relative pronoun used as demonstrative pronoun

[pin130]

Nutting exercise 62: Indi in silvam properaverunt. Quod cum vidissent… (translated as The Indians hurried into the forest. When the farmers saw this…). I understand that the relative pronoun “quod” is in the accusative (as a direct object of
vidissent), but how does one determine the gender of the demonstrative if the demonstrative has no gender (such as the word “this” which refers to a situation)? Or does it just take the neuter gender in this case as it does here? In A&G’s Grammar
303: “since this is so” is translated as quae cum ita sint, with no indication why the feminine quae was chosen (or maybe this was just an example, not to be taken too seriously)?

[hlawson38]

Nutting exercise 62: Indi in silvam properaverunt. Quod cum vidissent… (translated as The Indians hurried into the forest. When the farmers saw this…). I understand that the relative pronoun “quod” is in the accusative (as a direct object of
vidissent), but how does one determine the gender of the demonstrative if the demonstrative has no gender (such as the word “this” which refers to a situation)? Or does it just take the neuter gender in this case as it does here? In A&G’s Grammar
303: “since this is so” is translated as quae cum ita sint, with no indication why the feminine quae was chosen (or maybe this was just an example, not to be taken too seriously)?

Hello pin130: I hazard an answer the second one, on quae cum ita sint

sint is third-person plural; thus it agrees with quae, taken as nominative, neuter, third person plural. So literally, “since these things are so”.

And here is my effort on the first question.

As to the neuter gender of quod: Here is what A&G says: “Indeclinable nouns, infinitives, terms or phrases used as nouns . . . are neuter.” As you can see the antecedent of quod is the preceding sentence: Indi in silvam properaverunt.. See A&G, article 34, under “General Rules of Gender”. And relative pronouns must agree in gender and number with their antecedents.

[pin130]

Thanks hlawson38. I’d forgotten (more accurately: never memorized properly) that “quae” is also neuter plural. So in both cases, this and these, are referring back to a genderless situation and take the neuter. I still wonder if this is a general principle. And is it included in your quote from A&G?

[hlawson38]

Thanks hlawson38. I’d forgotten (more accurately: never memorized properly) that “quae” is also neuter plural. So in both cases, this and these, are referring back to a genderless situation and take the neuter. I still wonder if this is a general principle. And is it included in your quote from A&G?

Here is A&G on the agreement of relative pronouns.

305. A Relative agrees with its Antecedent in Gender and Number; but its Case depends on its construction in the clause in which it stands:—
     “ea diēs quam cōnstituerat vēnit ” . . . that day which he had appointed came.
     pontem quī erat ad Genāvam iubet rescindī; (id. 1.7), he orders the bridge which was near Geneva to be cut down.
     Aduatucī, dē quibus suprā dīximus, domum revertērunt (id. 2.29), the Aduatuci, of whom we have spoken above, returned home.
     [*] Note.–This rule applies to all relative words so far as they are variable in form: as, quālis , quantus , quīcumque , etc.

Allen & Greenough is online here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D1