Rufus Coppertop wrote:Caesar's Gallic War. II.2
Dat negotium Senonibus reliquisque Gallis qui finitimi Belgis erant, uti ea quae apud eos gerantur cognoscant seque de his rebus certiorem faciant.
Would a decent translation be, "that they should get to know those things which are carried among them, and make him more certain about these matters?"
Should I think of ea as a neuter plural accusative and the object of cognoscant?
Grammatically speaking, just how is ea modifying the relative clause? In an appositive sense?Damoetas wrote: A newer linguistic analysis says that quae apud eos gerantur is actually the direct object, and that ea is modifying it.
uti ea quae apud eos gerantur cognoscant
uti eas res cognoscant
ptolemyauletes wrote:Yes, it can certainly be thought of this way. Whether it IS this way or not cannot be proven, nor, ultimately, does it matter. The Romans just spoke that way, and whether we say 'supply id or ea as an antecedent noun so we can call this a standard relative clause' or we say 'the relative clause is the object' it makes no real difference for meaning. Certainly in trying to understand it from a grammatical point of view it is interesting, but I am not sure which method is simpler for teaching it to beginners. I think this may just be grammarians trying to keep themselves employed by proving they can be innovative!
Kynetus Valesius wrote:C: vos principes senonum, velim vobis dare magni momenti negotium
Instead of saying "id/ea must be supplied or understood," it makes just as much sense to say "Latin relative clauses do not require an antecedent." In any case, if this is confusing, don't worry about it too much; it doesn't affect the meaning, only how you describe the structure linguistically.
ptolemyauletes wrote:What about saying 'Latin relative clauses can BE their OWN antecedent'?
Damoetas wrote:A newer linguistic analysis says...
adrianus wrote:Again, have you a title of a paper or book on this, Damoetas?
Iterùm, Damoeta, habesne titulum capituli vel libri has res tractantis?
Instead of saying "id/ea must be supplied or understood," it makes just as much sense to say "Latin relative clauses do not require an antecedent."
Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 101 guests