In Catilinam 1, 2
immo vero etiam in senatum venit, fit publici consilii particeps
Particeps is nominative here because it’s the subject of the previous clause right? I know it means ‘he is made a sharer in public council’, so I guess fio acts like esse?
If you are wondering why particeps is not accusative after fio, than yes, it acts like esse. It can take a predicate nominative.
If you are wondering why particeps is not accusative after fio, than yes, it acts like esse. It can take a predicate nominative.
Yes that was what I was wondering. It seems like an easy question, but I haven’t come across fio a lot actually…
One more question, if that’s alright:
Nos autem fortes viri satis facere rei publicae videmur, si istius furorem ac tela vitemus.
How is the subjunctive used here in vitemus? Vitamus makes sense, but lectio difficilior suggests vitemus (iirc, some manuscripts have vitemus and some have vitamus).
The verb “fieri” often has the sense of “happened,” as in “he even happened to share/participate in public council.”
Based on my browsing through Allen and Greenough, I think it is present subjunctive because it is a “General Condition,” or a “general truth.” I take this to mean that the stated outcome (nos . . . videmur) applies to all such situations (si . . . vitemus). So “We strong men [always] seem to do enough for the Republic, if we shun the fury and weapons of this man.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=latin+grammar#PPA331,M1
(I’ve always had a hard time keeping ‘sequence of tenses’ straight.)