The edited version of mwh’s post has a considerably more polite tone than the first version, which was presumably what was objected to. For that reason and others, Seneca is considerably off-base on his lecture, which contains some misstatements of fact. I suggest that we all forgive each other and try harder though. Given that mwh has already edited his post, I can clean up the posts following, should you guys ask me to.
Let’s all just move on. Let sleeping dogs lie
Thank you, I am grateful for your attention to this humble thread.
I would like to continue with our discussion on indirect questions, with the goal of resolving it and then returning to the main topic, the various subjunctive clauses of Exodus.
So yes, indirect questions and indirect statements are types of indirect discourse which can take various forms in Latin. As mentioned, because the indefinite, interrogative, and relative pronouns are so similar in form, I am having some trouble distinguishing between a normal sentence with a relative clause and an indirect question. And so I would like your opinion as to whether:
- Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure.
be grammatically correct, or if the subordinate verb must be changed to the subjunctive mood, e.g.
- Sus videt eum qui crescat in rure.
My opinion (with which you may or may not agree) is that Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure is grammatically correct.
Thank you. Now concerning the verse
Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, quomodo portaverim vos super alas aquilarum, et assumpserim mihi.- V. Ex. 19.4
אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם > אֲשֶׁ֥ר > עָשִׂ֖יתִי לְמִצְרָ֑יִם וָאֶשָּׂ֤א אֶתְכֶם֙ עַל־כַּנְפֵ֣י נְשָׁרִ֔ים וָאָבִ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֵלָֽי׃
I find Altair’s theory that this could be Subjunctive of Characteristic interesting and possible, however hard to accept given the context and significance of the verse. I think its fair to say that the Vulgate translation is generally literal but at times applies paraphrase for the sake of clarity. Likewise there is seen in the next chapter this verse:
Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֹּ֥ה תֹאמַ֖ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם > כִּ֚י > מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃
Which I have an ever harder time determining to be Subjunctive of Characteristic, and would say this must be an indirect question given the context, etc.
Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22
This cannot be an indirect question, since quod is not an interrogative.
I don’t understand, perhaps you can explain this further to me, because I have two sources which seem to claim otherwise:
“> qui> , quae, quod; pronoun.
(I)interrog. adj. in direct and indirect questions; > which? what? what kind of?> …” Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, Simpson, 1959, pg.495
Does this not say that qui is an interrogative adjective? Likewise Lewis and Short confirms this. And furthermore:
“The indirect question, however, uses a subjunctive verb (not an infinitive) and is easily distinguished from other subjunctive clause types since it is introduced by some interrogative word such as > quis/quid, qui/que/quod > (i.e. the interrogative adjective), > quam, quando, cur, ubi, unde, uter, utrum…an > (whether…or), > -ne > (attached to the clause’s first word, =whether), etc.; moreover, the verb in the main clause is ordinarily a verb of speech, mental activity, or sense perception…”- Wheelock’s Latin, Wheelock, Frederic M., 6th Edition, pg. 204
And does this not confirm that the interrogative adjective qui/quae/quod is typically used to introduce the subjunctive clause of an indirect question?
Quod is functioning here not as an interrogative, but as a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause. This usage is not standard in the classical language, which requires the accusative and infinitive construction.
As for the use of the subjunctive or indicative after the conjunction quod used this way, it seems there’s no hard and fast rule – usage varied widely in later Latin. For a discussion, see Woodcock at §35.
Yes, CMatthias evidently confused quid (interrogative) with quod. They’re not interchangeable.
As truks indicates, quod has by this time come to be used in indirect statements (approaching “that” in modern English). This seems to be the regular function of quod in the vulgate of Exodus (as elsewhere), usually but not invariably with subjunctive, primary or historic according to sequence. I find quia and quoniam as occasional alternatives (e.g. 8.10, 9.29).
quid is used in indirect question, as in classical Latin, with subjunctive, again according to sequence (e.g. 4.12, 4.15, 16.15).
A few questions please before determining why “dixit preterea…” might be in the subjunctive:
Quod is functioning here not as an interrogative, but as a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause.
How do you know this?
For a discussion, see Woodcock at §35.
As far as I know, I don’t have access to Woodcock, but I do have Bennett, A&G, and Wheelock’s. Can you point me to a similar section in those grammars?
evidently confused quid (interrogative) with quod
What about the entry from Cassell’s? Isn’t quid an interrogative pronoun whereas quod can be an interrogative adjective? Aren’t they both interrogative? Can’t they both be used in indirect questions?
