Context: the orator needs thorough learning, and not just a smattering, decorated with borrowed quotations.
Primum enim aliter utimur propriis, aliter commodatis, longeque interesse manifestum est possideat quis quae profert an mutuetur.
Translation: First, we use our own things and borrowed things differently, and [ in our speeches] the difference matters between what is our own, and what we have only borrowed.
I have got myself into a state of confusion on the grammar of this sentence.
I need help on the grammar of these words: quis, quae, an.
I want quis to be the subject of the verbs possideat, profert, and mutuetur.
I want quae to be the neuter, accusative, plural, and the direct object of those verbs.
I want interesse to be the infinitive in indirect discourse.
But, as I read it profert is indicative, while possideat and mutuetur are subjunctive. I can’t state a rule covering this difference.
You have most of this right, but quae is the object of profert, which is indicative because it’s in a relative clause, and it’s not coordinate with possideat and mutuetur.
longeque interesse manifestum est – it is obvious that there’s a big difference between . . .
The next clauses are cast as indirect questions. You can understand utrum after est, but it’s not necessary: [utrum] . . . an – “whether . . . or”.
possideat quis [ea] – whether someone [actually] “owns” . . . , i.e., has actually composed by himself
quae profert – what he brings forward/offers [to the public] – a relative clause, i.e., his “material”
an mutuetur – or [just] borrows [it].
'it is obvious that there’s a big difference between whether someone actually owns his own material or is just borrowing it."
Note on quis: You may remember that quis stands in for aliquis after si, nisi, ne and num (Allen & Greenough 310a). This is the same idea. Num introduces a “yes/no” question (expecting a negative answer). This is an “either/or”, “whether or not” question (with utrum omitted), so Tacitus uses quis, even though Allen and Greenough don’t say he should.
I need to study your answer, because it touches on grammar issues I haven’t mastered. I was pretty sure I was missing something important, but couldn’t see it. I’ll get back after I’ve studied.
[*] 583. A Subordinate Clause merely explanatory, or containing statements which are regarded as true independently of the quotation, takes the Indicative:—
quis neget haec omnia quae vidēmus deōrum potestāte administrārī; (Cat. 3.21), who can deny that all these things we see are ruled by the power of the gods?
The A&G example quotation beginning quis neget. . . seems to match the passage under study, so far as the relative clause is concerned.
With respect to the other issue, the implied utrum, A&G appear to cover this at Ch. 335 b.
[*] b. Sometimes the first member is omitted or implied, and an ( anne ) alone asks the question,—usually with indignation or surprise:—
Finally, with respect to the substitution of quis for aliquis, I do recall studying this, but I needed the review.
Many thanks, Hylander, for all the help!
Assuming I’ve found the proper rules, this has been an excellent review. I must have studied them, but like mathematical proofs that I can no longer perform, they slipped away.