L.A. VII

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

L.A. VII

Post by Einhard »

Salvete,

I'm trying to figure out why the subjunctive is used in the following sentence from LA VI in Wheelock:

Mea quidem sententia, pax quae nihil insidiarum habeat semper quaerenda est

The Relative Clause of Characteristic comes to mind..."the type of peace" etc. Anyone have any other suggestions?

Thanks.

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

Re: L.A. VII

Post by adrianus »

Potential subjunctive.
Potentialis modus subjunctivus est.
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.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: L.A. VII

Post by modus.irrealis »

adrianus, how would you render it in English in terms of a potential subjunctive?

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

Re: L.A. VII

Post by adrianus »

The potential subjunctive was the "other suggestion" I had, because it refers to an immediate future when a peace will be framed.
Modus subjunctivus potentialis erat suggestio altera quam proferre potui, quià tempus pacis faciendae ad temporem futurum nullâ re intercedente pertinet.

"Mea quidem sententia, pax quae nihil insidiarum habeat semper quaerenda est"
"Certainly according to my thinking, a peace/reconciliation which would have no loopholes ought to be sought" id est "no possibility of treacheries"

I think about the "semper" now, which, rereading the post, I notice I didn't translate. Maybe that changes things, because the sentence with it refers to all futures and not just an immediate one, so "clause of characteristic" may be the only good interpretation. But I'm not sure it couldn't be both. What do you think?
"Semper" adverbium nunc considero, quod è traductione omisi, ut epistulâ relectâ subitò animadverto. Id forsit rem mutat, quòd cum eo sententia ad omnia tempora futura pertinet, non solùm ad illud appariturum. Eâ ratione, fortassè "clausula ad rerum descriptionem pertinens" sola bona interpretatio sit. At alterutram interpretationem aptam esse possibile est, etiam credo. Quid putatis?
Last edited by adrianus on Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
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.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: L.A. VII

Post by modus.irrealis »

That makes sense -- that's how I understand the meaning of the subjunctive here. In fact I might say that "would" there could be classified as a "would characteristic" ;), so I don't think there's much difference. I believe I read somewhere that the subjunctive in relative clauses of characteristic developed from this sense of the potential subjunctive. But anyway, I was just wondering, since the potential subjunctive can cover quite a bit of ground in English.

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

Re: L.A. VII

Post by adrianus »

Three corrections to my latin in my previous post! No doubt there are yet other mistakes I don't see. It's still all uphill.
Ter meam epistulam ultimam correxi! Non dubito alia vitia insupèr exstare quae non video. Minus utinàm onus fiat!
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.

Post Reply