Dum

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Multa quoque et bello passus dum conderet urbem
And having endured many things also in war while he established his city.

why the subjunctive? Conderet? Dum=while? Why not indicative?

Passus? From patior, passus sum, (dep)?
And, is this consistent with deponent verbs, that the last part of the verb you drop the sum and it is “having endured” (vs “having been endured”) or locutus for “having spoken”?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Multa quoque et bello passus dum conderet urbem
And having endured many things also in war while he established his city.

why the subjunctive? Conderet? Dum=while? Why not indicative?
Dum here means more like "until", and there is a nuance of purpose: Aeneas endured all those things not merely until, but also in order to found the city, hence the subjunctive.
Passus? From patior, passus sum, (dep)?
Yes.
And, is this consistent with deponent verbs, that the last part of the verb you drop the sum and it is “having endured” (vs “having been endured”) or locutus for “having spoken”?
Yes.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Dum here means more like "until", and there is a nuance of purpose: Aeneas endured all those things not merely until, but also in order to found the city, hence the subjunctive.

Yes.

Yes.
On using the subjunctive,
Are you saying that just the subjunctive mood, implies a “purpose“, and “ut” is not required to mean “in order to” or “so that”?
Edit added; I think I understand that you don’t translate “in order to” without ut, but purpose is implied.
But, the translation of “would, should, could” is usual for subjunctive, and “he should have established” is a possibility.
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
On using the subjunctive,
Are you saying that just the subjunctive mood, implies a “purpose“, and “ut” is not required to mean “in order to” or “so that”?
The subjunctive can express purpose in some subordinate clauses, not only the ones introduced by ut. It is usually an additional touch on top of the original meaning ("until" in your example).
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
compare also relative clauses of purpose, like "viros misit qui pacem peterent" - "he sent men to seek peace", literally like "he sent men who were to seek peace" — the subjunctive in the relative clause conveys purpose
 
And do I have a reasonable understanding: That Cicero (and Julius Caesar) established "rules" in Latin, at some specific point that we are deciding to study. And that the subjunctive was used as they established it to be used. (looking at The Blackwell History--though not a direct quote) And that it is/was not all "logic"--but, at times, maybe at all times, choices. --They-- thought good ones!
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Aliquis eam intuebatur, sed in tantis tenebris, quis esset, Terentia non videbat, sed sciebat aliquem ante et se intueri.
“Heus,” inquit Terentia, quis es? Cur me intueris?”

Someone was watching her, but Terentia could not see who was in so great a darkness, but she knew someone was standing before herself and looking at her.
Terentia said “who is there? Why are you looking at me?”
??
Please let me know if this is correct.
If so or not, I have questions.
thanks
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
And do I have a reasonable understanding: That Cicero (and Julius Caesar) established "rules" in Latin, at some specific point that we are deciding to study. And that the subjunctive was used as they established it to be used. (looking at The Blackwell History--though not a direct quote) And that it is/was not all "logic"--but, at times, maybe at all times, choices. --They-- thought good ones!
They did not establish any rules. The rules were already there and it was how the language worked.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
And do I have a reasonable understanding: That Cicero (and Julius Caesar) established "rules" in Latin, at some specific point that we are deciding to study. And that the subjunctive was used as they established it to be used. (looking at The Blackwell History--though not a direct quote) And that it is/was not all "logic"--but, at times, maybe at all times, choices. --They-- thought good ones!
I'm not sure Cicero and Caesar deliberately established any rules (it may be that they established, or rather deliberately strengthened one or two, but if so I haven't heard of it). What happened was that later people decided to take Cicero's and Caesar's language as their standard for the "best" Latin.

Most rules of the Latin language, including those regarding the subjunctive, were established by usage before Cicero and Caesar. I mean, it's not like Cicero or Caesar woke up one day and said "Well, starting from now result clauses and indirect questions will take the subjunctive".
Aliquis eam intuebatur, sed in tantis tenebris, quis esset, Terentia non videbat, sed sciebat aliquem ante et se intueri.
“Heus,” inquit Terentia, quis es? Cur me intueris?”

Someone was watching her, but Terentia could not see who was in so great a darkness, but she knew someone was standing before herself and looking at her.
Terentia said “who is there? Why are you looking at me?”
??
Please let me know if this is correct.
If so or not, I have questions.
thanks
It's pretty good.

Just "before her" would be better English than "before herself", and if you wanted to be more literal you could translate quis es? as "Who are you?". "Who is there?" conveys the idea well enough too, though.
 
Last edited:

john abshire

Well-Known Member
It's pretty good.

