If you do something long enough

Question

In my answer to this recent question, I translated "when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you" as: si diu voraginem intuitus eris, etiam vorago te intuebitur. That is, I used the future perfect + simple future combination which is often found in Latin. But is it correct here? After all, one does presumably not stop looking into the abyss, whereupon the abyss decides it's now its turn.

So should I use future + future? Or is something like that rather a simple rule that should be expressed in the present indicative?

A more innocent example:

Si florem lactis satis diu agitas/agitabis/agitaveris, fit/fiet butyrum.

What tenses should I use?

Answer 1

For the butter example, I think a future more vivid is probably the way to go, since it's explaining the logical facts of the case and is as direct as direct can be. Cf. Cato's si me rogabis, sic dicam, "if you ask me, I will say the following." Future + future indicative is fine.

The future perfect would be used when the action in the protasis "is regarded as completed before that of the apodosis begins" (A&G §516c; emphasis theirs). You don't stop churning milk and then it turns to butter; you don't stop looking at the abyss and then it looks back at you.

I think a case could be made for a present general as well, depending on how one interprets Nietzsche. It could potentially be argued that the abyss doesn't look at you in return. It is always looking, and so by looking, you recognize it looking back once you look long enough. A more archaic way of putting it would be, "If you ever find yourself looking into the abyss for a long time [but you're currently not!], [you will find that] the abyss is always looking back at you."

Compare this with the example given in A&G:

Sī hōc dīcās, crēditur.
If [ever] you say this, [you will find] that it is believed.

In this reading, Nietzsche's quote isn't linking the two halves of the conditional causally, but stating that the apodosis expresses a general truth which is revealed with the fulfillment of the protasis. That's generally the general conditional in Latin. There's nothing really particular about it, I think. He's not stopping someone from looking into the abyss at the moment, right?

Answer 2

If you continue to look into the abyss then when does the abyss take its turn to look into you? Do you stand there forever; or, until you starve to death or just fall asleep? By definition, at some point, you stop gazing. At this juncture does the abyss decide to commence his/ its vigil of yourself?

A conditional (simple conditions) sentence using future-perfect; and, when this observation thing has been completed (looking into the abyss), in the future; because you finally get bored or hungry the consequence (the abyss will start to observe you) requires a simple future-tense. (In such sentences the future-future combination tends to be reserved for threats:

"si huc venies, te interficiam" = "If you come here, I will kill you" (Nicholas Oulton: "So You Really Want to Learn Latin" III, p.80).

It could be argued that you find the abyss intimidating; but, given such circumstances, you might not remain long enough for it to begin to observe you.)

What if the observations are simultaneous? As you've mentioned--present indicative--for an accepted state-of-affairs--Allen & Greenough (section 465, p.293): "(the present tense) as indefinite, referring to no particular time, but denoting a general truth":

"obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" = "Flattery gains friends, truth hatred." (Ter. And. 68).

The warning: "When you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." may be construed as "a general truth", qualifying it for the present-present tense-combination.