Qimmik wrote:I think it best fits into the pigeonhole of "temporal clause implying intention or expectancy," a species of "temporal clause" discussed in Allen & Greenough sec. 553
Qimmik wrote:Check out sec. 553 of Allen & Greenough. It's a type of construction that's classified as a type of temporal clause, but requires the subjunctive. This construction is apparently not usually introduced by ut--usually by dum or quoad, but I think that's the best explanation for the passage from Tacitus.
There is nothing to suggest "apparently not usually introduced by ut".
Qimmik wrote:But it isn't a purpose or result clause. "Nero was expecting/waiting for Vestius to be drawn into the crime", not "Nero was expecting/waiting in order for Vestius to be drawn into the crime" or "Nero was expecting/waiting, with the result that Vestius was drawn into the crime."
The "best explanation" in your opinion.
As I said, I see the "ut" clause in "opperior ut" as a substantive clause used as object. As to whether its a substantive clause of purpose or a substantive clause of result (and A&G allows us only these categories), I see it better fitting the category of "substantive clause of purpose" rather than "substantive clause of result". The reason is because in my view "awaiting something" is "an action directed towards the future" alongside verbs of admonishing, asking, bargaining, commanding, decreeing, determining, permitting, persuading, resolving, urging, wishing, caution and effort (§563) rather than "a verb denoting the accomplishment of an effort" (§568). Of course, I could be wrong headed but that is how I reason in the absence of an authoritative voice on the thing.
Qimmik wrote:The tone of your comments suggests that you were somehow offended by mine
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 45 guests