quantum erat, ut sineres toto nos corpore iungi,
aut, hoc si nimium est, vel ad oscula danda pateres?
Metamorphoses 4.74-75
My book has a note stating that this ut clause is a consecutive clause, but I cannot see how it expresses result in any way. How can you have a result after a copulative and interrogative pronoun?
quantum erat, ut sineres toto nos corpore iungi,
aut, hoc si nimium est, vel ad oscula danda pateres?Metamorphoses 4.74-75
Without context, I’m going to render it literally this way:
Was it so great that you’d allow us to be joined with our whole body,
or, if this is too much, that you’d endure at least to give kisses?
My book has a note stating that this ut clause is a consecutive clause, but I cannot see how it expresses result in any way. How can you have a result after a copulative and interrogative pronoun?
The fact is that quantum isn’t always an interrogative pronoun. It’s a correlative with tantum, and they usually mean “how great” (quantus-a-um) and “so great” (tantus-a-um). However, they also can function as correlative relative pronouns (quantum fecerat tantum nunc feci - now I’ve done as much as he did). And, more to the point, tantus-a-um often triggers consecutive clauses–just as it does in English: tanta re turbatus sum ut recumbere non possem - I was disturbed by so great a matter that I couldn’t go to bed. Now, if you remember that tantum and quantum can be used interchangeably, you should have no problem seeing the consecutive force of quantum here: equivalent to tantum when it means “so much [that].” (By interchangeable, I mean that the order doesn’t matter: I could just as easily say “tantum fecerat quantum nunc feci.”)
David
PS - I’m really curious about context here but have no time to look up answers…
I just was not aware that quantum and tantum could be used interchangeably.
The scene quotes Pyramus and Thisbe addressing the wall that keeps them apart. The fuller context makes it clear that quantum is interrogative :
“Invide” dicebant “paries, quid amantibus obstas ?
Quantum erat, ut sineres toto nos corpore iungi,
aut, si nimium est, vel ad oscula danda pateres ?
Nec sumus ingrati…”
Btw, Dunmore’s edition places an exclamation point after pateres, Wheelock has the question mark. VL, what edition are you reading ?
“Hateful walll”, they said, "Why do you stand in the way of lovers ?
Is it so much, that you might allow us to be joined entirely,
or if that is too great a thing, at least open enough to let us kiss ?
We are not ungrateful… "
My translation misses the ambiguity of quantum and the subtleties of the subjunctives.
Here’s Golding’s wordy version:
“O thou envious wall (they sayd) why letst thou lovers thus ?
What matter were it if that thou permitted both of us
In armes eche other to embrace ? Or if thou thinke that this
were overmuch, yet mightest thou at least make roume to kiss.
And yet thou shalt not find us churles…”
He certainly pads Ovid, doesn’t he ?
I hope I haven’t rambled too far off-topic.
Mm.. I’ll have to think about this some more, but in context there doesn’t seem to be a consecutive clause at all. The fact is that the ut clause is most definitely not a result but rather the implied subject of the sentence (!): to be joined [etc], was it such a big deal?
My commentary on tantum and quantum remains valid in general, but I’m afraid my translation was rendered pretty moot by the lack of context.
Any other input?
David
I do not think it is a consecutive clause either, but I am studying Jestin and Katz’s excerpts of the Amores and Metamorphoses for AP Latin Lit., and the footnote states that the “ut” clause is a consecutive clause. However, they also say that “erat” replaces an imperfect subjunctive, a note with which I agree, but they also say to translate it as “would be,” which is incorrect because I took the entire passage to be a deliberative question, in which case the imperfect subjunctive must be translated as a past tense, not a present.
If you have the time, check out Allen & Greenough at 536, “Clauses Of Result (Consecutive Clauses)”. That section does seem to support the assertion that Ovid’s phrase can be analyzed as a consecutive clause, though I think it’s stretching the definition here.
cantator, I read the entire A&G discussion of consecutive clauses, of clauses of characteristic (to which, evidently, the former are related), and everything in between, and I could find no examples of a result clause acting as the subject of a sentence! How can the clause in question (ut sineret, etc) possibly be a result clause when it is neither 1) a relative clause describing or characterizing a noun already present in the sentence nor 2) a limitation or explanation of some verb, adverb, adjective or other part of the sentence?
Let’s look at the two translations you kindly provided:
Is > it > so much, that you might allow us to be joined entirely,
What matter were > it > if that thou permitted both of us
In armes eche other to embrace
Notice that in BOTH of these sentences there is a prominent it (made even more prominent by my bold action!) which demands a referent. This referent, indeed, is the substantive that clause that follows. This, basically, is the subject of the sentence, just as in such English sentences as I provide here:
It’s really too much to leave work at 10 PM
It’s frustrating that my girlfriend only calls me when she’s angry
.
