I struggle all the time with pronouns and their adjectival counterparts.
I need a grammatical commentary on each use of quid, quod, and qui in the following snippet from Cicero, De Oficiis:
. . . unum hoc animal sentit
quid sit ordo, quid sit, quod deceat, in factis dictisque qui modus.
Here are my best guesses.
quid sit ordo
quid here is interrogative pronoun, “what might be the order of things?” It is the subject of the clause and ordo is the predicate nominative.
quid sit
quid is again interrogative pronoun “what should be allowed?”
quod deceat
quod is interrogative adjective, with implied object “what (thing) would be fitting?”
qui modus
qui is again interrogative adjective, modifying modus, with an implied predicate, for example “what moderation may be”?
Nisi fallor…“… this being alone understands [/perceives/is affected by] what [substantivum pronomen interrogativum] is [in] order, what [substantivum pronomen interrogativum] it is—what kind of [adjectivum pronoun interrogativum] measure it is—that [relativum pronomen] is proper in words and deeds.”
Thank you for the reply adrianus. I’ve still go much work to do on pronouns.
here is the passage again, punctuated differently, after looking at some older editions, and with one interpolation, enclosed in square brackets .
. . . unum hoc animal sentit, quid sit ordo:
quid sit quod deceat; in factis dictisque qui [sit] modus.
translation:
. . .only this animal perceives an order in things:
what things are fitting; what is the standard in words and deeds
“Qui” I take it is a personal pronoun, in agreement with “modus” (masculine, singular, nominative).
Incidentally, I don’t try to make smooth English translations; I try to make translations that help me understand the Latin. In general I find literal translations more helpful in perceiving the Latin grammar, even if they don’t make pretty English.
Note that “qui” is not a personal pronoun, hlawson38.
I think you can often write literal translations that are good English, where grammar and sense unite. For instance, what I wrote above is an attempt to do both. I think it best to try, at least, because it humanizes the author. For example, I would say that “being” is a literal translation of “animal” if only because you will find “living being” in a dictionary definition of the Latin “animal” since the definitions of “living being” and “animal” overlap in English and “that” is a literal translation of the Latin “quod”, again because the definitions overlap in English (“that” and “which”). I think it better, however, to write the subjunctives as subjunctives. That I didn’t do but I agree with you that it is better to attempt to include it in good English and your translated subjunctives are good English.
Non personale pronomen “qui”, hlawson, nota.
Meâ sententiâ, fieri nonnunquam potest et verbatim et eleganter in sermones anglicos vertere, ubi grammatica at sensus inter se conveniunt. Nisi fallor sic feci vel facere conatus sum in eo quod suprâ scripsi eodem tempore humaniorem auctorem videri faciens. Subjunctivum autem modum anglicè verè non scripsi et melius esset si id scripsisset ut tu bene scripsisti.
Hello adrianus:
You wrote:
“Note that ‘qui’ is not a personal pronoun”
You’re right of course. Thanks, I cannot even imagine how I made that erroneous judgment. 