- Civis Illustris
Quoting from the French Wiki (the English article is less detailed):Or perhaps he's complaining that nothing happens the way it should in illa civitate — and as a prostitute is supposed to take money...
Pro deum, popularium omnium, omnium adulescentium
- Dans Synephebi le personnage de meretrix (courtisane), dans la palliata traditionnellement avide et vénale, apparaît à contrario généreux et désintéressé, prêt à se sacrifier pour l'adulescens aimé24.
Clamo postulo obsecro oro ploro atque inploro fidem!
Hoc in civitate fiunt facinora capitalia:
<Nam> ab amico amante argentum accipere meretrix noenu volt.
In quid est quod + ind., the quod clause is the subject and quid is predicative (as you say, quid wants to find out what the subject — the quod clause — is). In quid est quod + subj., quid is subject and the quod clause is a relative clause modifying it.In fact, it's rather a predicative noun clause, since the subject is quid, though the difference, is minute near to none (or we can argue that quid just wants to find out what the subject is).
Quod+ind in which Latin though? In the classical Latin you rather use subjunctive for that purpose (when ACI is not invoked from some reasons) because of the syntax (you're rather not allowed to use indicative in such cases). But those cases are rare anyway, since it's most usually ACI.- In quid est quod + indicative (meaning "What does it mean that...?" — or literally "What is (the fact) that...?"), the quod clause is a (subject) noun clause.
1) quid est quod subj. can just be a subjunctive forced by the syntax (a subordinate finite noun clause will rather use a subjunctive in the classical Latin than indicative by any rate)- In quid est quod + subjunctive (meaning "What reason is there for...?" — or literally "What is there with regards to which one should...?"), the quod clause is in fact (if we really analyze the origin of the structure) a sort of relative clause, quod being an accusative of respect or an internal accusative, or both (I'm not sure which term is more appropriate), and its antecedent being quid — even if quod can also be regarded as a conjunction here, just like multum is regarded as an adverb albeit it's initially the acc. neuter of multus, a, um in an adverbial acc. usage.
Quid est quod + indicative, with the meaning that I said ("What does it mean that...?") is an idiom. See OLD, quod, 7.Quod+ind in which Latin though? In the classical Latin you rather use subjunctive for that purpose (when ACI is not invoked from some reasons) because of the syntax (you're rather not allowed to use indicative in such cases). But those cases are rare anyway, since it's most usually ACI.
I did say that quod there (in spite of its technical/original analysis that I gave, whatever you call that) could be called a conjunction.1) quid est quod subj. can just be a subjunctive forced by the syntax (a subordinate finite noun clause will rather use a subjunctive in the classical Latin than indicative by any rate)
2) well again, what it is originally doesn't matter in a sychronic analysis of the langauge (= analysis not taking into account the origins), which is the only good way how to analyse a language because an etymological knowledge is not required for a speaker (and most usually even lacking and not consciously applied while speaking, anyway - only the current meaning plays a role). So you can't say statements as "sort of relative clause", you can only say "originally relative clause, now having gained a full meaning of a noun clause)
The diachronic approach (taking into account the origins) is useful for philology in general but not for linguistics (and syntactical analysis is linguistics).
The sentence would read the same with ACI (the only difference would be that ACI cannot render the potential subj. so well).
Yeah, there's also 7b with subj., but Ok. I can concede it for this particular case. My argument was rather about finite noun clauses in general (in random cases) + I also wanted to state that the subj. in the noun quod clauses in general (anywhere) doesn't need to have any independent meaning on its own but just be there as a result of the syntactic subordination.Quid est quod + indicative, with the meaning that I said ("What does it mean that...?") is an idiom. See OLD, quod, 7.
Well, if the case is that it just modifies some non-stated "id" which has no other meaning than a place holder for the subject/object in a clause, then calling it a relative clause is not the full story - it's a redundant step, since we don't really care about a property of "id", we rather care about what the predicate is itself (and "id" is empty).I still don't think the quod clause in quid est quod + subj. is a noun clause.