In both sentences, the section in bold is a paraphrase of or, rather, the content of the it. In other words, what “is really too much”? “To leave work at 10 PM.” And what"'s frustrating"? “That my girlfriend,” etc. Thus, substantive clauses functioning as subjects.
Just so, Ovid:
Quantum erat, ut sineres toto nos corpore iungi,
aut, si nimium est, vel ad oscula danda pateres ?
Obviously Latin has no direct equivalent for id, but it is clearly implied in the quantum erat - “how great a thing was it…” - how can you even translate a verb without the dummy “it” in English, should a subject be lacking? And then, of course, the suspense satisfied: how great a thing is it, that you allow us, etc.
Result clauses are either adjectival or adverbial: I challenge anyone to point out a substantive (i.e. noun) clause that is also a result/characteristic clause. The fact is, it can’t be done since result/characteristic elaborate on ideas already present in the sentence (i.e. subject/predicate) and do not actually constitute the original sentence. In other words, such clauses are DEPENDENT and as such are only adjoined to the framework of an INDEPENDENT clause.
If I’m off base, or dead wrong (as often happens), I would be delighted to learn of it. And, cantator, if I missed something in A&G, please point it out.
virlitterarum: I’m a little uncertain about the tense of erat. If it is indeed a poeticism (or Latin idiom) for the more straight-forward esset (impf. subj.), then wouldn’t the best way to translate it be “would be”? Naturally, fuisset would be plup. subj., rendered as “would have been.” Remember that contrary-to-fact present conditions use the imperfect subj.: to wit, si fratrem fortuna amaret, dives esset - if fortune loved my brother he would be rich. However, as I said, this is somewhat speculative and I should probably read the corresponding section in A&G.
grammatically, truly, deeply,
David
I read A & G’s descriptions of uses of the tenses of the subjunctive, and I could find no construction similar to this one which translates the imperfect subjunctive as a present tense. This is clearly not a contrary to fact clause, and I could not find any other constructions in which the imperfect is used as a present.
For an indicative imperfect used in a conditional way, please examine the end of Virgil’s first eclogue (available at the latin library):
Hic tamen hanc mecum poteras requiescere noctem
fronde super viridi> . sunt nobis mitia poma, 80
castaneae molles et pressi copia lactis,
et iam summa procul villarum culmina fumant
maioresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae.
Roughly translated, “But you could rest here tonight on a bed of green rushes…”
In context, Meliboeus is lamenting the loss of his lands and his involuntary exile. After he finishes moaning, Tityrus (in the passage quoted) offers him food and shelter for the night. Note that poteras does NOT mean (as it appears to mean) “you were able to” but rather “you could” in the English sense of making a polite request with the past tense. At least, this is what Page says in his notes (to which I sadly do not have access at the moment).
This seems to parallel the usage of tantum erat, ut… found in Ovid.
Also, can you read French? The following is taken from this French page on Latin grammar
3 - > L’indicatif latin traduit par le conditionnel >
Dans une principale, une indépendante ou une subordonnée relative, l’indicatif des verbes exprimant l’obligation, la possibilité, la convenance…, se traduit souvent par le conditionnel. >L’indicatif présent peut correspondre au conditionnel présent.
possum : je peux ou je pourrais.
debeo : je dois ou je devrais.
licet : il est permis ou il serait permis.
facile est : il est facile ou il serait facile.
difficile est : il est difficile ou il serait difficile.
longum est + inf : il est trop long de ou il serait trop long de.
oportet : il faut ou il faudrait.
melius est : il vaut mieux ou il vaudrait mieux.
tibi laborandum est : tu dois travailler ou tu devrais travailler.
Longum est omnia enumerare proelia, Nep.
Il serait trop long d’énumérer toutes les batailles.
L’indicatif passé (imparfait, passé simple, plus-que-parfait) peut se traduire par le conditionnel passé. > debebam hoc facere : j’aurais dû le faire (mais je ne le fais pas).
debui hoc facere : j’aurais dû le faire (mais je ne l’ai pas fait).
debueram hoc facere : j’aurais dû le faire (mais je ne l’avais pas fait).
Tibi laborandum fuit :
Tu aurais dû travailler.Contumeliis eum onerasti, quem patris loco colere debebas :
Tu as accablé d’outrages cet homme que tu aurais dû respecter comme ton père.Qui spectator erat amovendus… Liv. 2.
Celui qui aurait dû être écarté de la scène…Pons Sublicius iter paene hostibus dedit, ni unus vir fuisset, Horatius Cocles, Liv. 2.
