On which verb is this result clause contingent?

Latin Learning Latin
1

Nemo fuit qvi non intellegeret Canachi signa rigidiora esse qvam vt imiterentvr veritatem.

Noone was, who did not perceive that Canachus’ statues were too rigid to imitate true form.


I ask because, if ‘vt imiterentur veritatem’ is contigent upon esse and not intellegeret, the sentence is rendered ‘nemo fvit qvi non intellegeret Canachi signa rigidiora esse qvam vt imitentvr veritatem’

As:
Videor demonstrasse qvales essent di.

The indirect question, ‘qvales essent di,’ depends upon the leading verb, demonstrasse(demonstravisse), which is a secondary tense, which demands that the contingent verbs be in the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive (occasionally in the perfect or present as exigencies may make requisite : Vrbs ita deleta est vt iam non in antiqvvm statvm possit recreari (instead of posset, which can refer to present time but also past and passed past’s future time would lead to ambiguity.))

2

Logically, you are stating “too rigid to imitate true form”, and “too rigid” is part of the relative clause - therefore the result clause is contingent on the verb from the relative clause. If you made it contingent on nemo fuit, there would be no word to even prepare the sentence for a result clause and it would instead have to be interpreted as a rather odd result clause; something like “there was no one, so that they imitated…”. imiterentur should be imitarentur if you wish it to be correct; the thematic vowel change only occurs in the present tense. Also, I do not think quam can be used in that manner.

3

Also, I do not think quam can be used in that manner.

Nah. I’ve seen it in my textbook. Stolidior sum quam ut Platonem intellegam (TY Latin) or Isocrates maiore ingenio est quam ut cum Lysia comparetur and Nihil ultra commotus est quam ut abire eos iuberet (496. Bradley’s Arnold).

Bit strange to use a result clause construction for what does not result, but it seems OK to me, Ben. Or are you refering to something else?

4

Hmm… I have never seen that before. It looks like the comparative with quam and then having quam introduce a subordinate clause :open_mouth: My mistake if that is correct, but I am surprised I have not read about it.

5

That’s twice in the last month.

Are you sure you’re not under some kind of stress?

6

True Turps but I’ve never seen ben. allege that satis is a pronoun.

7

Question for you both.

Suppose I were to translate “Not enough food had been brought into the camp” into Latin. What would the subject of that sentence be?

8

non satis or parum cibi would serve as the nominal phrase.
(i do hope that was not an attempt to prove that satis is a pronoun?)

~D

9

i do hope that was not an attempt to prove that satis is a pronoun?

What precisely is a nominal phrase? I’m not claiming that satis generally acts as a pronoun. But I don’t see the difference between saying something acts as a pronoun or is part of a nominal phrase and saying it is, in one specific instance, a pronoun.

10

a nominal phrase is a term used in linguistics during the constituency analysis of a sentence. a nominal phrase (NP) typically equates with a noun, but often more than one word constitutes the phrase, e.g. with attached genitives, so NP is a better term than a given group of nouns. in the example you provided it would be misleading to say that the noun is simply cibi or Eng. food, for that overlooks an essential section of the semantics, viz. the fact that we are talking about ‘not enough food’.

this said, however, it is a dire perversion of the truth to say that because haud satis or parum stands within the nominal phrase it is a ‘pronoun’. what noun, praytell, would it ever stand for? it is no response to say that in certain instances there could be ellipsis of the noun, for there satis does not assume the rôle of the noun, indeed it does not change its function at all.

poeta has shown me of your pronoun slip, which i found most surprising. as i think was stated there, satis is of course an indeclinable substantive, occasionally with adverbial significance. as Elmsley once said, there is no ‘pronoun’ in ‘indeclinable substantive’.

~D

11

haha

To not have seen something is not to be illatinate. For example I had never seen si being used as cum of habitude with the perfect etc. That means I must suck greatly! Indeed I do.

12

‘rigidiora qvam vt imiterentvr veritatem’

A comparative degree adjective with ‘qvam’ followed by a result clause is one of the ways, in which disproportion is intimated.

as:

Absvnt longivs qvam qvi (qvi can equal vt ii or vt is, etc.) hostes sagittis laedere possint.

They are too far off to be able to hurt the enemies with arrows.
or
They are farther off than (that) they should be able to hurt the enemies with arrows.

Maior svm qvam cvi (vt mihi) possit Fortvna nocere, Ovid, M., VI. 195

I am too great for Fortune possibly to hurt me.

Minor svm qvam vt non possit mihi Fortvna nocere.

I am too much least for Fortune to not be able to hurt me.

Minor svm qvam vt possit mihi Fortvna nocere.

I less than that Fortune may possibly hurt me.

Minor ingenivm qvam pro praeclarissimo homine est.

His intellect is (too) small for such an illustrious man.

Gildersleeves states that “disproportion may also be expressed in the positive with a prepositional phrase: pro mvltitvdine angvti fines Boundaries too small for their multitude.”

If you find disproportion confusing, consider that the conventional manner, in which Latin expresses disproportion, constitutes an ellipsis, I think. Think of my first example as being “I am greater than how great I must be for Fortune to be able to hurt me.” For ‘qvam’ in comparative sentences is really an adverb meaning ‘how’ or ‘to what extent’.

As:
Tam magnvs svm, qvam magnvs ille.

I am so great, how great he.
or
I am as great as he (is).

13

The imperfect subjunctive imitarentur is fully appropriate because the leading verb of the sentence is in the past, so the whole story occured in the past. So the “present infinitive” esse does not express a fact that occurs at the time of speaking, but something that is already in the past. I mean that the esse here does not match a present indicative, but an imperfect (what the people perceived was that the statues WERE too rigid).

It is always so : when the “sequence of tenses” (Bennett, para 267) applies, once you are in the past, you have to remain in it.

Now clauses of result are not subject to a strict “sequence of tenses”. The tense of the subjunctive in the subordinate clause is not necessarily harmonized with the tense of the main verb. The tense of the subjunctive in a result clause indicates only if the result applies to the present or to the past. Moreover a perfect subjunctive is used, whatever the tense of the main verb, to indicate a past result that have a “historical value” in itself or that is considered as an important fact in itself.

14

I understand. And I was wondering regarding result clauses and how closely bound they were to the tense of the leading verb. Thanks for elucidating my understanding.