quo (adv?)
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
quo (adv?)
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.'
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.'
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: quo (adv?)
Yes.
But make ivit imperfect (like ferebat in the original): naves ferebantur ad hunc locum ubi ventus ibat.
But make ivit imperfect (like ferebat in the original): naves ferebantur ad hunc locum ubi ventus ibat.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am
Re: quo (adv?)
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)
naves ferebantur ad eum locum ubi ventus ibat
(instead of hunc, which would impress the speaker's location into the sentence)
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: quo (adv?)
Of course. That seems right. Thanks.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Re: quo (adv?)
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
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: quo (adv?)
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!
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?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: quo (adv?)
Surely 'ubi' is wrong here?
Yes, I ovelooked that, too.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: quo (adv?)
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 ?
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: quo (adv?)
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.
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?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: quo (adv?)
OK. got that. I understand now.
Many thanks.
Many thanks.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am
Re: quo (adv?)
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.Damoetas wrote:Actually no
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: quo (adv?)
Ut dicit Victor. Porrò id hoc dicere vellit, nisi fallor et ly "iret" sic significat: //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]."
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.