, Yes // Rectum est quod dicis.einhard wrote:I believe I'm correct in reading ad bellum faciendum as a gerund indicating purpose
I don't see a difference // Distinctionem non video.einhard wrote:and in translating posset along the lines of having power rather than being able to.
Ut dicis, "unless such a one as"einhard wrote:I take it that the subjunctive is used as part of a relative clause of characteristic?
C PLINIUS FABIO IUSTO SUO S
Olim mihi nullas epistulas mittis. Nihil est, inquis, quod scribam. At hoc ipsum scribe, nihil esse quod scribas, vel solum illud unde incipere priores solebant: 'Si vales, bene est; ego valeo.' Hoc mihi sufficit; est enim maximum.
Formerly you send no letters. You say, there is nothing that I should write. But write this very thing, "there is nothing to write about", or just that with which our predecessors [or "earlier ones/letters"] used to begin "I'm well; if you are, all is fine." That is enough for me; it's even most extensive.
Quare potest intellegi nullum bellum esse iustum nisi quod aut rebus repetis geratur aut ante denuntiatum sit
Your second sentence could well be read as clauses of characteristic, but I think they would be subjunctive in any case, as they are subclauses falling within indirect speech. Any subclauses within indirect speech are normally in the subjunctive.
It seems to say something like 'there is nothing which you are writing.' And again I would say that it is a subjunctive because it is a relative clause within indirect speech, the indirect speech being introduced by the imperative 'scribe.'
Any better ideas on this last one? Stupid jumpy screnn..
So, "quod scribas" functions as a relative clause of characteristic? That's interesting. I hadn't considered it, but it makes sense. Just to parse it further, we have the indirect statement introduced by scribe and further comprising nihil esse, and then the rel clause of characteristic. That seems right. I have no idea how I considered it a jussive noun clause!!
Is it indirect speech though? It doesn't seem so to me. It's Cicero in his own words, rather than Cicero's thoughts as reported by someone else.
No, it is not a clause of characteristic. Latin rules state that whenever you go into indirect speech, all subclauses need to be subjunctive. There are exceptions, but it is a good general rule. I suspect that this would be subjunctive in any case, as just a normal potential subjunctive. Maybe I will check a grammar book to give you a citation, but I doubt it (lazy).