Question for an expert: Quod si

Latin Learning Latin
1

I’m trying to better understand the literary French expression Que si at the beginning of a sentence. The French bible of grammar, Le Bon Usage, says that this expression is an enhanced form of Si that binds what one wants to assert with what comes before. But that is a bit ambiguous. Suppose you had three sentences.

X
Que si P, Q
Y

I’m not sure whether it is just that the Q is bound more tightly to the P. Or whether the whole [Que si P, Q] is now bound to the X. On this reading, Que si would read “Therefore if” or “So if”.

Le Bon Usage goes on to say that the expression probably derives from the Latin Quod si. So now I can ask you Latin experts. What is the difference between Quod si and plain old Si in Latin?

X
Quod si P, Q
Y

Does the Quod si bind the Q to the P? Or does it bind the whole [Quod si P, Q] to the X?

Thanks in advance.

2

hey there,

i know that i have been taught and am in the habit of translating quod si as “but if.” i can’t quite think through what that means right now, but that’s how i translate it.

bonam fortunam!

3

X
Quod si P, Q
Y

Does the Quod si bind the Q to the P? Or does it bind the whole [Quod si P, Q] to the X?

I find that rather ambiguous.
Id mihi ambiguius est.

Not an expert but I would be inclined to read “que”/“quod” as “that” and “que si”/“quod si” as “that even if”/“that even though” in many cases.
Peritus non sum sed ego eó magìs adducor ut anglicè “that even if/though” pro “quod si” saepè convertam.

[quote=“Cicero, “Letter to Quintus” // epistula ad quintum fratrem 1.1 §27.”]Quapropter incumbe toto animo et studio omni in eam rationem qua adhuc usus es, ut eos quos tuae fidei potestatique senatus populusque Romanus commisit et credidit diligas et omni ratione tueare et esse quam beatissimos velis. quod si te sors Afris aut Hispanis aut Gallis praefecisset, immanibus ac barbaris nationibus, tamen esset humanitatis tuae consulere eorum commodis et utilitati salutique servire.

On account of which, press on with complete courage and enthusiasm in that plan you have followed to date, that you would love those whom the senate and whom the Roman people have committed and credited to your trust and rule, and that you would want to protect them in every way and want them to be as fortunate as possible. That even if/though [here it’s like “because even if/though”] fate were to have placed you in command of dreadful and barbarous peoples, the Africans, the Spanish, the Gauls, nevertheless it would be typical of [the depth of] your humanity to attend to their interests and to devote yourself to their advantage and well-being.[/quote]

4

Thanks both.

The Quebec quote is not suitable because we are only talking about Que si at the beginning of a sentence. The que in the Quebec quote is just a conjunction.

Here is the quote I am trying to understand:

“Dans la langue litteraire, que précède parfois la conjonction si au commencement d’une phrase; on lie ainsi plus etroitement que par le simple si ce qu’on va exprimer à ce qui précède (tournure due probablement à l’imitation du lat. quod si)…” (Section 972 of Le Bon Usage)

In the literary language, que precedes sometimes the conjunction si at the beginning of a phrase; one ties thus more tightly than by the simple si what one is going to express to what precedes (phrase probably due to the imitation of the latin quod si)…

I don’t know whether “ce qui précède” (what preceedes) refers to X or to P.

Now they follow the passage quoted with four examples. All are just conditionals. That would seem to indicate that the Q gets tied more tightly to the P since they don’t include any X’s. The first is just: If (Que si) this wolf attacks, hit him in the jaw. But I don’t see what is so tight here. Nor do I have any idea what it would be to tighten a conditional. Nor do I understand the apodosis of a conditional to be that which one is going to express; rather the whole thing, protasis plus apodosis, is what one expresses. So, I started thinking well maybe the meaning was more like “Given that, if”, “Given what we have just said, if”, “In light of that, if”, etc. Something along those lines. There I could see some tightening. Now unfortunately Grevisse just spends two short paragraphs on this phrase, but the author that I am reading uses it enough that it has started to bother me.

Now perhaps the Cicero quote is promising. Translating Que si by “Even if” perhaps does reveal the nature of the tightening. But it doesn’t fit the wolf example. Even if that wolf attacks hit him in the jaw?? It does better with the other examples, however.

I think I’m mistranslating the wolf example. It seems it is more like, “if the wolf is expecting it, hit him in the jaw.” There, “even if”, would be good. But French already has an expression for even if: même si. And Grevisse doesn’t mention it. Which seems unimagineable. So I’m still at a loss.

5

It may be helpful to you to consult the English word “that” in the Oxford English Dictionary. When you see how amazingly flexible it is at the beginning of a sentence [albeit in a rather archaic fashion], it may, strangely enough, illuminate the role of initial “que si” in French.

Vocabulum “that” anglicum in dictionarium OED inquiras. Fortassè sic facere tibi adjuvet cum videas quam flexibilis sit [etiamsi modo anticquiore] istius vocabuli usus sententiam incipientis, quod illuminet, forsit mirabiliter, modum per quem agit gallicè “que si”.

6

Imagine the rhetorical gesture of a raised open hand accompanying the “Que”. “Si” just begins a new thought; “que” collects the previous. And even if I wanted to empathize an initial “si” by raising my hand, I would use a pointed index finger to point to what was coming, not an open hand to collect what was said [or to express indefiniteness]. Or maybe I’m just daft.

Gestum rhetoricum manûs apertae elevandae vocabulum “Que” adsectantis fingas. “Si” conjunctio justa novam sententiam introducit; “Que” anteriam colligit. Quod si vim manu elevandâ “Si” conjunctioni sententiam incipienti dare velim, manûs elevandae digito indice designandae gestum adhibeam ut quod venturum sit designetur, non gestum manûs apertae ad res jam dictas colligendas [vel ad dubitationes comprehendendas]. Alternâ vice, ridiculus sim.

I don’t know whether “ce qui précède” (what preceedes) refers to X or to P.

I see now what you are talking about. It means X, in your terminology.
Nunc video quod vis dicere. Tuâ nomenclaturâ, X significatur.

7

hi, in QVOD SI at the beginning of a sentence like in eg. cicero’s pro archia sect 1 QVOD SI HAEC VOX… or in horace’s first carmen line 35 QVOD SI ME LYRICIS…, QVOD (in the acc.) has weakened into being just a conjunction to the previous sentence (it’s not binding protasis to apodosis, just linking the sentence to the preceding sentence).

see Touratier 1980 pp 445-6, in particular the end of p445, top of p446 and footnote 59:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=r7S7AUhx7CUC&pg=PA445

also see Bodelot 2003 top of pg 745:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=NjvRIONkho4C&pg=PA745

depending on context there may be some adversative sense in the QVOD in QVOD SI, or not at all – QVOD in QVOD SI can just be a conjunction to the previous sentence with no adversative force, just as with e.g. αὐτάρ in homer (see comment on iliad A.458 at the bottom of pg 49 in my old iliad A notes here: http://mhninaeide.webs.com/IliadANotes.pdf )

cheers, chad :slight_smile: