Textkit Logo

quo (adv?)

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

quo (adv?)

Postby pmda » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:33 pm

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.'
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Qimmik » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:57 pm

Yes.

But make ivit imperfect (like ferebat in the original): naves ferebantur ad hunc locum ubi ventus ibat.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby pmda » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:02 pm

Thanks Quimmik
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby MiguelM » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:14 pm

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)
User avatar
MiguelM
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am
Location: Portugal

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby pmda » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:46 am

Of course. That seems right. Thanks.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Interaxus » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:36 am

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
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Damoetas » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:52 am

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?
Damoetas
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Qimmik » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:14 am

Surely 'ubi' is wrong here?


Yes, I ovelooked that, too.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby pmda » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:22 am

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 ?
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Damoetas » Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:34 pm

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?
Damoetas
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby pmda » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:16 pm

OK. got that. I understand now.

Many thanks.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby Victor » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:30 pm

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.
Victor
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: quo (adv?)

Postby adrianus » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:13 pm

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


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Yahoo [Bot] and 61 guests