Some really simple vocabulary questions

[Jacobus]

Salvete omnes,

I have been going through what I've done of Lingua Latina again over the past few days, and have encountered a few vocabulary issues. I fear that they're extremely simple issues, but nonetheless, I won't learn without being told

In chapter three, the word "quia" is introduced, meaning "because". In chapter ten, another word of the same meaning is introduced - "quod". Is one used in positive contexts and the other in negative ones, perhaps?

Exemplum primum: Mater Marcum verberat, quia Marcus puer improbus est.

Exemplum secundum: Homines ambulare possunt, quod pedes habent, neque volare possunt, quod alas non habent.

The meanings of the sentences themselves are absolutely clear to me, however the use of one word "quia" versus another "quod" is not clear to me. Is there a grammatical difference or is it some kind of nuance, or even personal preference?

There are a lot of word "pairs" which slightly confuse me in Latin, although I won't bore you with all of them. Perhaps they're all synonyms of each other?

quia = quod
cantare = canere
super = supra (Both + accusative, above?)
timere, horrere - I would imagine that here, horrere would just have a stronger meaning?

Also, in chapter twelve, we are introduced to what is fairly obviously an alternate construction for "habere" + accusative. That being, the dative of the person/thing involved, + esse. Again, is this just a stylistic thing?

Iulius sororem pulchram habet.
Iulio una soror pulchra est.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions.

Jack

[Rhodopeius]

You are right; these words are synonymous with one another.

As for quia and quod, there is no syntactical difference, to the best of my knowledge, between the two. Quod, however, has other
meanings, whereas quia is always a subordinating conjunction meaning "because" in classical Latin. In the vulgate, I believe
that they both came to take on the role of introducing indirect speech, in addition to their classical uses.

[Jacobus]

You are right; these words are synonymous with one another.

Thanks, Rhodopeius. I assumed the issue would be something as simple as that.

Jack

[galen697]

From what I've seen, quia is a common way to introduce subjunctive causal clauses, especially in early Latin. I recall Plautus using it very liberally when I read Amphitryo in college.

[Jacobus]

From what I've seen, quia is a common way to introduce subjunctive causal clauses, especially in early Latin. I recall Plautus using it very liberally when I read Amphitryo in college.

Thanks for that, galen697. I have always had difficulty with the subjunctive in French, so any information on this, even if it's a simple statement like the one you've provided, will help me a lot when I begin to tackle the subjunctive in Latin.

Multas gratias ob auxillium.

Jack

[thesaurus]

From what I've seen, quia is a common way to introduce subjunctive causal clauses, especially in early Latin. I recall Plautus using it very liberally when I read Amphitryo in college.

I'd be interested in seeing an example of this if you have any on hand.

[paulusnb]

In the vulgate, I believe
that they both came to take on the role of introducing indirect speech, in addition to their classical uses.

Noticed this the other day:

John 16:20

Tunc praecepit discipulis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Christus.


And quia plus subjunctive in Medieval Latin equals cum plus subjunctive

http://books.google.com/books?id=ReCp97 ... &ct=result


Allen and Greenough (540) claim that quod introduces either a fact or a statement while quia introduces a fact. This explains, according to these two, why quia rarely takes the subjunctive.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8roAAA ... &ct=result