when the antecedent of a relative is not in the main clause

This is from the Allen & Greenough grammar:

The antecedent noun may appear only in the relative clause, agreeing with the relative in case:
1. “quās rēs in cōnsulātū nostrō gessimus attigit hīc versibus ” (Arch. 28) , he has touched in verse the things which I did in my consulship.
2. quae prīma innocentis mihi dēfēnsiō est oblāta suscēpī; (Sull. 92), I undertook the first defence of an innocent man that was offered me.

Would a more literal rendering of 1 and 2 be:
1. he has touched in verse which I did the things in my consulship.
2. I undertook that the first defence of an innocent man was offered me.

In 1 'things' or 'rēs' does not appear in the main clause but in the sub clause and is plural accusative which explain 'quās' since it is the object of attigit. And in 2 'dēfēnsiō' by my understanding is nominative feminine which explains why 'quae' appears rather than the accusative 'quam' and it is being offered to 'mihi. Is this right? If so this is very confusing, but o well.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Would a more literal rendering of 1 and 2 be:
1. he has touched in verse which I did the things in my consulship.
2. I undertook that the first defence of an innocent man was offered me.
No, rather:

1. He has touched in verse which things I did in my consulship.
2. I undertook which defence of an innocent man was first offered me.
In 1 'things' or 'rēs' does not appear in the main clause but in the sub clause and is plural accusative which explain 'quās' since it is the object of attigit. And in 2 'dēfēnsiō' by my understanding is nominative feminine which explains why 'quae' appears rather than the accusative 'quam' and it is being offered to 'mihi.
Yes.
 
Hōc mihi grātius facere nihil potes. (not sure if that phrase is common, I just got it from a phrase book)
 
Top