I have been reading ‘Les Rois Maudits’ and have come across the phrase:
“Et comme premier frère du roi mort, sa place était manifestement à Paris, au moment qu’on y débattait de la régence. Un autre eût déjà donné l’ordre de seller les chevaux.”
My question is, why is “eût” used in the emboldened phrase? I read this sentence as “any other would have already saddled the horses.” Why is the conditional “aurait” not used instead of this imparfait subjonctif “eût”?
P.S.
The book is written in a little more formal/old-style French (e.g. “ne … point” is used instead of “ne … pas”). Is this a construction that it isn’t worth worrying about due to its formal/literary nature or am I missing a point of grammar?
I’m going to guess - but simply because I want to follow the thread, wait for others to answer and see if I’m right .
In modern day French I think you could opt for a conditional or subjunctive (present). It being in the past tense and an older literary style, the subjunctive should be an imperfect subjunctive or it should be a conditional (so I think a conditional would also be correct).
Interested in hearing other takes on this.
Also, @Reefe , I’ve been wondering whether to start this book as I like historical fiction. Do you recommend it?
Thanks for the reply, I have a suspicion that this kind of construction is quite niche and so probably nothing to concern myself with; however, it would be nice if it were cleared up. The subjuntive is such a nightmare!!
I absolutely would recommend the series. George RR Martin even called it the “original game of thrones” and (unlike GoT) is actually completed! It’s the best historical fiction that I’ve read and its characters and main events stick extremely close to reality - you can follow the real characters/events with wikipedia opened up next to you the entire time you’re reading!
