Apposition/names and relative pronouns

[Laurentius]

Which form do you think is correct? "In urbe Londinio, quae..." or "in urbe Londinio, quod..."? I am not sure but I think both should be acceptable depending on which part of the sentence you want to put more stress on. According to Vulpius it is best to put the apposition in the relative sentence and the pronounc agrees with it

CAES. Gall. 1,38,1 Vesontio, quod est oppidum maximum Sequanorum.
CIC. div. 1,53 Pherae (plurale tantum), quae erat urbs in Thessalia tum admodum nobilis.
Appositionem in sententia relativa adhiberi praestat.

but I wonder how it'd be if one wanted to go the other way.

 

[Bitmap]

According to Vulpius it is best to put the apposition in the relative sentence and the pronounc agrees with it

That's right, I was thinking the same.

but I wonder how it'd be if one wanted to go the other way.

Actually, I only know it the way Vulpius described it.

 

[Bitmap]

Btw.: THREAD: what-is-this-subforum-meant-for-please-do-not-post-here-before-reading-this

 

[Laurentius]

That's right, I was thinking the same.



Actually, I only know it the way Vulpius described it.

Thanks, I guess that's it then.

Btw.: THREAD: what-is-this-subforum-meant-for-please-do-not-post-here-before-reading-this

Oh damn, sorry looks like I messed up, if someone could move it they'd make me a favour.

 

[Bitmap]

Oh damn, sorry looks like I messed up, if someone could move it they'd make me a favour.

I think @Pacifica will move it.

Thanks, I guess that's it then.

I had a look in Kühner-Stegmann. It looks like with geographical names and appositions, the most common thing to do is to agree with the apposition (no matter whether the apposition comes before or after the geographical term). It is rare, but not unheard of, for the agreement to go with the geographical term:

The same seems to be true for relative pronouns. The relative pronun commonly agrees with the apposition (see the following examples).
However, there are a few rarer cases when the relative pronoun agrees with the geographical term. This only seems to happen with better-known places (see the last 8 lines):

 

[Laurentius]

I think @Pacifica will move it.



I had a look in Kühner-Stegmann. It looks like with geographical names and appositions, the most common thing to do is to agree with the apposition (no matter whether the apposition comes before or after the geographical term). It is rare, but not unheard of, for the agreement to go with the geographical term:

View attachment 10865

The same seems to be true for relative pronouns. The relative pronun commonly agrees with the apposition (see the following examples).
However, there are a few rarer cases when the relative pronoun agrees with the geographical term. This only seems to happen with better-known places (see the last 8 lines):

View attachment 10866
View attachment 10867

Thanks a bunch, that's exactly what I was after!

 

[Pacifica]

I think @Pacifica will move it.

Done.

Posts written in the grammar tips subforum used to be put on hold until I approved them. Since this one wasn't, it looks like another thing that no longer works as it should.

 

[Laurentius]

Done.

Posts written in the grammar tips subforum used to be put on hold until I approved them. Since this one wasn't, it looks like another thing that no longer works as it should.

Thanks and sorry.

 

[Bitmap]

Done.

Theoretically, you could also merge it with this thread, since the question kind of touches on it:
THREAD: agreement-pronoun-attraction-to-predicative-nouns-dem-rel-interr-pron