Talk:Latin tenses

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Replacement of the lead[edit]

I have replaced and rewritten the lead for reasons (mentioned above): 1. It's too long, and doesn't summarise the whole subject succinctly. 2. The verb ago doesn't mean "act". 3. The "tense" agere coepero is not considered to be a tense by any standard grammar, nor is it one. 4. The terms "secondary present" and "secondary past" are not standard terms found in any Latin grammar book, but apparently invented by the previous writer. No citation is given for these terms. If such terms exist it should be made clear which author invented them (since they are completely non-traditional as far as Latin is concerned), and this should go further down the article, not in the lead. 5. There is no such thing as a "supinum" aspect. Tenses such as acturus sum are presumably infectum, and have a corresponding perfectum tense acturus fui, which have been omitted from the table. But to go into details of these rarely used tenses does not seem appropriate in the lead, which should just summarise the main facts. 6. The fact that subjunctives, infinitives, imperatives, and participles also have different tenses needs to be mentioned in the lead, even if no details are given, since these are very important in Latin grammar. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headings and subheadings[edit]

When an article is read on a laptop, the topics can be nested, but this doesn't seem to work on a smartphone. Consequently, if topics are nested, then when using a smartphone you seem to get very long sections which you have to scroll down for ages. To prevent this I have upgraded some headings from ===x=== to ==x== so that on a phone there will be more headings and less scrolling between headings. But it still doesn't seem very satisfactory. If anyone can suggest a solution to this, I would be interested to hear. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect subjunctive in ideal conditional[edit]

Why do the translations use present conditional forms? They imply a general meaning, while I would assume that the meaning of perfect subjunctive in ideal conditional is comparable to the meaning of pluperfect subjunctive in counterfactual conditional and these actions would have been completed in the hypothetical situation. 109.42.179.83 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]