Textkit Logo

L.A. VII

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

L.A. VII

Postby Einhard » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:27 pm

Salvete,

I'm trying to figure out why the subjunctive is used in the following sentence from LA VI in Wheelock:

Mea quidem sententia, pax quae nihil insidiarum habeat semper quaerenda est

The Relative Clause of Characteristic comes to mind..."the type of peace" etc. Anyone have any other suggestions?

Thanks.
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

Re: L.A. VII

Postby adrianus » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:35 pm

Potential subjunctive.
Potentialis modus subjunctivus est.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: L.A. VII

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:40 am

adrianus, how would you render it in English in terms of a potential subjunctive?
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: L.A. VII

Postby adrianus » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:30 am

The potential subjunctive was the "other suggestion" I had, because it refers to an immediate future when a peace will be framed.
Modus subjunctivus potentialis erat suggestio altera quam proferre potui, quià tempus pacis faciendae ad temporem futurum nullâ re intercedente pertinet.

"Mea quidem sententia, pax quae nihil insidiarum habeat semper quaerenda est"
"Certainly according to my thinking, a peace/reconciliation which would have no loopholes ought to be sought" id est "no possibility of treacheries"

I think about the "semper" now, which, rereading the post, I notice I didn't translate. Maybe that changes things, because the sentence with it refers to all futures and not just an immediate one, so "clause of characteristic" may be the only good interpretation. But I'm not sure it couldn't be both. What do you think?
"Semper" adverbium nunc considero, quod è traductione omisi, ut epistulâ relectâ subitò animadverto. Id forsit rem mutat, quòd cum eo sententia ad omnia tempora futura pertinet, non solùm ad illud appariturum. Eâ ratione, fortassè "clausula ad rerum descriptionem pertinens" sola bona interpretatio sit. At alterutram interpretationem aptam esse possibile est, etiam credo. Quid putatis?
Last edited by adrianus on Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: L.A. VII

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:23 pm

That makes sense -- that's how I understand the meaning of the subjunctive here. In fact I might say that "would" there could be classified as a "would characteristic" ;), so I don't think there's much difference. I believe I read somewhere that the subjunctive in relative clauses of characteristic developed from this sense of the potential subjunctive. But anyway, I was just wondering, since the potential subjunctive can cover quite a bit of ground in English.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: L.A. VII

Postby adrianus » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:13 am

Three corrections to my latin in my previous post! No doubt there are yet other mistakes I don't see. It's still all uphill.
Ter meam epistulam ultimam correxi! Non dubito alia vitia insupèr exstare quae non video. Minus utinàm onus fiat!
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests