quick help on a quick sentence

[Cyborg]

primus omnium censum ordinauit, quid adhuc per orbem terrarum incognitus erat.

since "censum, -i" is (or at least my book and whitaker's words say so) neuter, wouldn't primus and incognitus have to match it? my book says seruius tullius was the first to run a census, and based on that I assume this is a Classical word.

[amans]

primus omnium censum ordinauit, quid adhuc per orbem terrarum incognitus erat.

since "censum, -i" is (or at least my book and whitaker's words say so) neuter, wouldn't primus and incognitus have to match it? my book says seruius tullius was the first to run a census, and based on that I assume this is a Classical word.

Hi Cyborg,

As you said in your post, Seruius Tullius was the first to run a census. That means that primus refers to the implicit subject of ordinauit: you could translate: "he ordered as the first". Connect primus with omnium and you're done with the first part of your sentence.

The trouble with quid is that it features as an adverb here: you could translate it "because of what" (it is originally an accusative and it is a neuter because it refers to the meaning of the preceding sentence, not just a single word). So: it is good ole Seruius who's the subject of incognitus erat.

Try again and put forth your translation of the whole lot

[Cyborg]

I thought it was:
(he) ordered the first census of all, which was so far unknown in Earth.
But now I see a potential second (and more correct) interpretation:
he was the first of all to order a census, (and now I can~t figure "quid" out, and still don't know why is "incognitus" masculine )

[amans]

I would have liked your immediate idea too, but if incognatus and quid are what your book has, we have to think of another solution.

adhuc and per orbem terrarum do not pose any problems: they must be "until now" and "throughout the world".

incognitus erat must be a pluperfect passive and mean something along the lines of "had been unknown" (or just a past tense with a predicate: "was unknown").

quid can mean "because of which" or "for which reason" but I cannot get it to make much sense here...

he of all ordered a census as the first, for which reason he had been unknown until now throughout the world...

That's what I can make of it for now. Which author is it and what is the context by the way? I'll think about it...

[Cyborg]

well, amans, it looks like we have a problem here, then.

let me try to help you help me:

my book is now teaching me pronouns (hic, is, ille). it has not yet tought me "quid".

the text around this phrase is (not in entirety):

hic [seruius tullius] quoque sabinos subegit; montes tres, quirinalem, uiminalem, esquilinum, urbi adiunxit; fossas circa murum duxit. primus omnium censum ordinauit, qui [oh, it's "qui", i'm sorry, it was a typo :/] adhuc per orbem terrarum incognitus erat. sub eo, roma habuit octoginta tria milia ciuium romanorum cum illis qui in agris erant.

the book did not teach me "qui" either (it will on the next chapter, though).

for me, it still doesn't make sense - peeking on the next chapter I can see "qui" can only be masculine.

[Lucus Eques]

"qui" and "quid" both are relative pronouns. Surely you have the same in your native language? That's really all you need to understand from context.

my book is now teaching me pronouns (hic, is, ille). it has not yet tought me "quid".

A man who limits his wisdom to a book tends to find his knowledge increasingly out of date.

[Cyborg]

"qui" and "quid" both are relative pronouns. Surely you have the same in your native language? That's really all you need to understand from context.

my book is now teaching me pronouns (hic, is, ille). it has not yet tought me "quid".

A man who limits his wisdom to a book tends to find his knowledge increasingly out of date.

you don't need to be rude.

primus omnium censum ordinauit, qui adhuc per orbem terrarum incognitus erat.
(he) was the first of all to order a census, which to this point was unknown throughout the world.

I just ask myself if "incognitus" should be "incognitum" since that "which" is obviously refering to the "census" - at least in my language. So I think (maybe wrongly, since I'm a beginner) it should be "quod" instead of "qui" and "incognitum" instead of "incognitus".

That's what I'm asking help for.

----

EDIT:

actually, I'm sorry for this whole thread. I just now realized that it's "census, -us" masculine and not "censum, -i" neuter. Now it all makes sense. I'm really sorry for taking up your time. If someone could just delete this topic, I'd appreciate that.

