Abstract
This article tries to partly question, partly supplement, partly defend various claims on Latin result clauses which can be found in the currently most authoritative handbooks of Latin grammar in Czech Republic (Novotný 1992, Mikulová 2014, Panhuis 2014) and elsewhere (Cabrillana 2011, Pinkster 2015). The article points out the difference between result clauses and purpose clauses (this difference was questioned by Cabrillana 2011).
Then the article presents a classification of Latin result clauses; stresses that result clauses express different modalities (real, potential, counter-factual); and suggests that the modality is one of the main arguments why the subjunctive of the result clauses cannot be described as given by the so-called consecution of tenses