(e.g. 4.12, 4.15, 16.15).
I have no idea what you are referencing, what work is this?
No one has addressed what I cited from Wheelock’s which says that quod [edited] can be used in indirect question. What is your interpretation of that? Is he wrong?
The references I gave are to chapter and verse in the vulgate of Exodus—primary evidence! And quid most certainly can be used to introduce an indirect question, in fact it habitually is. That’s exemplified in the references I provided and elsewhere in the same text (e.g. 10.26, 32.23).
But quid is not quod.
I am approaching this discussion more from a theoretical basis than from what Latin you will generally actually encounter. My reading experience is much too sparse to opine on the latter.
Does this not say that qui is an interrogative adjective? Likewise Lewis and Short confirms this.
This is correct but would be better understood as saying that qui could be used as an interrogative adjective. I think qui is far more common in other uses. A question with a plural interrogative word like “Quae fēcī?” (“What things did I do”) is not common in any language I am familiar with, as opposed to simply saying: “What did I do.” I suspect it would not have been said often in Latin either; however, in Ex. 19.4, the Greek has a plural construction and so I would guess that the translator, relying partly on the Greek, could have used the plural Latin form to render a closer translation.
*Quod de cælo locutus sim vobis?
What one did I speak to you from heaven?
I think this Latin is technically possible, but the meaning is as odd as my translation. If the intent is to say: “What did I speak…?,” then the sentence should say: “Quid de caelō…?,” using a noun form of the interrogative.
Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֹּ֥ה תֹאמַ֖ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃
In reading the Latin and encountering a solitary quod not immediately recognizable as a relative pronoun, you would normally expect that the quod is being used as a conjunction or adverbially, not as an interrogative. Truks mentioned this in his post. In post-Classical Latin, the adverbial meanings include the equivalent of “that” used as a conjunction. This meaning is confirmed in the Hebrew use of כִּ֚י, which has no interrogative uses as far as I am aware and is primarily used in this meaning. This meaning must often be judged by context, and even in Classical Latin, quod or even id quod can be used in adverbial meanings, such as “because.” E.g.,
T. Manlius Torquatus filium suum, quod is contra imperium in hostem pugnaverat, necari iussit.
T. Manlius Torquatus ordered his own son to be put to death, because he had fought against the enemy contrary to orders. (Sallust, Catiline, 52, 30; Woodcock, Sec. 242)
This is not an indirect question. It is an adverbial use of quod requiring the indicative to express the author’s independent assessment of cause, but would be in the subjunctive to express Manlius’ thoughts. We would also have to remove the comma in the English translation in that case.
As mentioned, because the indefinite, interrogative, and relative pronouns are so similar in form, I am having some trouble distinguishing between a normal sentence with a relative clause and an indirect question.
This is the key question. I think the answer is that there is no consistent structural distinction.
In French and Spanish, an indirect question may be the preferred structure to talk about people in the very same context a relative pronoun structure would be used to talk about things. In other words, the semantics alone does not dictate whether an indirect question structure will be used. I suspect that Latin has a similar overlap in structures, except that indirect questions might be used even more commonly than in English.
…I would like your opinion as to whether:
Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure.
be grammatically correct, or if the subordinate verb must be changed to the subjunctive mood, e.g.
Sus videt eum qui crescat in rure.
I don’t think it is the case that the mere use of videō mechanically requires the indicative or subjunctive, because this verb can be used with several different constructions and with more than one meaning. Relative pronouns can also be used in several different constructions that require the indicative or subjunctive on their own merits. Lastly, the subjunctive was not required in indirect questions in early Latin. All these nuances make it difficult to respond to your question as you have posed it without context and without knowing what exactly you are trying to express.
I suspect that if you are trying to translate “the pig sees (with its own eyes) the one that is growing in the fields,” the indicative would be used in Classical Latin. There is no underlying question about what is in the fields. If you are trying to translate, “the pig sees/perceives which one is growing in the fields,” the subjunctive would be used. Here, there is an underlying question.
If you want to translate into Latin: “the pig sees what is growing in the fields,” I think the semantics is ambiguous and probably, as is the case in French and Spanish, does not fully determine which structure is used. I would guess that either structure is possible but that the subjunctive is probably more routine unless a special nuance is desired.
