There are frequent exceptions to the consequence of the tension rule (see Latin tenses-Sequence OF Tenses Rule). Thus, the verbs in the conditional clauses generally do not follow the rule: the debate among grammars about the adequacy of the two types of time dates back to the 18th century. [2] The use of the sequence is sometimes a source of additional problems when the grammatical construction of the indirect language contains an integrated quotation, that is, when one tries (if one uses indirect language instead of direct language) to signal the words actually spoken. For example, when a minister pronounces the words “such a policy is not without its drawbacks,” a writer may try to point it out as follows:[1] The “return” of tension, as described in the previous paragraph, may be called backshifting or a consequence attracted by tension. On the other hand, in languages and contexts where such displacement does not take place, it can be said that there is a natural sequence. It is not always easy (or particularly useful) to try to distinguish perfect and/or progressive tensions from simple isolated ones, for example the difference between the simple progressive past (“You ate an apple”) and present perfectly progressive (“She ate an apple”). An isolated distinction of these sentences is possible, but the differences between these sentences are evident only in the context of other sentences, as the time differences proposed by different schedules are related to the period that is implied by the verbal tensions in the surrounding sentences or clauses. Here is each original sentence, as well as an explanation for the changes: Verb tense consistency refers to maintaining the same tension during a clause. We do not want a period of time to be described in two different times. If you have two or more periods, start a new clause or sentence. In classical Greek, the tensions in the ancillary clauses must correspond to those of the upper clauses that govern them. [6] (Unlike Latin and Romance languages, however, the subjunctive mind has no time and will obviously not follow the times.) In this document, sets of examples of non-standard or inconsistent use have red verbs.
Unlike English, if the sentence is an indirect statement (which uses the accusative and infinite construction in Latin), the sequence of the tension rule does not apply in Latin, and the tension of the infinitive remains unchanged, regardless of the tension of the main verb. The current infinitive is used for a situation that coincides with the main verb:[5] If you feel confused by this sentence, you are right. The first verb is in the current form, and the second is in the past, but the change between times is generally not allowed. We can improve the sentence by writing that, in all of these cases, the progressive or progressive part of the verb merely signals the action in progress, that is, the action that is taking place when another action takes place. General comments on strained relationships apply to simple and perfect times, whether it is a progressive element. In Latin, the consequence of the tension rule affects dependent verbs in the subjunctive mind, mainly on indirect issues, indirect orders and assignment clauses. [4] If the main verb is in one of the past periods, the subordinate verb is usually found in the current or perfect subjunctive (primary sequence); If the main verb is in one of the past times, the subjunctive verb is usually found in the imperfect or pluparous subjunctive (historical sequence).