I consulted L&S for “quemadmodum”, but the definition there was scanty. I am vague. I don’t clearly understand the word by it
It’s interrogative use is “how? in what manner?”.
So its relative use would be “as”.
But seeing a sample sentence, I feel a force of the final use or consecutive use. Other relative words like “ut” have such an extention of meaning, as I remember. So this word (quemadmodum) may have it too.
semper vigilavi et providi, quemadmodum salvi esse possemus
(we have been vigilant, so that we could be safe ----is this reading correct ?)
And I am not sure about this sample sentence under the article of “relative use”.
ego omnem rem scio, quemadmodum est
(I know every thing, as it is — in this reading quemadmodum is treated as relative ---- I also read it as “I know every thing, in what manner it is,” in this reading “quemadmodum” is interrogative.)
Tell me please as much as you know about “quemadmodum”.
Quemadmodum may be interrogative or relative. There’s really not much to it. As with the other “qu”-pronouns, there are tons of possible syntactic relations. Don’t treat it differently from other relative/interrogatives.
As Patruus says, the subjunctive in the example is determined because quemadmodum there is interrogative as thus introduces an indirect question.
ego omnem rem scio, quemadmodum est I know everything, in just the manner that it is. (in other words, I know it all, and I always take on the right point of view of the matter)
Quemadmodum may be interrogative or relative. There’s really not much to it. As with the other “qu”-pronouns, there are tons of possible syntactic relations. Don’t treat it differently from other relative/interrogatives.
I see. That’s what I wanted to know.
One more.
Patruus wrote :
Semper vigilavi et providi, quemadmodum salvi esse possemus.
I have continually watched and taken care of the means by which we might be safe.
“Possemus” is glossed by Bennett as a “deliberative subjunctive in an indirect question”.
I think you are right, but, this sample sentence is given under the heading of the relative use of “quemadmodum”.
Then, what do you say about it ?
The explanation in the book you introduced to me was very nice. I undersood well. I am informed very nicely. Thank you.
I still wonder why the L&S gave that sample sentence under the heading of the relative use, though.
True, but I was focused more on the quemadmodum. The translation had to be loose to explain either one (at least, for my unskilled mind to explain them), so I ignored possemus. I’m sure that it could be written in a way to take both into account, but I haven’t bothered to read the actual context, and I’m sure someone else could do better than myself.
To be honest, I don’t understand the use of the subjunctive there quite well enough to try to explain it (or, at least, not well enough to convince anyone any more than myself). It seems an odd place for a question, direct or not.
Thank you for addressing me in Japanese, Sceptra Tenens.
semper vigilavi, et providi, quemadmodum salvi esse possemus
Regarding L&S put this sample sentence as a sample for the relative use of “quemadmodum”,
the subjunctive “possemus” could be subjunctive only because it is in a subordinate clause.
And the phrase “salvi esse possemus” may mean “we may be going to be able to be safe”,
(The imperfect can express a progressiveness in the past “was going to”.)
with quemadmodum meaning “so that”.
