Translating a Subjunctive in an Indirect Question vs. Result Clause
In a sight passage, a student meets: Rogavit quid milites facerent. Later in the same passage: Tanta erat virtus ut oppidum caperent. She translates both subjunctives the same way - 'what the soldiers were doing' and 'such was their courage that they were capturing the town' - and is unsure whether both are correct. The passage is narrative prose; the first sentence reports a question, the second follows tanta...ut.
1. Are both translations correct? Explain the grammar governing each subjunctive.
Read the worked answer
Both are essentially correct, but for different reasons.
Rogavit quid milites facerent - indirect question. The introductory verb rogavit ('he asked') plus interrogative quid triggers a subjunctive. Translate as a reported question: 'He asked what the soldiers were doing.' The imperfect subjunctive facerent represents the original question's tense (sequence of tense after a secondary main verb). ✔
Tanta erat virtus ut oppidum caperent - result clause. Tanta...ut signals result: 'Their courage was so great that they captured/were capturing the town.' The subjunctive is required by the construction, not by reported speech. ✔ (Note: 'were capturing' vs. 'captured' is an aspect choice; either can be defended, though 'captured' often reads more naturally for a completed result.)
The key point: both take the subjunctive, but the trigger differs - interrogative word vs. ut after a correlative. Same mood, different syntax.
2. How would she tell a result clause from a purpose clause if the *ut* clause appeared without *tanta*?
Read the worked answer
Use two tests:
- Antecedent/correlative test. Result clauses are often introduced or foreshadowed by tam, ita, sic, tantus, talis ('so/ such'). Purpose clauses usually are not. If a correlative is present, lean result.
- Logic/negation test. Ask 'why?' (purpose) vs. 'with what outcome?' (result). Also: a negative purpose clause uses ne; a negative result clause uses ut non / ut nemo. So if she sees ne, it is almost certainly purpose (or a fearing clause), not result.
If both tests are inconclusive, translate both ways and keep the one that makes the narrative coherent - the exam credits a defensible reading with stated reasoning.