Textkit Logo

A question about quisque

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

A question about quisque

Postby Nooj » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:29 pm

A&G §317e:

e. Quisque, each, and unus quisque, every single one, have very often a plural verb, but may be considered as in partitive apposition with a plural subject implied (cf. §282. a): -

* sibi quisque habeant quod suum est (Pl. Curc. 180), let every one keep his own (let them keep every man his own).


I don't quite understand what it means when it says quisque is in apposition with a plural subject. I was wondering if someone could give me a few more examples than the grammar book provides. And if I understand the concept of apposition correctly (not very familiar with it going inin I'm afraid) the two words in apposition has to be in the same case, not necessarily the same number...allowing this sort of apposition to take place?

I've tried to make my own very simple example:

Each man will say the same stuff.
Quisque eadem (sui) dicebunt.

Correct?
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby modus.irrealis » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:47 am

I think the idea is clearer in examples like

Quisque suos patimur Manes "we suffer, each his own spirit"

where because the verb is in the first person, "quisque" can't be the subject directly but can only be in apposition to it. I would say it's similar to English "we each" or "they each", but Latin of course doesn't have to express the subject pronoun. In English too, even though when "each" is the subject, the verb is singular, when "each" is in apposition to the subject, the verb is plural, as in "each of them has.." but "they each have..."

And yeah, apposition requires only the case to be the same, but not number (or gender). Again like in English, "we, the citizens of this town, have..."

Nooj wrote:Each man will say the same stuff.
Quisque eadem (sui) dicent.

Since "dico" is of the 3rd conjugation. But why "sui"?

For more examples, I'm too lazy to copy them, but there are a lot of Latin grammars on google books, and surprisingly, it's not the same set of examples used by all of them.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Nooj » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:14 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:
Nooj wrote:Each man will say the same stuff.
Quisque eadem (sui) dicent.

Since "dico" is of the 3rd conjugation. But why "sui"?
Hm...I didn't know what the nom. of the personal pronoun 'himself/herself' was and used the possessive pronouns I think. Sometimes I confuse myself too. :lol:
I think the idea is clearer in examples like

Quisque suos patimur Manes "we suffer, each his own spirit"

where because the verb is in the first person, "quisque" can't be the subject directly but can only be in apposition to it. I would say it's similar to English "we each" or "they each", but Latin of course doesn't have to express the subject pronoun. In English too, even though when "each" is the subject, the verb is singular, when "each" is in apposition to the subject, the verb is plural, as in "each of them has.." but "they each have..."

Wow, I actually understood that. You really have a way with explaining things succintly.

I have another question, this time about indirect questions. Why is it that the subject is nominative? I know how to construct an indirect question, I just want to know why Latin does it like that. e.g. nescio quid soror dictura sit
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby modus.irrealis » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:13 pm

Nooj wrote:Hm...I didn't know what the nom. of the personal pronoun 'himself/herself' was and used the possessive pronouns I think. Sometimes I confuse myself too. :lol:

You didn't know, 'cause it doesn't exist ;). There is no nominative.

I have another question, this time about indirect questions. Why is it that the subject is nominative? I know how to construct an indirect question, I just want to know why Latin does it like that. e.g. nescio quid soror dictura sit

Why is a tough question to answer when it comes to stuff like this. But basically since the indirect question's main verb is put in the subjunctive, it's still finite so it requires its subject to be in the nominative. I'm guessing you're comparing to the accusative in indirect discourse, and there you have the infinitive which takes its subject in the accusative. But that's just redescribing the constructions -- I'm not sure how to answer a why question.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: A question about quisque

Postby thesaurus » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:51 pm

I have another question, this time about indirect questions. Why is it that the subject is nominative? I know how to construct an indirect question, I just want to know why Latin does it like that. e.g. nescio quid soror dictura sit


I haven't researched this, but I've always thought that the indirect question's verb is subjunctive because it expresses uncertainty/doubt. I think of an indirect question as combining two separate clauses, (nescio + quid soror dictura sit=I don't know; what will the sister say?) sort of like in clauses of fearing (vereor ne adsit= vereor! Ne adsit! "I'm afraid; [I hope] that he isn't present!).