I thought I had read it enough times (I checked again and again to see if I've got everything right before I came here to ask about it). I'm really embarrassed.

[Lucus Eques]

Ah, I see (and I apologize on the quotation; I thought you said "by book is _not_ teaching pronouns"). "Qui" is a masculine relative pronoun, which means the thing that it refers back to must also be masculine. That can be to the "primus," but also to the "census," which is masculine. Though "censum" is accusative in the main clause, the relative clause talks about the census as the subject -- which is abbreviated by the relative pronoun "qui." Thus "incognitus" is masculine nominative singular because so is "qui," even though the "census" is acted upon and rendered the accusative "censum" in the main clause.

What is your language?

[Cyborg]

Ah, I see (and I apologize on the quotation; I thought you said "by book is _not_ teaching pronouns"). "Qui" is a masculine relative pronoun, which means the thing that it refers back to must also be masculine. That can be to the "primus," but also to the "census," which is masculine. Though "censum" is accusative in the main clause, the relative clause talks about the census as the subject -- which is abbreviated by the relative pronoun "qui." Thus "incognitus" is masculine nominative singular because so is "qui," even though the "census" is acted upon and rendered the accusative "censum" in the main clause.

Oh! Now I understand the sentence even better! Thanks for the clarification on the "incognitus" and "qui" and "censum", I feel I now understand it fully.

What is your language?

I'm a native Portuguese speaker. Why? Did you notice I'm not an English native speaker because I'm so bad at English (be honest!)?
I really try my best.

censum, by the way, is from 4th declension census, census (M), not from censum, -i.

Yes, and that's the confusion for which I apologized in my last post.

[Cyborg]

concerning the "qui, quae, quod" relative pronoun, are the following right? I'm mildly confused:

(the slave to whom amulius delivered the twins was gentle)
clemens erat seruus cui amulius tradidit geminos. (cui = to whom, masculine here, matching seruus)

(a she-wolf that came to the bank of the river fed the boys)
lupa quae uenit ripae fluminis aluit pueros. (quae = which, feminine here, matching lupa)

(faustulus, of whom wife educated them (these boys right above), was the king's shepherd)
faustulus, cuius uxor eos educauit, pastor regis erat. (cuius = of whom, masculine here, matching faustulus -> is this right?)

(orbilius always punishes students that do not study, but he forgives lucius today)
orbilius discipulos quos non discunt semper castigat, sed ignoscit lucio hodie.

and filling the blanks:

magister prouerbia dictat, _quae_ discipuli describunt. (quae = acc. plur. neuter)

roma septem reges habuit, _quorum_ uitam didicimus. (quorum = gen. plur. masculine)

seruius tullius, _qui_ tarquinius superbus successit, quadraginta tres annos regnauit. (qui = nom. sing. masculine)

in that last sentence, shouldn't "tarquinius superbus" be accusative? after all, seruius tullius followed him.

[Magistra]

Cui, quae and cuius are fine.

(orbilius always punishes students that do not study, but he forgives lucius today)
orbilius discipulos quos non discunt semper castigat, sed ignoscit lucio hodie.

"That" refers to discipulos so masc. pl. is correct. However, it is the subject of "study", so it must be nom. Also, discunt means "teach".

seruius tullius, _qui_ tarquinius superbus successit, quadraginta tres annos regnauit. (qui = nom. sing. masculine)

in that last sentence, shouldn't "tarquinius superbus" be accusative? after all, seruius tullius followed him.

Tarquinius Superbus was the last king. He followed Servius Tullius. Therefore, the blank needs to be filled with an accusative form ("whom"). Since Tarquinius is the subject, the blank represents a direct object.

You seem to be getting the idea of how to use relative pronouns. Keep in mind that the relative pronoun will have the same number and gender as the noun it describes, but its case is determined by how it is used in the relative clause.

Magistra

[benissimus]

alas, I have been beaten to the punch by a whole 7 minutes.

concerning the "qui, quae, quod" relative pronoun, are the following right? I'm mildly confused:

I remember having some confusion with the relative pronouns at first, but they become instinctive after a short while (hopefully).

