Qui Nom Plural

[CrustulumMonstrum]

Another problem I have is this kind of construction:

Pueri saccos plenos qui a servis portantur vident

(Famila Romana p.49)

The meaning seems easy but I cannot quite figure why qui is not Accusative to match the case of saccos.

Any input most welcome.

 

[Pacifica]

It's nominative because it's the subject of portantur. A relative pronoun takes the case required by its own function in the relative clause, no matter the case of its antecedent.

 

[CrustulumMonstrum]

Thanks Pacifica, but for some reason this is still not clicking with me.
I see the qui and I associate with pueri, perhaps as both nom masc plural.

Pueri saccos plenos qui a servis portantur vident

Perhaps the passive structure is confusing me.

 

[Dantius]

qui does not agree in case with its antecedent (noun it's referring to)

Here qui refers to "saccos".
Let's take the qui clause alone:

qui a servis portantur

And replace "qui" for "sacci" (also nom. pl.)

Sacci a servis portantur — the sacks are carried by slaves.

That's why it's nom. pl. — because the clause needs it.
If it agreed with pueri, it would mean this: The boys, who are carried by slaves, see the full sacks.
Makes no sense right!

Also, usually (not always) a relative clause (qui-clause) is associated with the word nearest to it.

 

[CrustulumMonstrum]

At last, I am enlightened. Thank you so much! Your substiution idea worked wonders for me.

 

[Callaina]

If it agreed with pueri, it would mean this: The boys, who are carried by slaves, see the full sacks.
Makes no sense right!

Well, it's not the most usual way to read it, but it isn't impossible. (After all, they could have been being carried on a litter or such...)

 

[Dantius]

Context makes it clear though.