Otherwise, I'd say don't worry about the "why" and try to roll with it.

Hoc non investigavi, sed semper ratus sum queastionem obliquam modum subjunctivum adhibere cum quaestio ipsa dubium vel haesitationem significet. Quaestionem obliquam censeo duas partis discretas conjungere, sicut sententiis verendi.

At noli sollicitari "cur" et permane semper discendo!
Horae quidem cedunt et dies et menses et anni, nec praeteritum tempus umquam revertitur nec quid sequatur sciri potest. Quod cuique temporis ad vivendum datur, eo debet esse contentus. --Cicero, De Senectute
thesaurus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:44 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Nooj » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:50 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:But basically since the indirect question's main verb is put in the subjunctive, it's still finite so it requires its subject to be in the nominative.

Oh dear...I'm afraid even something as simple as that goes over my head. I only know 'finite' in the sense that a finite verb shows the person and number of a subject (in fact before I started Greek, I'd never heard of a finite verb before).

Otherwise, I'd say don't worry about the "why" and try to roll with it.
Yep, that's what I've been doing so far. But still, I feel my knowledge of Latin would be deficient in some sense unless I know these sorts of things...
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby modus.irrealis » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:41 am

Nooj wrote:Oh dear...I'm afraid even something as simple as that goes over my head. I only know 'finite' in the sense that a finite verb shows the person and number of a subject (in fact before I started Greek, I'd never heard of a finite verb before).

Yes, that definition works for Latin (and Greek). But I was just basically saying that the subject of a verb in the subjunctive is always in the nominative, although that's not an explanation exactly.

Yep, that's what I've been doing so far. But still, I feel my knowledge of Latin would be deficient in some sense unless I know these sorts of things...

Can you answer the same question for English, though? I don't think it's any kind of deficiency.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Nooj » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:57 pm

Can you answer the same question for English, though? I don't think it's any kind of deficiency.
Hm...well, I guess the native Latin speakers never knew this stuff and it didn't hurt them. That cheers me up slightly more. On the other hand, it's still darn interesting to know. Thank you both for your help!

On a different note, I've come across this concept called prolepsis:

3) The subject of an indirect question is often attracted into the main clause as an object
(Accusative of Anticipation)
Nosti Marcellum quam tardus sit. - You know how slow Marcellus is.
(Nosti quam tardus sit Marcellus.)


The meaning of the first sentence isn't exactly the same as the second, is it? I'm thinking of this like the English 'Mark...you know him?' contrasted with 'you know Mark?'.
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Imber Ranae » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:25 am

Nooj wrote:I have another question, this time about indirect questions. Why is it that the subject is nominative? I know how to construct an indirect question, I just want to know why Latin does it like that. e.g. nescio quid soror dictura sit


What would you expect the subject of an indirect question to be except the nominative? It's no different in English. You wouldn't say, "Do you know whom I am?" would you? Indirect questions are very different from relative clauses: In a sentence like scis quis ego sim?, the whole clause quis ego sim functions as the direct object of the verb scis, not just quis, which you'll notice is an interrogative pronoun, not a relative. Proleptic constructions where the subject of the indirect question is attracted into the main clause are exceptional in Latin, being far more common in Greek.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.
Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Imber Ranae » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:31 am

Nooj wrote:On a different note, I've come across this concept called prolepsis:

3) The subject of an indirect question is often attracted into the main clause as an object
(Accusative of Anticipation)
Nosti Marcellum quam tardus sit. - You know how slow Marcellus is.
(Nosti quam tardus sit Marcellus.)


The meaning of the first sentence isn't exactly the same as the second, is it? I'm thinking of this like the English 'Mark...you know him?' contrasted with 'you know Mark?'.


