“Sin autem resistis, et non vis dimittere eum: ecce ego inducam cras locustam in fines tuos: quæ operiat superficiem terræ, ne quidquam ejus appareat, sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini: corrodet enim omnia ligna quæ germinant in agris.” -V
“But if thou resist, and wilt not let them go, behold I will bring in to morrow the locust into thy coasts: To cover the face of the earth that nothing thereof may appear, but that which the hail hath left may be eaten: for they shall feed upon all the trees that spring in the fields.” -DR
Here I would like to double-check my analysis of these verses referencing A&G #438. Firstly, for what reason would you say that the italicized segment is in subjunctive? Result?
I assume the initial quae to be feminine plural although the verb is singular. The segment ne quidquam ejus appareat is a bit confusing to me. Why is ejus used instead of ipsius?
Furthermore why fuerit instead of fuit? Thank you!
I’d say final rather than result. quae is feminine singular: locusta is used collectively. eius refers to the earth, which is not emphasized as it would be by an ipsius. The future perfect is used for a temporal clause
“Sin autem resistis, et non vis dimittere eum: ecce ego inducam cras locustam in fines tuos: quæ operiat superficiem terræ, ne quidquam ejus appareat, sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini: corrodet enim omnia ligna quæ germinant in agris.”
Ok, so following bedwere lets see if I can summarize correctly:
“quæ operiat superficiem terræ, ne quidquam ejus appareat” is a final (aka purpose) clause.
“sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini” is a conditional relative clause which takes the construction of the protasis in a conditional sentence (here future more vivid, from AG 514), quod being here a relative pronoun and not a conjunction.
quæ operiat superficiem terræ, ne quidquam eius appareat is actually two purpose (aka final) clauses. The first (quae operiat …) is a relative purpose clause, the second (ne … appareat) is subordinate to the first. Both with present subjunctive.
sed comedatur continues the ne quidquam eius appareat clause.
quod residuum fuerit grandini is a simple relative clause, lit. “what will have been left over to the hail" (i.e. after the hail). It’s the subject of comedatur. The future perfect is normal Latin usage.
Thank you mwh, I concur with your analysis, and by the way it seems more or less consistent with bedwere’s.
However I have a few things to hash out over sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini which I agree to be a purpose clause followed by a simple relative clause. Now what I would like to know is whether a relative clause must follow the mood of its antecedent, eg:
A. Hic est discipulus qui Latinam amat. (indicative, indicative)
B. Hic est discipulus qui Latinam amet. (indicative, subjunctive)
C. Hic sit discupulus qui Latinam amat. (subjunctive, indicative)
D. Hic sit discupulus qui Latinam amet. (subjunctive, subjunctive)
Which of these would be acceptable statements and which would not?
Its still not sinking in. The issue is that this verse occurs during the 8th plague as the locusts are arriving. The 7th plague was the hail, which already fell prior to the locusts. So thus I would not expect future perfect.
Yes the hail is past (destroying most of the grain) but the locusts are to eat up whatever grain will have been left over. Latin tends to be more logical than English, which has little use for the future perfect, but you should be able to get your head around it, and then you will have understood.
Ok, I’ll have to give it a little time. Please permit my present-tense translation for now.
sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini. With grandini, I would like to see it changed to the ablative grandine, so that it would translate “but may that which is left by the hail be eaten”. I assume its not possible that grandini be in ablative?
Assuming that it is dative, can we identify what type of dative (AG 360) this might be? Possessive? “but may that which is the hail’s remainder be eaten.”?
Here is my way of trying to explain this, exactly as mwh is saying.
The position on the time line is in the future, tomorrow (the present is when God is speaking).
At that point in the future, grain will have been left. It doesn’t matter at what point prior to that point in the future that the grain was left; the only thing that matters is the perfection of the action of leaving. At that point in the future, grain will be available because it will have been left.
We only care about the perfection from the point of view of a single point on the time line (in this case, tomorrow).
Therefore, future perfect.
As for the dative, you can think of it as meaning “residual to the hail”—what’s left over when the hail has done with it, so to speak. Or you could call it a dative of reference, a good old standby label for when nothing else seems to suit.
Incidentally, I see the Septuagint is more longwinded and has simpler syntax, without a single subjunctive: καὶ καλύψει τὴν ὄψιν τῆς γῆς καὶ οὐ δυνήσῃ κατιδεῖν τὴν γῆν καὶ κατέδεται πᾶν τὸ περισσὸν τῆς γῆς τὸ καταλειφθέν ὃ κατέλιπεν ὑμῖν ἡ χάλαζα.
“Sin autem resistis, et non vis dimittere eum: ecce ego inducam cras locustam in fines tuos: quæ operiat superficiem terræ, ne quidquam ejus appareat, sed comedatur quod residuum fuerit grandini: corrodet enim omnia ligna quæ germinant in agris.” -V
I’m beginning accept that it is likely future perfect. Sorry I tend to be somewhat stubborn…
But I’m wondering if the future perfect can be the only option. Given the context, would there be other acceptable moods or tenses which the author could have used? eg.
Depends what you mean by acceptable. I’d say No. In the given context, fuerat would be inapplicable (wrong time frame), so would erit (ditto), esset would be ungrammatical, sit and est unidiomatic.
Thank you for that, I’ve been treating every Future Perfect as a Potential Subjunctive.
Concerning the dative of reference grandini, is there perhaps a better way to translate it into English than "[may it be eaten] what will have been left over to the hail”? This makes it sound like the residual will have been prepared for the future use of the hail (and then eaten). However in reality the residual will have been produced by the hail (and then eaten).
Concerning the dative of reference grandini, is there perhaps a better way to translate it into English than "[may it be eaten] what will have been left over to the hail”?
quod residuum fuerit grandini
As for a somewhat literal translation, how about:
What will have remained > with respect to/as to/ in view of > the hail
Yes, fantastic, thats a bit more intelligible in my opinion. But I wonder where you got that third quote from. “What will have remained with respect to/as to/ in view of the hail.” – or perhaps what will have remained in view of/considering/given the hail.