to successfully translate the result relation (especially when there’s no intensifier in the main clause)

Example haec dixit, ut ego non laetus essem

haec dixit, ut ego non laetus essem. not a purpose clause (ut non, rather than ne) no intensifier to get the result idea going --> tricky translation Either add an intensifier “He said these things in such a way that I was not happy” Or go for a bigger change: “He said these things, and as a result I was not happy.” haec dixit, ut ego non laetus essem

Mixed sequences Normal sequence of tenses: primary main verb ==> present subjunctive secondary main verb ==> imperfect subjunctive primary = present, future, future perfect, sometimes perfect secondary = imperfect, pluperfect, sometimes perfect

So When I did something in the past I express its result with the imperfect subjunctive When I do something in the present I express its result with the present subjunctive

But A result involves a temporal relation - it must follow from the main verb (hence “consecutive” clause) The result of a past action might be occurring now, or might still be the case So the sequence may be mixed: past (secondary) tense main verb present or - often - perfect subjunctive

haec adeo effecit ut ego nunc omnia perdiderim he so well achieved this that I have now lost everything

natural or actual There is an important distinction in many languages between actual results, where the result is asserted to have actually happened: he so loved her that he gave her all his possessions and natural results, where the main action is deemed sufficient to cause the result, but that result may or may not have actually happened: he loved her enough to give her all his possessions (note that English tends to do this with an infinitive)

Latin does not make a strong distinction between these two: most result clauses will just use ut + subjunctive (normal sequence of tenses), and you’ll need to infer from context whether the result is actual or natural Sometimes, however, when a speaker wants to really emphasize the actuality of a result, she will use the perfect subjunctive, even in secondary sequence

puellam ita amaverat ut eae omnia dederit he had so loved the girl that he really did give her all his stuff

Future subjunctive In this week’s reading we see a variant of this usage: Cicero wants to emphasize the actuality of a primary sequence result (it really happened!) but that result is still in the future at the time of speaking (“I’m about to...”) He could still use the present tense, but that would allow his audience to hear it as a natural result - he wants to exclude that so he uses the future subjunctive (defixurus sim)

relative results One last point: when there’s a strong connection between a noun in the result, and a noun in the main clause, “ut” may be replaced by the appropriate relative pronoun. we’ll still know it’s a result clause (or rather, a relative clause of result), because of... the subjunctive verb the intensifier in the main clause (hopefully it’s there!)

adeo fortis erat qui hostes omnes vinceret “he was so brave that he defeated all his enemies” adeo fortes erant hostes quos vincere non posset the enemies were so strong that he couldn’t defeat them note that we have to choose between translating as a relative clause and translating as a result clause - we can’t do both at the same time. Here it’s best to translate as a result clause