Textkit Logo

What differs nam from quia?

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

What differs nam from quia?

Postby Hampie » Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:30 pm

What differs nam from quia?

{I accidently wrote 'nam' instead of 'num', but now the question is correct!}
Last edited by Hampie on Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Här kan jag i alla fall skriva på svenska, eller hur?
User avatar
Hampie
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Holmia, Suecia

Re: What differs num from quia?

Postby furrykef » Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:51 pm

"Num" and "quia" are entirely different, and in fact I'm confused as to why you think they're similar... ^^;

Num = negative question particle. Indicates that the speaker expects an answer of 'no'. "Num id crēdis?" = "You don't believe that, do you?" (The question may or may not be rhetorical.)

"Quia" simply means "because". You will also see "quod" with that meaning, though "quod" has other meanings as well.
Founder of Learning Languages Through Video Games.
I also have a lang-8 journal where I practice Spanish and Japanese.
User avatar
furrykef
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:18 am

Re: What differs num from quia?

Postby Hampie » Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:54 pm

furrykef wrote:"Num" and "quia" are entirely different, and in fact I'm confused as to why you think they're similar... ^^;

Num = negative question particle. Indicates that the speaker expects an answer of 'no'. "Num id crēdis?" = "You don't believe that, do you?" (The question may or may not be rhetorical.)

"Quia" simply means "because". You will also see "quod" with that meaning, though "quod" has other meanings as well.

I ment nam XD.
Här kan jag i alla fall skriva på svenska, eller hur?
User avatar
Hampie
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Holmia, Suecia

Re: What differs nam from quia?

Postby furrykef » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:08 pm

Ahh... now that makes sense. ^^; I should have caught that, especially since I used to have the same question!

From what I can gather, it has to do with the way the sentences flow together more than anything. "Quia" (and "quod", for that matter) is generally like English "because", and "nam" and (sometimes) "enim" are more like archaic English conjunction "for" ("for he's a jolly good fellow", "for God so loved the world")... unfortunately, it may be a hard distinction to grasp if your native language doesn't make a similar distinction. I'm usually good at explaining things even when other people throw their hands up in despair at trying to explain it, but this has even me at a loss...

EDIT: I'm gonna take a stab at explaining it anyway. I think "quia" and "quod" imply a stronger connection with what was just said. You use them to answer the question "why?" -- sometimes the question is merely implied rather than explicitly asked. In this case, providing the reason is the primary purpose of the sentence. "Nam" and "enim" are used for more incidental information, as if to say, "Oh, by the way, that's because [blah blah blah]".
Founder of Learning Languages Through Video Games.
I also have a lang-8 journal where I practice Spanish and Japanese.
User avatar
furrykef
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:18 am

Re: What differs nam from quia?

Postby Hampie » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:10 am

furrykef wrote:Ahh... now that makes sense. ^^; I should have caught that, especially since I used to have the same question!

From what I can gather, it has to do with the way the sentences flow together more than anything. "Quia" (and "quod", for that matter) is generally like English "because", and "nam" and (sometimes) "enim" are more like archaic English conjunction "for" ("for he's a jolly good fellow", "for God so loved the world")... unfortunately, it may be a hard distinction to grasp if your native language doesn't make a similar distinction. I'm usually good at explaining things even when other people throw their hands up in despair at trying to explain it, but this has even me at a loss...

EDIT: I'm gonna take a stab at explaining it anyway. I think "quia" and "quod" imply a stronger connection with what was just said. You use them to answer the question "why?" -- sometimes the question is merely implied rather than explicitly asked. In this case, providing the reason is the primary purpose of the sentence. "Nam" and "enim" are used for more incidental information, as if to say, "Oh, by the way, that's because [blah blah blah]".

Swedish actually do retain the disctinction between 'for' and 'because' and it's used more offen in Swedish than in English :3. But to be honest, I never ever think about the differenses between 'for' and 'because'.
Här kan jag i alla fall skriva på svenska, eller hur?
User avatar
Hampie
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Holmia, Suecia


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests