Textkit Logo

The devil is in the detail

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

The devil is in the detail

Postby Interaxus » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:49 am

I can’t say I'm kept awake at night by them but I’m mildly puzzled by some of the things I come across now and again. For instance:

1. I was listening to Metrodorus’ podcast for Adler Lesson 39 (page 202 in the pdf file) when I heard/read:

Est profecto deus, qui, quae (= ea quae) nos gerimus, auditQUE ET videt.
There is certainly a God, who sees AND hears whatever we are doing.

I have long been under the impression that –QUE and ET are mutually exclusive (you choose one or the other). In any case, surely one of them is redundant in this sentence? Is this merely an Adlerism or is it a stylistic device traceable to classical authors? Anyone?

2. In ‘High School Course in Latin Composition’ by Baker and Inglis (p. 21) I came across:

In summô colle – on the top of the hill.
Extrêmâ hieme … mediâ aestâte – at the end of the winter … in the middle of summer.
Prîma nocte – during the first part of the night.

Why prîma and not prîmâ …??? Mere printer’s error... :?:

Cheers,
Int
Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Gonzalo » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:15 am

Hi,

I came across some time ago a sentence in which the usage of "et" was duplicated. Therefore, I suppose that in your sentence the sense of "et" is:
"[...]who sees and also hears whatever we are doing".

Regards,
Gonzalo
Verus enim amor semper tempore tristi elucescit magis. (Philipp Melanchthon: Decl. de studiis Linguæ Græcæ)
Quin age, si quid habes (P. Vergilii Maronis Ecloga III:52)
User avatar
Gonzalo
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am
Location: España

Re: The devil is in the detail

Postby edonnelly » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:46 pm

Interaxus wrote:Est profecto deus, qui, quae (= ea quae) nos gerimus, auditQUE ET videt.
There is certainly a God, who sees AND hears whatever we are doing.

I have long been under the impression that –QUE and ET are mutually exclusive (you choose one or the other). In any case, surely one of them is redundant in this sentence? Is this merely an Adlerism or is it a stylistic device traceable to classical authors? Anyone?


Check out the L&S entry for que, it gives some examples of que et in use, including the quote you have above. The relevant portion is here:

L&S Entry on que from Perseus Library wrote: Followed by other conjunctions.
Que ... et (not in Cic., Cæs., Suet., or Nep.): peregrique et domi, Plaut. Am. prol. 5: deus, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et videt, id. Capt. 2, 2, 63: seque et oppidum tradat, Sall. J. 26, 1: illosque et Sullam, id. ib. 104, 1: signaque et ordines, Liv. 2, 59; 1, 43, 2 Weissenb. ad loc.: legatique et tribuni, id. 29, 22: in formulam jurisque et dicionis, id. 26, 24: omnes gentesque et terrae, id. 21, 30, 2 (v. Fabri ad loc.): Arpinique et Romani, id. 24, 47: seque et arma, Curt. 8, 4, 15: seque et delatores, Tac. Agr. 42.—
Que ... et ... et: Romanique et Macedones et socii, Liv. 44, 29: seque et arma et equos, Tac. Agr. 18: seque et domum et pacem, id. A. 1, 4; 12, 37. —
Que ... ac (rare, not earlier than Verg.): satisque ac super, Ov. M. 4, 429: minusque ac minus, Liv. 26, 17: oculisque ac mente turbatus, id. 7, 26: posuitque domos atque horrea fecit, Verg. G. 1, 182: seque ac liberos suos, Tac. H. 3, 63: opibusque atque honoribus, id. ib. 4, 34. —
Que ... ac ... et: in quos seque ac conjuges et liberos condunt, Curt. 5, 6, 17. —
Que ... et ... ac, Liv. 35, 41. —
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
User avatar
edonnelly
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA

Postby adrianus » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:59 pm

salvete
"et audit et videt" = "auditque et videt" = nonne anglicè "both hears and sees" (as I remember from the textbooks, to give it that little emphasis --proinde aliqua emphasis detur, illis de libris scholaribus quos recordor), ut dicit Gonzalo ("also"), et Ed.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Gonzalo » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:14 pm

adrianus wrote:salvete
"et audit et videt" = "auditque et videt" = nonne anglicè "both hears and sees" (as I remember from the textbooks, to give it that little emphasis --proinde aliqua emphasis detur, illis de libris scholaribus quos recordor), ut dicit Gonzalo ("also"), et Ed.


Clarissime Adriane,
Forsitan ob meum errorem in anglicê sermone, non plane mea verba intellexisti.

Verba nunc tibi muto:
"[...]who sees and hears also whatever we are doing."

Scio non esse sensum dictionis "et...et" idem quam in etiam ac quoque sed doctus fuit idem verbum "et" significare posse ista alia verba.

Non fortior ad hanc rem defendendam sed de multiplicibus significationibus verbi "et" clarior fieri potest subsequentem exemplum. Mementô nunc:
Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. (Vergilii Æneis II.49)
Verus enim amor semper tempore tristi elucescit magis. (Philipp Melanchthon: Decl. de studiis Linguæ Græcæ)
Quin age, si quid habes (P. Vergilii Maronis Ecloga III:52)
User avatar
Gonzalo
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am
Location: España

Est profecto deus et cetera.

Postby metrodorus » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:39 pm

I "google booked" the quote. It is from Plautus.
Est profecto deus, qui, quae nos gerimus, auditQUE ET videt.
A good translation is "There is surely some god who both hears and sees".

Metro.
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Re: The devil is in the detail

Postby adrianus » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:27 pm

Interaxus wrote:Why prîma and not prîmâ …??? Mere printer’s error... :?:
Surely. Ita, Interaxe,-- erratum typographicum est.
Addendum:
L&S on 'et' + 'et' wrote:[Et...] With a subordinate que or atque: nam et semper me coluit diligentissimeque observavit et a studiis nostris non abhorret, Cic. Fam. 13, 22 ; with atque, id. de Or. 1, 21, 95 .--Et ... que are sometimes used for et ... et (rarely in Cic.; freq. in Liv. and post-Aug. writers): quis est quin intellegat et eos inmemores fuisse, nosque honestate duci?
I thought that was interesting about the order and the suggestion of one idea being subordinate to the other (and affecting the emphasis, perhaps). Just to add to Ed's extract from L&S above: "que...et" is (perhaps) preferable to "et...que", if meant in the sense of "both" or "not only but also" or "as well as".
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Interaxus » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:03 pm

Interaxus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Whitefort and 71 guests