Thanks, BP&, for patiently pointing out the patently obvious. I guess I stared myself blind at the English translation. Well, I’m not likely to forget the pluperfect indicative form of ‘resisto’ in a hurry.
Even the Germans avoid the indicative in translating QUANTUM ERAT:
http://www.vox-latina-gottingensis.de/curricula/ovidc/ovmpyrth.htm
Cheers,
Int
nihil laboris. per mendas discimus.
Now, if only I could read German!
-David
This evening, during a Latin surf, I was overjoyed to come across the following morsel of biblical Latin:
“Vae autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis traditur! Bonum ERAT ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille.” Respondens autem Iudas, qui tradidit eum, dixit: “Numquid ego sum, Rabbi?” Ait illi: “Tu dixisti.”
In the King Jim Version, the relevant part is translated as “it HAD BEEN good for that man if he had not been born”. In relatively recent (as yet subjunctive-tolerant) English, I suppose it would be something like ‘It were better for that man never to have been born’.
All the time while pondering Ovid’s ERAT, the usage felt tantalizing familiar …
Cheers,
Int
This evening, during a Latin surf, I was overjoyed to come across the following morsel of biblical Latin:
“Vae autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis traditur! Bonum ERAT ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille.” Respondens autem Iudas, qui tradidit eum, dixit: “Numquid ego sum, Rabbi?” Ait illi: “Tu dixisti.”
In the King Jim Version, the relevant part is translated as “it HAD BEEN good for that man if he had not been born”. In relatively recent (as yet subjunctive-tolerant) English, I suppose it would be something like ‘It were better for that man never to have been born’.
All the time while pondering Ovid’s ERAT, the usage felt tantalizing familiar …
Cheers,
Int
Ah, this short passage brings back all of the many hours I spent last semester researching the grammar of the Vulgate! My Latin professor at college was working on a Latin textbook based on the Vulgate gospels, but most of the grunt work fell on me. I didn’t mind, though, all of it was delightful, all 75 or so hours of it.
I guess in classical Latin that condition would go like this: bonum fuisset ei, si natus non esset homo ille.
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the Vulgate is filled to bursting with those plus quam plus quam perfectum constructions - dictum fuerat for dictum erat, factus fuerit for factus erit, and here natus fuisset for natus esset. It’s a bit odd - esset replaces the classical fuisset in the apodosis, and fuisset replaces the classical esset in the protasis!
Best wishes,
David
PS - Why didn’t you mention the “would’ve been better” option for translation? Because of the odd use of erat?
Also, Interaxus, have you heard my rendering of a selection of Donatus? I’ve finally gotten around to adding macrons to the text. De Adverbio is in the 10th page of the audio thread (linked below), and I hope to record De Praepositione in the next few days.
http://discourse.textkit.com/t/compound-verb/217/1
David
Perhaps the label of ‘consecutive’ is more fitting to analogous substantive clauses which are more clearly results:
paries facit ut iungamur - this substantive ‘ut’ clause might be analyzed as a result:
The wall makes it so that we are joined
or as an object clause, in which the whole ‘ut’ clause is the object of the verb:
The wall brings about [UsBeingJoined]
In this case, the two analyses are complementary: the ut clause is the object of the verb, and the outcome of the verb.
The same could be said of a subject ut clause:
factum est ut iungeremur
You could analyze this clause as an outcome of some (unstated) sequence of events:
It happened that we were joined.
Or you could analyze the whole clause as the subject of the verb:
[UsBeingJoined] happened.
Because in most cases these subject/object substantive clauses are consecutive, perhaps it was decided that all of these clauses count as a sub-class of consecutive clause - even though in our example, the consecutive force is not apparant.
It would be interesting to look at how many substantive ut clauses would also admit the analysis of consecutive clause, to see whether clauses like this which don’t are something of an offshoot of the original consecutive/substantive clause.
Yes, BP&, I’ve listened to your Donatus reading and like it a lot. Thanks a million!
PS - Why didn’t you mention the “would’ve been better” option for translation? Because of the odd use of erat?
Well, actually, I felt using a 'relatively recent (subjunctive-tolerant) ’ form of English - a real-life surviving subjunctive - was more fun. By the way, I have long had the impression that American English has remained more tolerant of English subjunctives than Brit English, though I can’t for the life of me recall any examples right now. Some people see flying saucers, I see subjunctives in Newsweek… Am I wrong or am I wrong?
While on the American theme, did I detect a slight American flavoured/flavored ‘R’ in your rendition of words like hortandi and ordinis? (This is NOT a complaint!)
Cheers,
Int
Interaxus:
Well, actually, I felt using a 'relatively recent (subjunctive-tolerant) ’ form of English - a real-life surviving subjunctive - was more fun. By the way, I have long had the impression that American English has remained more tolerant of English subjunctives than Brit English, though I can’t for the life of me recall any examples right now. Some people see flying saucers, I see subjunctives in Newsweek… Am I wrong or am I wrong?
I feel like we’ve had this conversation before on textkit. . . allow me to investigate. Ah yes! Here it is. Anyway, I’m really not sure how Brit and Amer varieties of English stack up on the subjunctive issue. Aside from “if I were you” (discussed in the other thread), there’s “I ask that he come” (not comes, you’ll notice), actually rather similar to Latin rogo ut ueniat. Hm. There must be more examples but I can’t think of 'em right now. (A little shy of sleep last night.)
While on the American theme, did I detect a slight American flavoured/flavored ‘R’ in your rendition of words like hortandi and ordinis? (This is NOT a complaint!)
I’m sure you did! Let me give my recording a listen… Yes, of course. It’s still hard for me to get a good flap in, especially when the ‘r’ doesn’t fall between two vowels. I’ll try to put a little more effort into enunciating a more Spanish/Latin ‘r.’ I’m glad you liked it, though!
By the way, I’ve gotten DE PRAEPOSITIONE ready for recording and will probably have a go at it tonight.
mraig said:
Because in most cases these subject/object substantive clauses are consecutive, perhaps it was decided that all of these clauses count as a sub-class of consecutive clause - even though in our example, the consecutive force is not apparant.
Thanks for a keen analysis of this problem. I think you’re right about the complementary interpretations of a lot of substantive ut clauses. No doubt there’s a master’s thesis lurking in here somewhere. At the least, Latin grammars (like Allen & Greenough’s) need a heavy duty update on their terminology and explanation, cause stuffing this into the consecutive clause category must have been a move of desperation.
Respectfully,
David