In short (to cut to the chase),
Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis means “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (KJV), not “Ye have seen what …”. Indirect statement, not indirect question. See my preceding posts.
My thinking is in line with Altair’s on this. Thank you Altair. mwh my opinion is that it be helpful to students if you fleshed out your thoughts a little more. You’re style seems a little terse.
At any rate, I agree that “vos ipsi” is an indirect question. But regarding “dixit praeterea”, if it is not an indirect question, why is it in the subjunctive would you say?
As to the question of whether video can introduce indirect discourse, Allen and Greenough explicitly include it in a list of verbs that can do so.
Allen and Greenough say:
A peculiar form of Substantive Clause consists of quod (in the sense of that, the fact that) with the Indicative.
The clause in the Indicative with quod is used when the statement is regarded as a fact:—
“alterum est vitium, quod quīdam nimis māgnum studium cōnferunt ” (Off. 1.19) , it is another fault that some bestow too much zeal, etc. [Here ut cōnferant could be used, meaning that some should bestow; or the accusative and infinitive, meaning to bestow (abstractly); quod makes it a fact that men do bestow, etc.]
They give many other examples but make no mention of the use of the subjunctive with this meaning.
I think Woodcock has a better treatment for the question at issue, saying in effect that in this use of quod, whether to use the indicative or subjunctive depends on whom the facts are attributed to. Two of his examples illustrate this well:
Bell. Hisp. 36 renuntiaverunt quod Pompeum in potestatem haberent. > ‘They reported that they had Pompey in their power.’
Here the writer remains neutral about the actual facts of Pompey’s condition and just reports another’s assertion. The emphasis is on what was reported, not on what the actual facts of Pompey’s condition were.
…Contrast Tac. > Ann> . iii, 54 > nemo refert quod Italia externae opis indiget. > ‘no one recalls that Italy needs supplies from abroad.’ Here the Indicative > indiget > records a fact, viewed apart from any observer or reporter
You could reverse these clauses to make the assertion even clearer in English: “Italy needs supplies from abroad. No one recalls this.” The emphasis is on the fact, not the recollection.
Apparently, as truks has already stated, this distinction between indicative and subjunctive broke down in later Latin.
Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis
By the time of the vulgate, the use of the subjunctive here may have been felt to be a simple rule, with little semantic implications. For speakers of early Latin, when this form of expression was fresh, what we perceive to be a main clause and a subordinate clause was probably felt to be more like two independent paratactic clauses. It is hard to render this distinction in English (although maybe not in German), but I will try for those it might help.
Early speakers may have felt the preceding quote to mean: “You saw that. Me having spoken from heaven. (And so should have drawn the right conclusions)(it’s not just what I say happened, but what you saw).” Although there are two clauses, there is only one assertion of fact. Together, they focus on the content of what was seen and let us see through the eyes of the viewer and ponder what thoughts the vision brought as it occurred.
*****> Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus > sum > vobis
For early speakers, this probably would mean: “You saw that. I spoke from heaven.” There are two facts that are asserted. The nuance is probably clearer if I reverse the order of the clauses: “I spoke from heaven, You saw that (and can’t dispute that it occurred).” Although the meaning is clear, the pragmatics are wrong. The fact of the speaking ends up being salient as the two facts are stated, whereas what we want is a focus on the fact of the perception and it’s content. We want to focus on what was seen, not on what happened to provide the perception.
With the subjunctive, we stay in the mind of the perceiver as the perception unfolds. We can see what registered in the mind of the perceiver and ponder the implications. With the indicative, we are sent by the tenses and moods to some indefinite time after the occurrence of two events and left to figure out what new state of things has come into being because of the events.
As Latin developed into at least some Romance languages, the force of quod increased to make what followed semantically subordinate, making the subjunctive unnecessary. In the Romance languages I am familiar with, the subjunctive would not be used to render the sentence under discussion. Modern English is at a similar stage, leaving many English speakers to feel that the Latin use of the subjunctive in this case is arbitrary. The key is to realize that quod does less than what we think it does and what follows has to stand on its own and clearly indicate if it is a separate assertion or merely an elaboration of someone elses’s perception.
