Yes, patet is impersonal there.
The word that introduces the clause, if there is any, isn't in the part you've quoted. Can you provide more of the context?
Ex quo patet, subiectum de quo hic agitur esse Diligentes Deum.
- Thread starter MichaelJYoo
- Start date
When is a verb impersonal? Does it change the translation of the accusative-infinitive construction.
The sentence I quoted is the first in its own paragraph. However, in the previous paragraph (a 1 sentence paragraph) I see the word respondemus. So I think the new paragraph that contains the words I quoted continues to respond to objections.
The sentence I quoted is the first in its own paragraph. However, in the previous paragraph (a 1 sentence paragraph) I see the word respondemus. So I think the new paragraph that contains the words I quoted continues to respond to objections.
Basically, when its subject is an infinitive, a clause, or a neuter pronoun that refers to an action or fact rather than any concrete object. (Or one of these types of subjects can also be left implied.)
For instance oportet = "it is necessary or proper" cannot take any noun as a subject, only an infinitive, a clause or a neuter pronoun, e.g. abire oportet = "it is necessary to go" ("one needs to go"); oportet eos dormire = "it is necessary for them to sleep" ("they must sleep"); hoc oportet = "this is necessary" in the sense of "this (= some action) should be done"; it can't refer to any concrete object.
Patet isn't always impersonal, but in the way it is used here I think it can be called so.
Not in this case.
