Thank you friends/colleagues for the contributions to "Epistemic Modality". These certainly helped to clear up frustrating confusions. Apologies to brianpck: I should have defined/explained EM - point taken.
Anyway, with your permission, I have another Q: N & H Ex 222: "If ever a man deserved to be well-treated by his fellow citizens it was Tib. Gracchus."
Answer: "Tib. Gracchus (TB) si quis alius dignus fuit qui a suis civibus beneficiis afficeretur."
I put "dignus erat". To me "dignus fuit" implies that his worthiness ended at some point; and, or TB is now dead: he, like his worthiness, is a completed action in the past. Thus, "dignus erat" - he is still alive: his worthiness was; presumably still is; therefore, continues to be... .Is this a correct interpretation of the effects of erat & fuit in this context?
In the same passage, if I may, please; "...and connected by birth with both the conquerors of Africa,..."
N & H advised the student (footnotes) to deploy "uterque Africanus" for "the conquerors of Africa", giving:- "...et natu coniunctus cum utroque Africano,..." Given that uterque means "each of the two", how is the required: "conquerors of" achieved by this?