So when writing Latin, how am I suppose to know which to use when I come across the word because? It’s a bit of an annoyance having to guess, and I’d rather know which to use than to have guess. I’m currently doing D’Ooge’s Latin for Beginners and I’m just doing English-to-Latin translation. I look up the answers, which are in English, to translation to Latin, and check my answers in the book itself. But that’s besides the point. I just want to know when I should use quia or quod. I’ve been looking through Gildersleeve’s and Allan & Greenough’s grammars, but I can’t find anything that clearly explains.
You can use either one. Or something else altogether. Don’t be annoyed, relish the freedom. Quod has a wider range of use than quia—and usage changed over time.
Are you sure? Because in Gildersleeve it says that quod is used when the casual sentence is also an object sentence. I just don’t really understand what that means.
It actually says “Quod and quia differ in classical prose, chiefly in that quod is used, and not quia, when the causal sentence is at the same time an object sentence.” 538 note 2
A close but not casual reading of 534 ff should provide an adequate explanation of object sentences. If you can’t follow something in particular please ask.
Note that MWH said that usage changed over time. For example if you look at 525 1 (explanatory clauses after verbs of Doing and Happening) note 4 says "The use of quod after verbs of Doing and Happening is found first in Cicero; Plautus uses quia in this construction.
Grammars give a description of usage and which construction you use will depend largely on context and what you are trying to achieve.
Thanks seneca2008. So you’re confirming what mwh? I just don’t get why the answer keybto D’Ooge’s book not specify that either one can be used whenever because comes out in the composition exercises.
You haven’t grasped what has been said. When you are composing something in Latin you will have many choices in how you express your English sentence. You are looking for a black and white answer where none is to be had. Much will depend on the style you are imitating. In my post I gave an example where Plautus uses quia and Cicero uses quod after verbs of doing and happening in object sentences. So you can see that usage varied and you will follow the author you are imitating..
I suspect you are worrying too much about a small issue which doesn’t probably matter at all to you at this stage. Generally speaking just grasp the fact that just as there are many ways to express the same thought in English so there are in Latin.
You seem to regard the choice between quod and quid as arbitrary which it might be but not always. I am sorry if this is unhelpful but its how Latin works.
It might be helpful if you could post the sentences you want to translate with your answer and the book’s answer so we can help further. Exercises are usually there to practice things which the author has just introduced so that should be your guide. They are never intended to be comprehensive and to include all possibilities.
I get you 100% now, seneca2008, that an English sentence could be composed in a number of ways (well maybe not too many) in Latin, and that whether I must use quia or quod depends on the style or writer I’m imitating. D’Ooge’s is pretty much working out of Caesar’s The Gallic War, so how would Caesar use both those words? Does it really not matter which one is used? I’m sorry if I’m being difficult. I just want to learn the correct way to using words in Latin. Take for instance this sentence:
The men-of-war that were carrying aid to the general have been destroyed by the enemy with fire.
My translation
Naves longae quae imperatori auxilium ferebant ab hostibus igne deletae sunt.
But D’Ooge’s book has that sentence as:
Naves longae quae auxilium ad imperatorem portabant igni ab hostibus deletae sunt.
I took the English sentence to mean help in the abstract sense so I used ferebant with the person receiving help in the dative, but it would seem to me that D’Ooge’s translation meant help in the concrete sense since portabant means they were carrying in the literal sense whereas ferebant could mean they were carrying either in the literal or figurative sense. Is this correct? But nonetheless, based on what you said, that an English sentence could be translated to Latin in a few number ways, my translation is correct, is it not? Because just based on the original sentence in English there’s no way that anyone could have known that D’Ooge meant help in the literal or abstract sense. Correct?
As for those sentences with quia and quod, I’ll post them sometime this weekend. I’ll have to go back through the lessons I already did to find them.
Gratias tibi ago.
Ramshorn: 861. Quod, Quia, Quoniam
Popma: Quia, Quoniam
I think Auxilium here does not mean the abstract “aid” but in a military context it means military aid ie troops (although that would normally be the plural). Do you understand the difference between ad imperatorem and “imperatori”?