Just "before her" would be better English than "before herself", and if you wanted to be more literal you could translate quis es? as "Who are you?". "Who is there?" conveys the idea well enough too, though.
aliquis eam intuebatur, sed in tantis tenebris, quis esset, Terentia non videbat, sed sciebat aliquem ante se stare et se intueri.
someone was watching her, but Terentia could not see who it was in so great a darkness, but she knew someone was standing before her and looking at her.
Is quis esset “who it was”?
why quis (indef. pn) and not qui, quae, quod?
why esset vs erat?

sciebat aliquem ante se stare et se intueri.
Se
refers back to the subject of sciebat (vs aliquem). Do you know “from context” only, which subject it is referring to?
Brutus pointed the knife at himself (se)
He knew Brutus pointed the knife at himself (se)
He or Brutus?

The first se is used differently than the second, object of preposition vs DO.
Are there any limitations on how se can be used in the same sentence? [i may have answered this for myself. Se is accusative case, “it can be used in accusative case as many times and in as many ways as it needs to be used.”?]
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Is quis esset “who it was”?
Yes.
why quis (indef. pn) and not qui, quae, quod?
why esset vs erat?
Because it's an indirect question. Quis here is used as an interrogative, rather than indefinite, pronoun. As an indefinite pronoun it translates to "(some/any)one".
sciebat aliquem ante se stare et se intueri.
Se
refers back to the subject of sciebat (vs aliquem). Do you know “from context” only, which subject it is referring to?
Yes.
Brutus pointed the knife at himself (se)
He knew Brutus pointed the knife at himself (se)
He or Brutus?

The first se is used differently than the second, object of preposition vs DO.
Are there any limitations on how se can be used in the same sentence? [i may have answered this for myself. Se is accusative case, “it can be used in accusative case as many times and in as many ways as it needs to be used.”?]
Mostly, yes. In some dependent clauses forms of ipse can be used instead of se to avoid confusion, but this is a subtlety that's probably still a bit beyond your current level.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Yes.

Because it's an indirect question. Quis here is used as an interrogative, rather than indefinite, pronoun. As an indefinite pronoun it translates to "(some/any)one".

Yes.

Mostly, yes. In some dependent clauses forms of ipse can be used instead of se to avoid confusion, but this is a subtlety that's probably still a bit beyond your current level.
indirect question-
she did not know who it was.
Sciebat quis esset

Indirect statement-
She did not know that was her.
Sciebat illam esse eam.
?
if correct, is illud correct in place of illam for a “generic that”, I.e using the neuter to represent the “person not knowing” also did not know the gender?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
indirect question-
she did not know who it was.
Sciebat quis esset

Indirect statement-
She did not know that was her.
Sciebat illam esse eam.
?
Your translations are saying "she knew" instead of "she did not know". Apart from that, they're grammatically correct.
if correct, is illud correct in place of illam for a “generic that”, I.e using the neuter to represent the “person not knowing” also did not know the gender?
No. It would be like saying "she didn't know that that thing was her".
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Your translations are saying "she knew" instead of "she did not know". Apart from that, they're grammatically correct.

No. It would be like saying "she didn't know that that thing was her".
I hadn’t thought about this, but then if you did not know the gender, would you substitute “that person” in place of illam, hominem illud? And, I hadn’t thought of this either, but what gender of adjective do you use for a common noun? (Obviously, I chose neuter, illud, assuming ille, illa, illud is a noun or an adjective)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I hadn’t thought about this, but then if you did not know the gender, would you substitute “that person” in place of illam, hominem illud?
If you say "that was her", you already know the person's gender, since you're saying "her".

Hominem illud doesn't agree. Homo is masculine.
And, I hadn’t thought of this either, but what gender of adjective do you use for a common noun?
The masculine unless you know the person is a female. For instance, custos ille means "that male guardian" or "that guardian of unknown gender", whereas custos illa means a guardian that's known to be female.

Note that homo isn't a common noun. It's always grammatically masculine.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Indirect statement-
She did not know that was her.
Sciebat illam esse eam.
?
Note that while that is grammatically correct, it sounds a bit unusual. You'd usually simply say nesciebat illam esse.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
They did not establish any rules. The rules were already there and it was how the language worked.
Ok. I really, really do realize you are the experts.

The Blackwell History of Latin Language (which I have read 2 or 3 times).

6.3: "A still more thoroughgoing policy of restoring standards by reference to regular grammatical principles was advocated by Julius Caesar, who said to Atticus to 'correct corrupt and defective usage with pure and uncorrupted usage through the application of theory'".

The whole point of that book's chapter seems to be that, particularly people like Cicero and Julius Caesar, wanted to imitate Greek systemization, imitate some of its best elements, and eliminate some of its influences/contamination.

As, as Optimates, they thought they could.
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
There were competing grammatical schools of analogism (which Caesar participated in when he wrote his now-lost De Analogia, and which advocated for greater standardization) and anomalism, but they weren't really about fundamentally restructuring the language as far as I'm aware. Things like this use of dum would've been a thing way before the time of Caesar, but as always happens in language sometimes native speakers "do it wrong" or have a more colloquial register. The kind of thing Caesar would advocate for was more just adhering to "proper" usage as it already existed. He also had a couple minor points like not illogically using plural-only words like quadrigae in the singular.
 
Top