quod with subjunctive (Cicero, de officiis)

[Quasus]

In any case, the use of hostis for perduellis that Cicero is talking about is real and certain, not potential.

I disagree, as I mentioned above.

 

[Quasus]

postulating several irregular constructions

Quod explicativum developing a neuter pronoun is regular; conjunctivus potentialis is regular; imperfect for conjunctivus potentialis is regular for the past. You can find the references above. I don't know which constructions you mean.

 

[Pacifica]

As you can see, I claim that the clause develops the pronoun rather than serves as a direct complement.

Clauses that develop pronouns are usually the kind of clauses taken by the verb used. Animadverto takes acc.-inf. rather than quod (in classical Latin).

I disagree, as I mentioned above.

Well, the context is:

M. quidem Catonis senis est epistula ad M. filium, in qua scribit se audisse eum missum factum esse a consule cum in Macedonia bello Persico miles esset. Monet igitur ut caveat, ne proelium ineat; negat enim ius esse, qui miles non sit cum hoste pugnare. Equidem etiam illud animadverto, quod, qui proprio nomine perduellis esset, is hostis vocaretur, lenitate verbi rei tristitiam mitigatam. Hostis enim apud maiores nostros is dicebatur, quem nunc peregrinum dicimus.

Seems to me Cicero is presenting the use of hostis for perduellis as a fact.

Anyway, for me the subjunctive is quite clearly explained by the usual indirect-speech rule, but I'm repeating myself.

Quod explicativum developing a neuter pronoun is regular

Yes, but not after verbs of saying/thinking/perception. The acc.-inf. is regular there.

conjunctivus potentialis is regular

Yes, when it makes sense. It doesn't here.

 

[Pacifica]

I don't know which constructions you mean.

In addition to the above, there would also be the mixed construction with one "noticed" fact expressed by a quod clause and the other by an acc.-inf., without even an et or so between the two.

 

[Bitmap]

I don't see any issues with grammar.

But you see an issue in style? I find it rather bold to claim that there are no grammatical issues with your reading for the reasons explained above. I would concede that the way you parse this sentence is not completely refutable per se, but it would rely on an inconsistent style that would seem rather unusual for Cicero.

You will have noticed that even in the source you cited, the people who referred quod to illud had a problem with the grammar it entails and had to fix it by changing the sentence.

Still, I think for the time being I'll favour my own, because I think it's simpler, accounts for subj. impf. more easily and the reading makes more sense to me.

Well, no ... that's what I was trying to say above: Your reading requires a lot more additional assumptions than Pacifica's.
Regarding the imperfect tense: The explanation Pacifica (or the OP for that matter, actually) gave is the simplest one there is: it simply is in line with the rules of the sequence of tenses for indirect speech.
Your explanation had to construct some additional semantic nuances in the quod sentence that, frankly, I don't see, and that would not have provided a simpler explanation even if I did.

 

[Quasus]

But you see an issue in style?

I take your word on that. But the very fact that this passage was a subject of scholar controversy between guys who wrote way better Latin than me suggests that one way or another, Tully's style failed here.

Your explanation had to construct some additional semantic nuances in the quod sentence

Frankly, it was the starting point.

Clauses that develop pronouns are usually the kind of clauses taken by the verb used.

Yes, but not after verbs of saying/thinking/perception.

Curiously, the same De officiis provides an example where an AcI is probably expected instead illud quod:

Videndumque illud est, quod, si opulentum fortunatumque defenderis, in uno illo aut, si forte, in liberis eius manet gratia; sin autem inopem, probum tamen et modestum, omnes non improbi humiles, quae magna in populo multitude est, praesidium sibi paratum vident.

 

[Pacifica]

Videndum there doesn't really mean "one must perceive" but more like "attention must be paid, account must be taken of (the fact that)". And, perhaps more importantly, the quod clause is a subject (well, technically an apposition to the subject illud, but it's the "true" subject) described as videndum. Things would be rather different if we had a personal form of the verb with a clause as its object. I don't think Cicero would say e.g. (illud) video, quod sapiens es for "I see (the fact) that you are wise". Well, maybe it's not entirely impossible, but it would be very unusual at least. Perhaps it's something he could have said when speaking carelessly, rather than in his literary works.