Of course I know the difference. I think you misunderstood. I meant that I took the English sentence to mean help in the abstract sense therefore I translated the person receive help in the dative. Isn’t that an honest mistake that anyone would have made because the English sentence in no way is implying help in the concrete sense. Doesn’t that make sense?
Here’s a sentence with the word because:
The soldiers were sitting where the baggage had been placed because their feet were weary.
The answer reads:
Milites ibi sedebant ubi impedimenta conlocata erant quia pedes defessi erant.
I was guessing it would be quod, but as usually when it comes to translating because, I was wrong.
And on a side note, why ibi? In the original sentence in English there isn’t there. Is that some rule in Latin that where where is so should there be as well?
No need to get upset! You are I assume a beginner and I wanted to make sure that you understood the difference between a dative of advantage and an adverb plus accusative involving movement. I think the English sentence does mean help in a concrete sense. In context what kind of aid do you think the ship would be carrying? Moreover this exact sentence appears in latin in the text. Its a small point and not worth arguing over.
Is that some rule in Latin that where where [> ubi> ] is so should there [> ibi> ] be as well?
It depends on whether you are programming your brain to be merely mechanistically robotic or you are at the stage of applying some artificial intelligence.
I think we have covered quia/quod above. if the book always uses quia you might find it less frustrating if you also use quia.
Ibi…ubi has a nice symmetry which is probably why the author used it. I guess being pedantic if one were sitting “where the luggage had been placed” one would be sitting in the the same place ie on top if it. Maybe Ibi … ubi captures some sense of by the luggage. I am not convinced. Its much more likely that the the author wanted to provide you with another possibility beyond the literal. This isn’t helpful for someone working on their own expecting a direct answer to their questions. Its a drawback of using a textbook designed for classroom use.
B. D’Ooge is keen to give you rules that you have to follow. Latin isn’t quite like that as we have discussed above. Of course there are rules but there is also quite a lot of flexibility. With time and experience you will develop greater sensitivity to the nuances. Look upon the answers in the key as less of a test of what you know and more an opportunity to extend your knowledge.
Finally I hope you are not discouraged because you are doing fine. It would also be helpful if in future posts you could say what page of D’Ooge the exercise comes from. It helps to see the context of your question without you having to make a long post. (I have now downloaded the book)
I’ve read up to Ch. 40 of Orberg, so I don’t what level that would put me in. It’s in composition that I would consider myself a novice. And you got me there: dative of advantage and adverb plus accusative involving movement? Where’s the adverb in that sentence?
Quia wasn’t in the book. That was in the answer key. The original sentence was in English in D’Ooge’s book. So is the case with ibi: it was in the answer key, but in the original English sentence there wasn’t there.
And the book is available for free here on textkit as is the answer key.. I hope that’s what you meant by downloading the book and not looking for a free copy of it through the internet.
My goodness Propertius, are you still obsessing about this? You’d do well to let it go. You can maybe come back to it when you’ve acquired some proficiency in Latin. For now, you should feel free to use either quia or quod as the mood takes you and no-one will fault you either way.
As for ibi … ubi, they are “correlatives.” Ibi in the main clause sets up ubi in the subordinate clause, much as we might say “Put it there where I told you” rather than simply “Put it where I told you.”
“Tum … cum” (at the time that, lit. then … when) work in the same kind of way, as do talis … qualis and many other such pairs.
I agree with MWH. Tenacity can be an admirable quality but there are times you have to move on. I have no idea of your level. If you want to do composition I think you need north and Hillard instead of D’Ooge.
Of course I meant to write preposition not adverb.
Hope you get the support you want in the future. Good luck.
As a beginner, I’ve just had the same question.
It seems that ‘quia’ means “because [I do believe/I’m certain]…”,
whereas ‘quod’ means “because [so I’m told/I’m informed]…”.
Perhaps another way of conceptualising it, is to regard ‘quia’ as a ‘direct because’ and ‘quod’ as an ‘indirect because’.
If I’m completely missing the mark, I’m sure others will correct me!