Thank you for that Altair. Yes I now agree that quod is being used as a conjunction and not as an interrogative adj. in the verse “dixit praeterea”. Please pardon me if I’ve been stubborn. Likewise looking back I’m finally starting to understand a few of mwh’s earlier posts, which I think tend to be several levels beyond my beginner understanding. So pardon me mwh if you’ve suffered any abuse trying to assist. Likewise I had to edit an earlier post from May 15, 2023 1:44 pm changing quid to quod, so please pardon me there as well, I ask for your ongoing patience. But I assure you that this discussion has been helpful to me. I wish that Latin were as clear as Greek, but this is not really the case, is it?
At any rate, the consensus here seems to be that
Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22
Uses quod as a conjunction and that locutus sim is in the subjunctive because this is an example of an indirect statement. Correct? The trouble we seem to be having is that Classical Latin typically uses an infinitive construction for indirect statement, and that our grammar books do not really discuss an indirect statement with subjunctive verb in the way that we’re seeing it here. Correct? We’ve got Woodcock #35, which I was able to access, but the subjunctive with quod is not really discussed there in very great detail, or in a way I could grasp it well. A&G #438, which gives a list of uses of the subjunctive, mentions indirect question, but not indirect statement. Correct?
Here’s what I found when I looked up the conjunction quod in the dictionary:
quod > (originally acc. n. of qui), relat. conjunction
…(2) introducing a clause in a more general relation to a sentence; > the fact that, the point that> … (usually with the indicative unless the author rejects the reason given, or puts it into the > mouth of another> )-Cassell’s
So this implies that quod as a conjunction can begin a clause which either uses an indicative or a subjunctive verb, no? Depending on the author’s intent.
Here’s what A&G says about the conjunction quod.
“> 539> …> Quod > is in origin the relative pronoun (stem > quo> -) used adverbially in the accusative neuter and gradually sinking to the position of a colorless relative conjunction (cf. English > that> ). Its use as a > causal particle > is an early special development”- A&G
“> 572> . A peculiar form of Substantive Clause consists of > quod > (in the sense of > that, the fact that> ) with the Indicative. The clause in the Indicative with > quod > is used when the statement is > regarded as a fact> .” -A&G
Informal Indirect Discourse
592> . A Subordinate Clause takes the Subjunctive when it expresses the thought (or speech) of some other person than the writer or speaker:
…3. When a > reason > or an > explanatory fact > is introduced by a relative or by > quod > - A&G
I think 592 is the most pertinent to us. That our verse “Dixit praeterea” might be an example of “informal indirect discourse”, and applies the subjunctive because the speaker is different than the author. Furthermore it seems that quod is similar to the other conjunctions si and cum in that they can either be followed with a clause in the indicative or subjunctive depending upon the author’s intent.
What would you say for this one?
Totus autem mons Sinai fumabat, eo quod > descendisset > Dominus super eum in igne: et > ascenderet > fumus ex eo quasi de fornace, eratque omnis mons terribilis.- V. Ex. 19.18
And all mount Sinai was on a smoke: because the Lord was come down upon it in fire, and the smoke arose from it as out of a furnace: and all the mount was terrible.- DR
eo quod “because” is to be distinguished from quod introducing indirect statement. They’re probably best approached separately. eo quod is regularly used with subjunctive In the vulgate (at least in Exodus, I haven’t investigated beyond that), so I doubt that any special significance is to be attached to it.
As to tense, fumabat puts the subordinate verbs into secondary sequence (imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive). Here the Lord had come down (plupf.) and the smoke was going up (impf.).
Thank you. I didn’t find much trying to look up eo quod in the dictionary or grammar. I’m approaching it more or less as a conjunction, perhaps similar to cum causal?
Have you seen eo quod used with indicative?
eo quod is in the Oxford Latin Dictionary (much the best Latin dictionary) under quod 2, but more relevant is 11 on quod “because.” But be warned that that dictionary, like most other Latin dictionaries and grammars, deals primarily with early and classical Latin and not with post-classical Latin such as the Vulgate, where the subjunctive has undergone what we might call mission creep, so that some constructions which in classical times would have the indicative, including eo quod and quod itself, are now more likely to use subjunctive without the earlier semantic differentiation of mood.
As I mentioned, all the instances of eo quod in the Vulgate of Exodus—unless I’ve missed some—use subjunctive (present/perfect or imperfect/pluperfect according to sequence). But it would not surprise me if the indicative were also used on occasion, with or without significance.