North & Hillard Ex. 230 includes the line: "By his advice the confederates bound themselves to resist to the death,". This, translated, in the Answer Book, as: "euis autem consilio socii se iureiurando obstrinxerunt fore ut usque ad mortem resisterent, "
My answer overlooked "fore"; but, fail to see its necessity. The deployment of "fore" with a past-participle usually creates a number of possible, but vague, alternatives eg., the confederates had been about to bind themselves... Or, the confederates would (a subjunctive may be used for this) bind... Or, the confederates were likely to bind... The past-perfect "obstrinxerunt" is definite in its meaning (as the English appears to demand) so why blunt the intention by rendering it vague with "fore"? Essentially, what is the use of "fore" achieving here?