The fact that he paene defoedavit et interturbavit the wedding was real (hence the indicative) but he didn't quite succeed—he only would have si eventus conatui respondisset (hence the subjunctive).View attachment 15752
Eas nuptias Sbigneus non modo non cohonestavit, sed pene defoedavit & interturbavit, si eventus conatui respondisset.
Why perfect indicative in the apodosis and pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis?
I don't know how colloquial it is—I've never considered the question, to be frank—but you've got the meaning right.View attachment 15753
Abbati praeterea & monachis non contemnenda dant munera principum suorum nomine: exponunt quid veniant, quidve postulent.
Just making sure here that these verbs after quid are in a colloquial register, sort of like in Cic. In Cat. I quid taces?
"They explain why they're coming or what they're demanding."
Am I right in thinking thus?
The question is disputed among grammarians.View attachment 15766
Sed viderit Dlugossus, ne alius ille sit Miezislaus, nempe Boleslai tertii filius, cuius diploma illud fuerit.
Should I interpret this as future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive? How do you understand this?
Yes.View attachment 15767
Huic sententiae facile omnes assensi sunt. & movebat illud quoque plurimos, quod sacrum Paschae tempus pro foribus aderat, etc...
Literally "at the door", right? But figuratively speaking, something like "Easter is just around the corner", "approaching"?
Copias.
No. It's an indirect command: "He should not let him have more power..."View attachment 15772
De Secechi crudelitate eos queri: eum ne plus pateretur posse, quam ipse sibi sumat princeps: ne omnium voluntates propter unum hominem, qui dominatum omnem ad se transutilisset, pergat offendere.
This leaves me baffled. Is there an error?
It's the object of the preposition in. "The poles against whom they were going."What's the function of this relative pronoun here?
It would mean something different.And by the way, would it also have been correct to write quam ut eant in Polonos?
Maybe a figurative expression for great generosity?View attachment 15777
Quem Boleslaus princeps, collaudatum pro meritis et virtute, aurea manu donavit.
Any idea what "a golden hand" could be?
But isn't the quam comparative?It would mean something different.
It is in both case, but the meanings of the constructions are different (and the second one would hardly make sense):But isn't the quam comparative?
Do you know what type of subjunctive this is? It might as well have been videat, nonne?The question is disputed among grammarians.
Yes.Ah ok, so it's comparing se and Polonos.
If it is subjunctive, it's jussive.Do you know what type of subjunctive this is?
In theory yes, except that viderit is more common, I think.It might as well have been videat, nonne?
No really... "Let him see (I leave it to him to decide) if it isn't that other guy whose diploma it was."Seems kinda inconsistent as there's viderit ... sit ... fuerit.
Perfect, present, perfect.
Yes I just noticed the replies... so I deleted it.As already said...