• https://latindiscussion.org is a new domain for the forum in case of a backup.
  • Donate to the National Bank of Ukraine's account for humanitarian assistance to refugees through our donation button!

Unius cuiusque

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

A passive verb doesn't have a direct object. The direct object becomes the subject.

Hoc scribam = I will write this (active; hoc is the object).

Hoc scribetur = This will be written (passive; hoc is the subject).
Let it (i.e. what he feels about the state) be written on the forehead of each person.
assuming that this is correct; that “it” is defined by what is inside the parenthesis, and that “it” is also the subject of the passive verb “written”; is there a clue to how quid is being used in the sentence (as “what” in the phrase “what he feels about the state”), or is it just intuitive? [does this phrase have a technical name that I could look up and see examples?]
 

kmp

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
England
is there a clue to how quid is being used in the sentence (as “what” in the phrase “what he feels about the state”), or is it just intuitive?
It's intuitive (at least for me). If there is a technical name for it I don't know it and I don't want to know it. The "clue" is that, once you have got as far as "Let it be written on the forehead of each man", it's pretty well certain the next part of the sentence will specify what this "writing" will consist of. The more Latin you read, the more you develop a sense of how the meaning in a sentence is going to pan out. It's easy to become focused on rules (and Latin has so many rules with so many complicated names) and so not see the forest for the trees.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

It's intuitive (at least for me). If there is a technical name for it I don't know it and I don't want to know it. The "clue" is that, once you have got as far as "Let it be written on the forehead of each man", it's pretty well certain the next part of the sentence will specify what this "writing" will consist of. The more Latin you read, the more you develop a sense of how the meaning in a sentence is going to pan out. It's easy to become focused on rules (and Latin has so many rules with so many complicated names) and so not see the forest for the trees.
I am not looking for rules, but if I knew the terms I could find examples to look at. These may enable me to get to “let it be written on the forehead of each man…..”, intuitively.
In particular, quid is an interrogative pronoun. What is its name when being used as “what” in “what he feels about the state”?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
In particular, quid is an interrogative pronoun. What is its name when being used as “what”
What you've just said: an interrogative pronoun.

As for the whole clause quid de re publica sentiat, it's a substantive clause, and more specifically an indirect question.
 

kmp

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
England
Compare the direct question quis est iste? (who is that man) to the indirect question rogat quis sit iste (he asks who that man is). Quis is an interrogative pronoun in both cases.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

What you've just said: an interrogative pronoun.

As for the whole clause quid de re publica sentiat, it's a substantive clause, and more specifically an indirect question.
Sit denique scriptum in fronte unius cuiusque quid de publica sentiat.
“Finally let it be written on the forehead of each person what he feels about the state.”
One part that stumps me is; I don’t see how this is an indirect question. If it were “Let them ask each person what he feels about the state.” then ok. Do you know that it is an indirect question because of the subjunctive verb? If the verb sentiat had been indicative (in the original sentence) would it translate the same way, except now just be a statement?
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
If you really simplified it you could say, "What do you think?", now "Write what you think". Is that more obvious that it is an indirect question?
I can't see how the indicative would make sense here.

nam rem republicam laboribus consiliisque meis ex igne atque ferro ereptam esse videtis
Getting back to this part, could you do:
videtis rem publicam salvatam esse?
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

If you really simplified it you could say, "What do you think?", now "Write what you think". Is that more obvious that it is an indirect question?
I can't see how the indicative would make sense here.

nam rem republicam laboribus consiliisque meis ex igne atque ferro ereptam esse videtis
Getting back to this part, could you do:
videtis rem publicam salvatam esse?
“Write what you think.” To me is just a statement, just like “write down what you just did.” Or “explain to me what you just did.” If it were “I asked you what do you think.” then it is an indirect question.
 
 

Godmy

Sīmia Illūstris

  • Censor

Location:
Bohemia
“Write what you think.” To me is just a statement, just like “write down what you just did.” Or “explain to me what you just did.” If it were “I asked you what do you think.” then it is an indirect question.
The question is implied even without the verb "ask" in the main clause. If the subordinate clause starts with the question word and, semantically, it's aiming to learn some information from someone (by inquiring), then it qualifies as an indirect question and needs to follow the consequence of tenses / consecutio temporum in subjunctive.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
“Write what you think.” To me is just a statement
"Write what you think" is not quite a statement, but a command. That command in turn contains an indirect question: "what you think". That's the indirect version of the direct question "what do you think?"

"Tell me: what do you think?" ---> direct question.
"Tell me what you think." ---> indirect question.

Latin usually marks the difference between direct and indirect questions with the mood of the verb: indicative for direct questions (unless the subjunctive is required for some reason; e.g. if you're asking something like "what would you do?"); subjunctive for indirect ones.

In English, the difference is made by the word order and the use (or not) of auxiliary verbs. Compare:

Direct question: Who are you?
Indirect question: I know who you are.

Direct question: What do you think?
Indirect question: I wonder what you think.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
In English, the difference is made by the word order and the use (or not) of auxiliary verbs.
I do mean "in English" there, not "in Latin" (in case anyone saw the unedited version).
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

"Write what you think" is not quite a statement, but a command. That command in turn contains an indirect question: "what you think". That's the indirect version of the direct question "what do you think?"

"Tell me: what do you think?" ---> direct question.
"Tell me what you think." ---> indirect question.

Latin usually marks the difference between direct and indirect questions with the mood of the verb: indicative for direct questions (unless the subjunctive is required for some reason; e.g. if you're asking something like "what would you do?"); subjunctive for indirect ones.

In English, the difference is made by the word order and the use (or not) of auxiliary verbs. Compare:

Direct question: Who are you?
Indirect question: I know who you are.

Direct question: What do you think?
Indirect question: I wonder what you think.
I gather that an indirect question (in Latin) is not necessarily a question asked indirectly. It is however a phrase that begins with an interrogative pronoun and has itverb in the subjunctive.

;nam rem publicam laboribus consiliisque meis ex igne atque ferro eraptam esse videtis.
For you see the state IS rescued from fire and iron by my work and plans.

edit: to be was changed to IS
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
I gather that an indirect question (in Latin) is not necessarily a question asked indirectly.
It's not necessarily asked, but it's reported/mentioned indirectly.
;nam rem publicam laboribus consiliisque meis ex igne atque ferro eraptam esse videtis.
For you see the state IS rescued from fire and iron by my work and plans.

edit: to be was changed to IS
"Was" was better. The rest is good.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
Esse is not perfect tense, but ereptam esse is. Perfect passive participle + esse = perfect passive infinitive.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Esse is not perfect tense, but ereptam esse is. Perfect passive participle + esse = perfect passive infinitive.
Haec iam exponam breviter ut scire possitis qua ratione comprehensa sint.
Now I will explain these things briefly so that you are able to know which reason they ought to understand.
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Belgium
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
comprehensa sint is not a passive periphrastic; that would be comprehendenda sint. comprehensa is just from the 4th principal part of comprehendo
 
Top