Le pont Sublicius aurait pu donner accès aux ennemis s’il n’y avait eu là un homme, Horatius Coclès.Hic tamen hanc mecum poteras requiescere noctem :
Ici pourtant tu aurais pu te reposer chez moi cette nuit ( —> fait encore possible).
Licuit esse otioso Themistocli :
Il aurait été permis à Thémistocle de rester à l’écart des affaires publiques.
I’ll translate the important passages (put in bold):
The Latin indicative translated with the conditional
In the main clause, an independent clause, or a subordinated relative clause, the indicative of verbs that express obligation, possibility, or convenience…are often translated with the conditional. […]
The past indicative tenses (imperfect, perfect, pluperfect) can be translated with the past conditional. […]
Qui spectator erat amovendus… : The person in attendance who should have been shown to the door […]
Hic tamen hanc mecum poteras requiescere noctem: But here in my home you could have rested tonight. (---->something that is still possible)
The discussion of the indicative used in a conditional sense indicates that a present indicative usually is translated as a present conditional (naturally enough) whereas a past indicative usually is translated as a past conditional. However, the poteras requiescere example indicates there are exceptions to this. Also see hoc poteras mecum considere saxo’ (also from Ovid), which also requires a present (not past) conditional.
Best wishes,
David
BP, I bow to your superior analysis. Seriously, thank you for the clarifications. I’m getting brighter every day. 
I think this passage at A&G 537.2.c is what confuses me :
“tam longe aberam ut non viderem”
It’s presented as a clause of result. To my eyes it follows the same pattern of imperfect followed by the subjunctive, and as in Ovid the subject is carried within the verb.
“quantum erat ut sineres”
I await further clarification.
Dear cantator,
I’m glad my remarks are helpful for you! Seriously, I’m a syntax freak, I can’t get enough of it, which is one of the main motivations for learning Korean while I’m teaching in Korea. (Also, there’s the little detail of having a Korean girlfriend.) But anyway, getting to the point…
Here’s the relevant passage from A&G’s:
A clause expressing the Result of an action is called a Consecutive Clause:
tam longe aberam ut non viderem, I was too far away to see (so far away that I did not see).
It’s presented as a clause of result. To my eyes it follows the same pattern of imperfect followed by the subjunctive, and as in Ovid the subject is carried within the verb.
You’re right, it does look similar to the Ovid passage. The difference is that erat (as in, quantum erat ut…) is 3rd person singular and thus can take an impersonal subject (i.e., an infinitive, an impersonal verb like licet or decet, or, as in this case, an entire substantive ut or quod clause).
tam longe aberam, you will note, is 1st person singular. Thus the subject is not the ut clause but rather the implied “I.” The ut clause is a result clause that follows directly on tam, the trigger word. So this is a pretty standard example of a consecutive/result clause.
When I first translated quantum erat ut I thought it was a simple result clause, as my first post illustrates. That is, I thought there was some antecedent for erat, some implied subject that was “so great” that something else happened (i.e., that you allow our bodies to be joined.) But in context it’s clear that the something else (ut sineret) is in fact the subject.
So, in conclusion, in A&G’s example, ut non viderem is an adverbial consecutive clause explaining the extent of the separation (answering the question “how long?”: too long to see). In the Ovid passage, ut sineres is a substantive/noun clause acting as the subject of the sentence (was it such a big deal to allow = was allowing… such a big deal?).
I hope this clarifies the distinction between the two ut clauses!
Regards,
David
Perfectly, thank you. I had already recast Ovid’s phrase and could see the “ut sineres” clause as being the subject of “quantum erat”, but the difference between the examples is very clear now.
Hi,
When the lovers use ERAT, perhaps they are quite simply REFERRING TO AN INDICATIVE PAST (when the wall was built, or at least when they discovered they could communicate through it).
How big a deal WAS it (admittedly in Modern English = How big a deal would it have been / What would it have cost you …)
to let us … (to have let us … / had you let us … /if you had let us … / should you have let us … / that you should let us … )
be wholly joined together physically
or at least - if that’s asking the impossible -
to open … (to have opened … / had you opened … / if you had opened … /should you have opened … / that you should open … )
[wide enough] for giving kisses?
But we’re not complaining.
Not a penetrating grammatical analysis, I admit, and unrelated to Vergil’s beautiful lines. Just thinking (?) aloud.
Cheers,
Int
Result clauses are either adjectival or adverbial: I challenge anyone to point out a substantive (i.e. noun) clause that is also a result/characteristic clause. The fact is, it can’t be done since result/characteristic elaborate on ideas already present in the sentence (i.e. subject/predicate) and do not actually constitute the original sentence. In other words, such clauses are DEPENDENT and as such are only adjoined to the framework of an INDEPENDENT clause.
