Eas nuptias Sbigneus non modo non cohonestavit, sed pene defoedavit & interturbavit, si eventus conatui respondisset.
Why perfect indicative in the apodosis and pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis?
The fact that he paene defoedavit et interturbavit the wedding was real (hence the indicative) but he didn't quite succeed—he only would have si eventus conatui respondisset (hence the subjunctive).
I don't know how colloquial it is—I've never considered the question, to be frank—but you've got the meaning right.View attachment 15753
Abbati praeterea & monachis non contemnenda dant munera principum suorum nomine: exponunt quid veniant, quidve postulent.
Just making sure here that these verbs after quid are in a colloquial register, sort of like in Cic. In Cat. I quid taces?
"They explain why they're coming or what they're demanding."
Am I right in thinking thus?
The question is disputed among grammarians.
No. It's an indirect command: "He should not let him have more power..."
It's the object of the preposition in. "The poles against whom they were going."What's the function of this relative pronoun here?
It would mean something different.And by the way, would it also have been correct to write quam ut eant in Polonos?
Maybe a figurative expression for great generosity?
It is in both case, but the meanings of the constructions are different (and the second one would hardly make sense):But isn't the quam comparative?
Yes.Ah ok, so it's comparing se and Polonos.
If it is subjunctive, it's jussive.Do you know what type of subjunctive this is?
In theory yes, except that viderit is more common, I think.It might as well have been videat, nonne?
No really... "Let him see (I leave it to him to decide) if it isn't that other guy whose diploma it was."Seems kinda inconsistent as there's viderit ... sit ... fuerit.
Perfect, present, perfect.