I found this sentence from Cicero interesting. I’m not sure if I’m translating it correctly though.
Nam qui potest temperantiam laudare is, qui ponat summum bonum in voluptate?
My translation:
For who can praise temperance, since he places the highest good on pleasure?
That’s my best go at it. I’m certain I’m wrong somewhere though. What would be the correct translation?
You’re right, Propertie! There is something else going on here. The first ‘qui’ is paired with ‘is’ and is an adjective interrogative and would translate as “what kind (of man) is he (who)”, the second is the relative pronoun which has ‘is’ as its antecedent, so the sense is " For what kind of man can praise temperance, yet place (or who places) the highest good in pleasure?" At least that’s my thought. Quis would be the interrogative pronoun, Qui is the adjective interrogative and is paired with a substantive, in this case ‘is’. I suspect Cicero is engaging in a little word play here: instead of using quisnam for emphasis, he inverts the words and use nam qui, which will then require a susbstantive, which he then places just before the relative clause. Again, that’s just how I read it. There may be other better opinions.
I must disagree with Aetos. In this sentence, qui doesn’t go with is. Rather it is an interrogative meaning “how?”.
I think Laurentius is right here. Lit., “How is he able to praise self control who puts the highest good in pleasure?”
quī2 adv. [old ablative, locative, or instrumental from quis1, quī1, and quis2]
1 (interrogative) By what means? in what way? how?
Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (Second Edition, Vol. I & II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I stand corrected! I hadn’t considered the adverbial use of qui. That simplifies the sentence greatly.
I was tempted to translate the first qui to how, but I had forgotten of the adverbial use of qui. I only remember that quid translated to how, so I refrained from doing so. And I’m aware that I left out is in my translation. I was going to point that out but decided not to. Though I must disagree with you on the second qui, Barry. In that clause, ponat is a subjunctive, so I don’t think it can be translated to who (at least that’s what I remember having learned). Wouldn’t a better translation be:
For how can he praise temperance since he places the highest good on pleasure?
Since the second clause has a subjunctive verb, shouldn’t qui be translated to since?
By the way, going back to the first clause, I think Cicero added the pronoun is to differentiate qui from who and how. Had he left out is, I think it’s possible that a reader (maybe even a reader in his own time) would have thought that qui was being used as a relative pronoun. I mean, just notice the difference between both clauses with and without is.
Nam qui potest temperantiam laudare is
Nam qui potest temperantiam laudare
By adding is, he makes it the pronoun for potest, but without it, it’s possible that a reader could have thought that qui was the relative pronoun for potest, which was not his intention at all since he is using qui in the adverbial sense.
I took it as a generalizing subjunctive, a clause of characteristic.
To see it in context: Cic. Off. 3.117
Version by Miller, 1913
Hello Aetos,
I already made a reply to all this to Barry; I don’t know if you read it. I just wanted to correct you on the use of my username. Proper names that end in -ius take -i and not -e in the vocative, so the correct way to say my username in the vocative is Properti. Just thought I’d correct you with that. After all, we are here to help each other learn, right?
Properti,
You’re right, of course. For some reason, I was confusing a Greek vocative form with the Latin for proper names. 2nd declension masculine adjectives ending in -ius, on the other hand do take -e in the vocative. You’ve come a long way with your Latin! All that hard work in composition is paying off.
And are we absolutely sure about this? From one of my favorite passages in the Noctes Atticae, 14.5.1
Defessus ego quondam diutina commentatione laxandi levandique animi gratia in Agrippae campo deambulabam. Atque ibi duos forte grammaticos conspicatus non parvi in urbe Roma nominis, certationi eorum acerrimae adfui, cum alter in casu vocativo vir egregi dicendum contenderet, alter vir egregie…
And it was quite a vigorous discussion:
eaque inter eos contentio longius duceretur, non arbitratus ego operae pretium esse eadem istaec diutius audire, clamantes conpugnantesque illos reliqui.
That’s it, I’ve got to read Noctes Atticae! Barry, I based my answer on A&G, §49c.:
c. Proper names in -ius have -ī in the vocative, retaining the accent of the nominative: as, Vergĭ’lī. So also, fīlius, son; genius, divine guardian: as, audī , mī fīlī, hear, my son.
Adjectives in -ĭus form the vocative in -ie, and some of these are occasionally used as nouns: as, Lacedaemonie, O Spartan.
[*] Note.–Greek names in -īus have the vocative -īe: as, Lyrcīus , vocative Lyrcīe .
In Attica, I can see how this could lead to a knock-down drag-out discussion!
My hard work in composition sure has paid off. And good to know that Greek names ending in -ius take -ie and not -i. I wonder why that could have been. Probably had something to do with the Romans viewing the Greeks as inferiors. Who knows? Anyways I’ll keep that in mind for the future when I start running into Greek names.
The Romans did look down on the Greeks in some respects, but that didn’t stop them from using some of their case endings! The first three declensions have Greek nouns with many case endings that are essentially transliterated from the original Greek. Check out lampas, lampados in A&G §82. Here are the Greek endings:
ἡ λαμπάς, τῆς λαμπάδος, τῇ λαμπάδι, τὴν λαμπάδα, ᾦ λαμπάς
αἱ λαμπάδες, τῶν λαμπάδων, ταῖς λαμπάσι(ν), τὰς λαμπάδας, ᾦ λαμπάδες
I know you don’t read Greek, but I think you’ll recognise the endings.
I don’t Greek yet you should say. But how could you have been certain that I wanted to learn Greek one day. And I have attempted Greek together with Latin a few years ago, but it proved to be too much.
By the way, I want to correct myself: I switched from doing composition to double translations; which pretty much is composition but not without translating first. I actually wanted to start a post just on double translation, but maybe later after I really absorb the efficacy of it (but so far I believe it has proved to be very effective). Just a preview on what I wanted to say in said post: Cicero actually wrote about how effective it is to learn a language by double translation (I’m guessing that’s how he learned Greek). Though it wasn’t popularized until Queen Elizabeth I’s era in England by one Roger Ascham. He was actually tutor to her. And it’s said she began her linguistic education at the ripe age of 4 acquiring 6 languages throughout her life. There’s also a story of her having a dispute with an Italian merchant with their argument being settle in, you guessed it, Latin.
That’s the spirit! For right now, though it would probably be a bit much. If you’re carrying a full course load plus Latin on the side, I’d say your dance card’s full.
I don’t have a source for Latin, but Eleanor Dickey uses that method in her Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose. It’s an excellent way to consolidate learning.
If I may resurrect my own thread, I can finally comment on this post of yours, Barry, for I’ve just covered the lesson in D’Ooge on the subjunctive of characteristic, and I have to agree with you. And if I may re-translated the original sentence, I believe this would be a better one:
For who is the man that can praise temperance that places the highest good on pleasure?
When is qui are together it is translated to such a one as to or the man to. That’s what D’Ooge says at least. It’s in lesson LXIX (undeseptuagesimum) on pg. 169 of D’Ooge’s book in case anyone wants to take a look at it.
P.S. Is documentum really the only way to say lesson in Latin? That’s all I could find.
Gratias vobis ago.
If you are talking about an academic context, either lectio (reading) or pensum (really a task to be performed) would work. Part of the problem is that the Romans simply didn’t do education the same way as we do, so finding equivalents for “classroom” or “exercises” or “lessons” or “exams” is a bit difficult.