Rule 64: The Potential Subjunctive

[@VABJMJ]

I love your work. I plan on reviewing all of your Rules till the present soon

[@fraternitas5117]

fortasse only takes the indicative, but forsitan the subjunctive... you could say, my mind is blown

[@mariamshengelia9260]

On behalf of all the classics students, I'd like to thank you for your excellent work. May I also ask, which program do you use for creating the videos?

[@olekTV2000]

Thanks for your lessons!

[@latintutorial]

My pleasure!

[@zADIA5025]

I am a tad confused regarding the phrase "vīvāmus Rо̄mae". How does one determine whether it's a Jussive or Potential subjunctive? The translations "We could live in Rome" & "Let us live in Rome" both seem equally valid.

[@user-fh6bd4ri7n]

I was going to ask the same question

[@petersuranyi7309]

The potential subjunctive in 1st person plural requires some word or phrase in the context implies that the action is expressed as merely possible or conceivable. Therefore VIVAMVS ROMAE is probably in jussive subjunctive.

[@fraternitas5117]

I prefer "Let us..." because it would be consistent with eamus, "let us go." In conversation I think the sentence of "We could live in Rome" is better suited to add an indicative qualifier like he says in the video with the example of "fortasse."

[@dannyallen2894]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@26e32]

This isn't related to the video but what does this mean 'verbs taking a dative object' for latin

[@latintutorial]

It means that it's object (when translated into English) will be in the dative case, rather than the accusative case. E.g., tibi confīdō, "I trust you" instead of tē, because this verb "takes the dative".

[@bri.a2k]

Why was this recommended to me??