A&G 567: Clauses of result may be used substantively…"
I think the ut clause must be translated as an appositive to the implied impersonal subject of “erat”; hence, the sentence would be translated literally, " how great would it be (with the result) that you would permit us to be joined with our whole body."
In order to translate “erat” as a present tense, are you assuming it is the apodosis of a conditional sentence with the protasis understood?
Well-- I stand corrected!
SECTION: #570. A substantive clause of result may be in apposition with another substantive (especially a neuter pronoun):
illud etiam restiterat, ut te in ius educerent (Quinct. 33) , this too remained-- for them to drag you into court.
So apparently this IS a result clause, but not in the usual sense. It is a result clause that is also the subject of the sentence. I was familiar with the usage but was not aware that these were considered consecutive. It seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Nevertheless, virlitterarum, good catch, and thanks for the correction. Apparently your editor’s note was right after all (though it should perhaps have been more lucidly explained).
I think the ut clause must be translated as an appositive to the implied impersonal subject of “erat”; hence, the sentence would be translated literally, " how great would it be (with the result) that you would permit us to be joined with our whole body.
I’m not sure that it’s very useful in the translation to even think “with the result that.” If it’s the appositive of the subject, then it’s grammatically equivalent to the subject: that is, “how great would it be, for you to permit us to be joined with our whole body.”
In order to translate “erat” as a present tense, are you assuming it is the apodosis of a conditional sentence with the protasis understood?
Yes, I suppose, but I’m really not so sure. I haven’t seen any good parallels for erat = “would be” in my reading so far. But maybe it really is best translated as “would have been”? Ah. I’ve got nothing more than I already posted on this question.
Good luck.
-David
Oh dear. Why do I persist? 
illud etiam RESTITERAT, ut te in ius EDUCERENT - this too REMAINED - for them to drag [that they MIGHT DRAG] you into court.
Doesn’t that echo the structure of the Ovid line - imperfect indicative followed by imperfect subjunctive in a subordinate clause (whatever its label) ?
Quantum ERAT, ut SINERES … aut ut PATERES …
In other words, ‘Why WAS IT so difficult for you to … (= why DIDN’T you … ? What WAS the problem? What STOPPED you giving us a king-size love portal instead of that tiny 256 kb chink? How big an effort DID it represent for you to …, etc, etc)’
As David points out, it’s hard to find other examples of ERAT = WOULD HAVE BEEN.
Int
It is a result clause that is also the subject of the sentence. I was familiar with the usage but was not aware that these were considered consecutive. It seems a bit of a stretch to me.
I concur fully. I do not understand this usage very well, and I think A&G were deficient in explaining it; furthermore, I looked at Bennett’s Grammar and it is even more insufficient. I still cling to my first sentiment that the ut clause does not seem in any manner the result of the verb, but I cannot find a more plausible explanation. Perhaps we are arguing a moot point; perhaps when Ovid wrote it, even he knew he was stretching the limits of the grammatical construction?
illud etiam RESTITERAT, ut te in ius EDUCERENT - this too REMAINED - for them to drag [that they MIGHT DRAG] you into court.
Doesn’t that echo the structure of the Ovid line - imperfect indicative followed by imperfect subjunctive in a subordinate clause (whatever its label) ?
I agree that there is a consecutive substantive clause, just as in the Ovid line. However, RESTITERAT, carissime Interaxus, isn’t imperfect indicative. It’s pluperfect indicative!
I concur fully. I do not understand this usage very well, and I think A&G were deficient in explaining it; furthermore, I looked at Bennett’s Grammar and it is even more insufficient. I still cling to my first sentiment that the ut clause does not seem in any manner the result of the verb, but I cannot find a more plausible explanation. Perhaps we are arguing a moot point; perhaps when Ovid wrote it, even he knew he was stretching the limits of the grammatical construction?
Yeah, how can the subject be itself a result clause (?!?) What’s interesting to me is that translating this type of sentence isn’t all that hard. What’s hard is putting a label to it.
A small thought experiment:
quantum erat me amare?
quantum erat te me amare?
quantum erat quod me amabas?
quantum erat quod me amares?
quantum erat ut me amares?
Which of these are acceptable (temporarily disregarding the whole “erat” issue? I’d guess all. The difference between the first three and the last two, though, is that indirect statements (and the indicative in a quod clause) suggest that it actually happened, whereas the subjunctive clauses suggest that it was only a possibility. There needs to be a distinction in Latin between facts and thoughts, which the subjunctive accomplishes nicely. So just as an infinitive can be the subject of a sentence, so also can an ut clause be the subject of a sentence. And, for lack of a better name, the grammarians have dubbed it “the substantive result clause.” Not quite satisfactory, but better than nothing, I guess.
-David