quo (adv?)

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

quo (adv?)

Post by pmda »

Orberg in LLPSI Cap XXXVIII hoc scribit:

Notus vela implebat, naves celeriter per undas vehebantur quo ventus ferebat.

Opto rem grammaticae confirmare:

Nonne 'quo' , adverbum est? '...naves ferebantur ad hunc locum ubi ventus ivit.'

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Qimmik »

Yes.

But make ivit imperfect (like ferebat in the original): naves ferebantur ad hunc locum ubi ventus ibat.

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by pmda »

Thanks Quimmik

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by anphph »

If I may nitpick, the Latin would probably be better rendered as:

naves ferebantur ad eum locum ubi ventus ibat

(instead of hunc, which would impress the speaker's location into the sentence)

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by pmda »

Of course. That seems right. Thanks.

Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Interaxus »

naves ferebantur ad eum locum ubi ventus ibat


Surely 'ubi' is wrong here? Orberg means 'whither', that is, 'quo'. As in 'Quo vadis?' We're not talking about the PLACE WHERE the wind was blowing but the place IN THE DIRECTION OF WHICH the wind was blowing (otherwise the ships wouldn't get there, would they?).

naves ferebantur ad eum locum quo ventus ibat.

That sounds more like Latin and less like English to me (though I've been wrong before).

Vale,
Int

Damoetas
Textkit Fan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Damoetas »

Good point, Interaxus, I was thinking the same thing.... Although, if the point of this exercise is to paraphrase quo, it helps if quo doesn't occur in the paraphrase! So we would have to go one step further and say:

Naves ferebantur ad eum locum ad quem ventus ibat.

But now this doesn't sound very much like Latin again.... So perhaps we've come full circle and illustrated the advantage of using quo in the first place!
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Qimmik »

Surely 'ubi' is wrong here?


Yes, I ovelooked that, too.

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by pmda »

But surely it's OK to use ubi as, once we've established that it's to eum locum then, being there, we can qualify it as the place where such a thing occurred ?

Damoetas
Textkit Fan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Damoetas »

Actually no: if someone says that in Latin - naves ferebantur ad eum locum ubi ventus ibat - it means, "The ships were being carried toward that place in which the wind was blowing [but it was not blowing across the intervening distance]."

That's quite different from "The ships were being carried to the place / in the direction to which the wind was taking them."

It can be hard for us English-speakers to grasp but the unde vs. ubi vs. quo distinction is really pervasive in Latin, and the terms are not at all synonymous.
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by pmda »

OK. got that. I understand now.

Many thanks.

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by Victor »

Damoetas wrote:Actually no
Just for the record, it might be instructive to consult Adams' chapter on Late Latin (from A Companion to the Latin Language), where he discusses the encroachment of static adverbials on directional ones, a phenomenon that was already observable "as early as the 1st century CE, but in popular speech", i.e. not "good" prose. He cites an example from Apuleius of ubi for quo: "ubi, inquit, ducis asinum istum?", noting that it occurs in direct speech.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: quo (adv?)

Post by adrianus »

Damoetas wrote:Actually no: if someone says that in Latin - naves ferebantur ad eum locum ubi ventus ibat - it means, "The ships were being carried toward that place in which the wind was blowing [but it was not blowing across the intervening distance]."
Ut dicit Victor. Porrò id hoc dicere vellit, nisi fallor et ly "iret" sic significat: //
As Victor says and it could also mean, of course, I think, "whenever the wind passed/moved/happened" unless it should be "ubi ventur iret" for "whenever the wind happened".

Post Scriptum

According to A&G, §§542, 514, the way I read this, it would be "ubi ventus iret" rather than "ubi ventus ibat" for "whenever...". I spoke too soon.
Magis est "ubi ventus iret" quam "ubi ventus ibat" pro anglicè "whenever the wind went/happened" secundum A&G, §§542, 514,—ly ubi ut protasis. Festiniùs scripsi.
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.

Post Reply