A subjunctive is practically never negated with οὐ.
The only systematic exception I can find -- and even this is rare -- is in Homer, where the use of the subjunctive is somewhat different from Attic; some subjunctives in Homer are more or less synonymous with future forms, and these are negated with οὐ. But this doesn't happen in Attic. The main uses of ...
Negative future imperatives do indeed exist.
A great many can be found in the laws of twelve tables.
Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito
Do not bury a dead person in the city
Judging by these examples, the syntax is simply ne + future imperative.
I am not sure if memento should be semantically treated as a future imperative.
It is a future ...
Pretty much never.
LSJ's entry on οὐ mentions οὐ + subjunctive only once:
...with subj[unctive] in fut[ure] sense, only in Ep[ic], “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387.
To elaborate: the subjunctive mood in Epic can have a meaning closer to the Classical future tense. When this happens, and the ...
This is not exactly a sound change, but a substitution: this -am is originally that of the 1sg. subjunctive, which for some reason came to replace the expected -em of the 1sg. fut. There's actually some evidence that Old Latin had the expected ending -em; this is discussed in an article by Churchill 2000 (JSTOR link).
It's not totally obvious why this ...
I don't believe it is possible. A quick scan of the article in Liddell Scott Jones gave only this:
with subj. in fut. sense, only in Ep., “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387.
However, θαυμάσῃ is not normally indicative:
ῃ ... is usually given as the proper spelling in the texts of the ...
mementō is formed from the reduplicated perfect stem (IE *me-mn-), not from the present stem (IE *men-). Thus, morphologically it is a perfect imperative, not a future imperative; the latter is always formed from the present stem. The IE imperative ending *-tōd has various different usages in the daughter languages: Greek -τω forms the 3rd sing. present ...
Tenses of the subjunctive
The subjunctive is also known as conjunctive — these two words are synonymous in Latin grammar.
The subjunctive mood has four tenses: present (faciam), imperfect (facerem), perfect (fecerim) and pluperfect (fecissem).
The indicative mood has two more tenses: future and future perfect.
While the subjunctive does not have ...
From what I understand in the comments, where you say 'amabo' is futurum simplex and 'amavero' is futurum exactum, what you are actually asking about is the difference between what most Latin scholars would call the future tense and the future perfect tense. The future tense (amabo, your 'futurum simplex) is simple a verb tense referring to an action that ...
Main question: they come from the same PIE root.
The verb fīō comes from (the zero-grade of) the PIE root *bhuH-, "to become". This led to a Proto-Italic verb *fui-. In Proto-Italic, the phoneme *f is thought to have been a bilabial fricative, voiceless [ɸ] at the start of a word and voiced [β] everywhere else.
Somewhere around Proto-Italic, this verb *fui-...
Side question: fīō and faciō seem to be unrelated.
Faciō "to make" comes from the Proto-Italic root *θaki-, probably from PIE *dheh₁ "put" (compare Greek tí-thē-mi, English "do"). I haven't seen a good explanation of the *k, but the *θ seems to be attested in other Italic languages. In Latin, *θ at the start of words later turned into f.
Fīō "to become" ...
Such a list of events in sequence gets a bit boring if you use the same structure again and again.
Sometimes this is good for clarity or emphasizing repetition.
There are several structures to express this kind of thing in Latin, and here are some:
A temporal clause: Cum rem primam fecerim, rem secundam faciam. "When I have done the first thing, I will do ...
Futurum Simplex (simple future, future imperfect)
The simple future, amābō, is the most common future tense. It refers to something which is going to happen in the future: "I will love". In general, "will" is the best way to translate this into English.
You form the simple future in two different ways:
In the first (amāre) and second (habēre) conjugations,...
Your specific question allows it, so would you be interested in avoiding the construction with a conjugated verb ? If you are, you might consider a few options, some of which are admittedly arcane and maybe not exactly grammatical (because I'm mostly spitballing here):
using a perfect tense in the passive voice plus ellipsis of es/eris (of course, this ...
I will try to add to my answer with a more grammatical explanation if I have time, but for now I can introduce some sample phrases. These examples come from the Lewis & Short entry for donec:
haud desinam, donec perfecero hoc (Ter. Ph. 2, 3, 73)
neque defetiscar usque adeo experirier
donec tibi id quod pollicitus sum ...