…et quae sit terrae mortalibus orbae
forma futura rogant, quis sit laturus in aras
tura, ferisne paret populandas tradere terras.
I think it goes like this: “and they ask what (interrogative adjective modifying “forma”) form will there be (subordinate clause with periphrastic subjunctive in future time after indirect question) to (dative of possession) the earth bereft of mortals (ablative of separation), who will bring (another indirect question with subjunctive) incense to the altars, is he (Jupiter) preparing (present subjunctive after another indirect question) to hand over the lands to be populated by wild animals (dative plural of agent with passive periphrastic)?” (this is right before The Flood in Book I)
ferisne paret depends directly on rogant. And terrae could be taken as genitive; and when you say “after indirect question” you mean it is an ind.qu.; and feris does double duty, first as indirect object.
HTH
I understood all of what you said (thanks) except perhaps the little part quoted above. I was taking “ferisne paret” as a 3rd indirect question after “rogant”. I would think I could pare it (haha) down to
“rogant ferisne paret populandas tradere terras”
“they ask is he preparing to hand over the lands etc.” (with paro in subj. because it’s an ind. q.)
That’s what I originally tried to say. Are we saying the same thing or am I still missing the point?
No that’s right. You described it as “present subjunctive after another indirect question,” as if it had any connexion with that. But it’s clear that you do properly understand. We have a series of three mutually independent indirect questions (with no syntactical linkage between them).
It’s significant that the second echoes the construction of the first while the third is different and climactic.
I was thinking/speaking of it in terms of “rogant” putting us in indirect question “mode” and each new question that comes along after “rogant” that is still part of what they are asking is still under the “power” of that “mode”, causing each one to be in the subjunctive. Sorry I wasn’t clearer about that.
Why the fuss? rogant governs three successive clauses. That should be obvious, and there’s no need to drag it out further. The grammar is unproblematic. Get beyond it and attend to the content along with the organization.
I was too harsh in my last post. I’m sorry, I was in a bad mood, and I didn’t see the point of framing the grammar in terms of “modes” and “powers,” but that’s a respectable enough way of looking at it if it helps you.
I did want to warn you against trying to pin things down too narrowly. That was the main thrust of my first post, which I’d hoped not to have to elaborate. And I’ve been trying to make the point that there’s more to understanding a passage than understanding its grammar. As I’m sure you agree. But if you still have a problem with the grammar, I’ll try to help with that, though you seemed to understand it perfectly well.
I understand the grammar of that passage now. But I’m sure to have more questions to ask in the future!
And I certainly understand that “there’s more to understanding a passage than understanding its grammar” but I’ve still got my work cut out for me just trying to handle the latter.