The meanings are essentially the same; there's only a slight difference in emphasis.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.
Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: A question about quisque

Postby Nooj » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:03 pm

di immortales, i'm going to piss people off now, but I have a whole 'nother series of questions that your post has spawned. I sincerely apologise for jumping all over the place.

scis quis ego sim?

quis ego sim = subordinate clause. subordinate clauses can't stand on their own without a main clause, so i remember anyway.

1) but doesn't quis ego sim make sense on its own, as a direct question? who could I be/who might I be?
2) why is the sum turned into a subjunctive? in this particular context, the use of 'sim' rather than 'sum' doesn't give a different meaning in this sentence. it's still 'do you know who i am?'. I know that verbs in subordinate clauses get turned into the subjunctive mood. Such as subordinate verbs in indirect statement e.g. dicit se librum legisse quem sibi dederim. But again, the meanings don't seem too different from their indicative forms.

So what is the purpose of the subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses? Is it simply a way to mark that...you know, a subordinate clause exists? Like a sign saying 'subordinate clause here'.
Dolor poetas creat.
Nooj
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: A question about quisque

Postby modus.irrealis » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:15 pm

Nooj wrote:di immortales, i'm going to piss people off now, but I have a whole 'nother series of questions that your post has spawned. I sincerely apologise for jumping all over the place.

scis quis ego sim?

quis ego sim = subordinate clause. subordinate clauses can't stand on their own without a main clause, so i remember anyway.

1) but doesn't quis ego sim make sense on its own, as a direct question? who could I be/who might I be?

Yes, but here it fulfils a different function, or to put it another way, they're not really the same clause. The first functions as the object of scis and therefore is subordinate to it, but that's not (necessarily) the case with the independent question.

2) why is the sum turned into a subjunctive? in this particular context, the use of 'sim' rather than 'sum' doesn't give a different meaning in this sentence. it's still 'do you know who i am?'. I know that verbs in subordinate clauses get turned into the subjunctive mood. Such as subordinate verbs in indirect statement e.g. dicit se librum legisse quem sibi dederim. But again, the meanings don't seem too different from their indicative forms.

So what is the purpose of the subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses? Is it simply a way to mark that...you know, a subordinate clause exists? Like a sign saying 'subordinate clause here'.

Perhaps, or maybe just as a sign of indirect discourse. It seems to be pretty common for languages to distinguish indirect discourse in some way, which often results in fewer distinctions being possible (just like how the indicative vs. subjunctive distinction is lost in Latin indirect questions). Greek and Latin have the infinitive, English has backshifting (He said, "I'll come" > He said he would come, which could also be from He said, "I would come"), German uses the subjunctive in indirect discourse but I can't describe the details. I found thesaurus' theory very plausible and the subjunctive does seem to fit in some cases and perhaps it was extended to all cases -- if I remember correctly, in early Latin, the indicative was still commonly used in indirect questions. Not an answer, but I believe this sort of thing is very natural.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: A question about quisque

Postby spiphany » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:31 am

modus.irrealis wrote:Perhaps, or maybe just as a sign of indirect discourse. It seems to be pretty common for languages to distinguish indirect discourse in some way...

One way to understand this (and mind you, I don't know whether this has any historical basis, except in the case of the German 'erlebte Rede') is that using the subjunctive indicates a particular epistemic position: if you're reporting something that someone else said, you may not want to take complete responsibility for the content -- hence, the subjunctive, which is just a little less "real" than the indicative. Of course, not all indirect statements actually represent reported speech, so this theory doesn't work in all cases! But it's possible there's a relationship between the meaning of the subjunctive and this use of it in a particular grammatical structure.
IPHIGENIE: Kann uns zum Vaterland die Fremde werden?
ARKAS: Und dir ist fremd das Vaterland geworden.
IPHIGENIE: Das ist's, warum mein blutend Herz nicht heilt.
(Goethe, Iphigenie auf Tauris)
spiphany
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:15 am
Location: Munich

Re: A question about quisque

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:27 pm

Interesting. That makes sense for Latin, too, where the use of indicative vs. subjunctive in e.g. relative clauses embedded in indirect discourse indicates something similar.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 54 guests