A lil bit of Pliny

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
Textkit Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

A lil bit of Pliny

Post by Einhard » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:25 pm


Just a single, short line today to test the collective Textkit brain.

Et hercule, si gulae temperes, non est onerosum, quo utaris ipse, communicare cum pluribus 2.6

And by Hercules, if you should temper gluttony, it is not a heavy burden, you would use that, to share with more people

I'm taking this as a future less vivid subjunctive condition, but can't quite work "quo" into it. I know "Utor" takes the ablative so the two are probably be linked, but it's not coming together for me.


Textkit Fan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: A lil bit of Pliny

Post by Damoetas » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:44 pm

I'll take the first stab at answering, and the rest of the collective Textkit brain can correct or improve my answer where necessary!

quo utaris ipse is what newer grammars are calling an "autonomous relative clause." The whole relative clause is the object of communicare:

{quo utaris ipse} communicare cum pluribus, "to share with others what you use yourself."

Older grammars would say, "Supply id before communicare," which you can do if that helps you to understand it better. (We recently had a discussion about this on another thread, in case you didn't see it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10304)

For the sentence as a whole, I think it's best described as a mixed condition. The first part, Si gulae temperes, is like a future less vivid: "If you should moderate your appetite / if you were to control your appetite." The second part, non est onerosum ... communicare, states the rest as what is generally true (as in a neutral condition). That leaves the question, "Why is utaris subjunctive?" Others may have a better answer; I think maybe it's subjunctive of characteristic: "the sort of thing that you use." Or else it's picking up the idea of a future less vivid, even though it's technically not the apodosis of the condition.
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?

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

Re: A lil bit of Pliny

Post by adrianus » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:30 pm

Alternatively simply a present general condition. // Aliàs modò conditio tempore praesenti generalis
A&G §514 D.1.a.
Present general condition (indefinite time): Present subjunctive second person singular (indefinite subject) in protasis, present indicative apodosis
A&G §519.
A clause introduced by a relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb may express a condition and take any of the constructions of Protasis (§514)
"[protasis] If one moderates one's consumption, [apodosis] it is [generally] not such a burden to share with many [protasis] what one uses oneself."

Protasis ( = present subjunctive second person singular) + Apodosis (present indicative) + Protasis ( = present subjunctive second person singular)
Protasis (tempore praesenti, modo subjunctivo, personae secundae, numeri singularis) + Apodosis (indicativo modo, tempore praesenti) + Protasis (tempore praesenti, modo subjunctivo, personae secundae, numeri singularis)
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