(the slave to whom amulius delivered the twins was gentle)
clemens erat seruus cui amulius tradidit geminos. (cui = to whom, masculine here, matching seruus)

this appears to be correct

(a she-wolf that came to the bank of the river fed the boys)
lupa quae uenit ripae fluminis aluit pueros. (quae = which, feminine here, matching lupa)

the use of the relative pronoun is correct, but "to the bank" would be better expressed by a preposition.

(faustulus, of whom wife educated them (these boys right above), was the king's shepherd)
faustulus, cuius uxor eos educauit, pastor regis erat. (cuius = of whom, masculine here, matching faustulus -> is this right?)

correct, though we would say "the wife of whom" or (preferably) "whose wife" in English.

(orbilius always punishes students that do not study, but he forgives lucius today)
orbilius discipulos quos non discunt semper castigat, sed ignoscit lucio hodie.

it is incorrect to use the accusative here (quos); in the clause "who/that do not study", the relative pronoun is the subject. in addition, it does not make sense for discere to take a person as a direct object - "to learn (someone)".

and filling the blanks:

magister prouerbia dictat, _quae_ discipuli describunt. (quae = acc. plur. neuter)

appears to be correct.

roma septem reges habuit, _quorum_ uitam didicimus. (quorum = gen. plur. masculine)

correct

seruius tullius, _qui_ tarquinius superbus successit, quadraginta tres annos regnauit. (qui = nom. sing. masculine)

in that last sentence, shouldn't "tarquinius superbus" be accusative? after all, seruius tullius followed him.

you have it backwards I'm afraid: tarquinius succeeded servius - servius, or rather the pronoun standing for him, should be accusative. i.e. "servius tullius, whom tarquinius superbus succeeded...". tarquin, of course, was the infamous last king of Rome, so no one succeeded him. it also does not make sense to have two subjects in the relative clause (since apposition is not possible here).

[Cyborg]

alas, I have been beaten to the punch by a whole 7 minutes.

Don't worry, there will be still some more homework of mine to be corrected (not much more, I guess, since now I'll be seeing the passive voice, and I think it will be an easy smooth time while), but do start to worry when I get better for you'll be having another competitor to share/dispute homework check-outs with.

the use of the relative pronoun is correct, but "to the bank" would be better expressed by a preposition.

So it'd be "lupa quae uenit ad ripam fluminis aluit pueros". Thanks.

correct, though we would say "the wife of whom" or (preferably) "whose wife" in English.

Oh, yes of course.
English tips are always welcome.

"That" refers to discipulos so masc. pl. is correct. However, it is the subject of "study", so it must be nom. Also, discunt means "teach".

it is incorrect to use the accusative here (quos); in the clause "who/that do not study", the relative pronoun is the subject. in addition, it does not make sense for discere to take a person as a direct object - "to learn (someone)".

I see. Although I'd say "docent" means "teach".
And my "discunt" isn't taking anything. Maybe I could rearrange the sentence, but I still can't see how is "discunt" taking a person.
orbilius semper castigat discipulos qui non discunt, sed hodie ignoscit lucio.

Tarquinius Superbus was the last king. He followed Servius Tullius. Therefore, the blank needs to be filled with an accusative form ("whom"). Since Tarquinius is the subject, the blank represents a direct object.

you have it backwards I'm afraid: tarquinius succeeded servius - servius, or rather the pronoun standing for him, should be accusative. i.e. "servius tullius, whom tarquinius superbus succeeded...". tarquin, of course, was the infamous last king of Rome, so no one succeeded him.

Hmm, I get it. But I guess "succedere" takes the dative - at least in my lectures it does. So would it be:
seruius tullius, _cui_ tarquinius superbus successit, quadraginta tres annos regnauit. ?

You seem to be getting the idea of how to use relative pronouns. Keep in mind that the relative pronoun will have the same number and gender as the noun it describes, but its case is determined by how it is used in the relative clause.

it also does not make sense to have two subjects in the relative clause (since apposition is not possible here).

Then would I be correct to say that I'll only use "qui, quae, quod" in subordinate/relative clauses (where it'd agree in number and gender but not in case) and appositions (where it'd agree in number, gender and case)?