Understood, thank you. What about this one?
Placatusque est Dominus ne > faceret > malum quod locutus fuerat adversus populum suum.-V. Ex. 32.14
And the Lord was appeased from doing the evil which he had spoken against his people.- DR
Well, what about it? You keep asking questions, and I keep answering them, but I’m not sure we are making any progress. You should be able to understand the use of the imperfect subjunctive here on the basis of what I have told you.
I’m just getting more practice, you don’t have to respond if you don’t want to. If I run into a verse that I struggle with then I would like to bring it up even if it’s obvious to you. And I’m happy with my progress so far, thank you for your concern.
The problem with
Placatusque est Dominus ne > faceret > malum quod locutus fuerat adversus populum suum.-V. Ex. 32.14
is that I see a negative result clause in ne faceret malum, however my grammar (AG 537 a.) says that ne is used only in a negative purpose clause and that ut non is used for negative result. So is this another example of how the Vulgate is lax on the classical rules, or no?
I wouldn’t say lax so much as different. The linguistic conventions have shifted, quite drastically, and A&G is not at all a good guide to the latinity of the Vulgate. And in Ex.32.14, where placatus is followed by a ne clause, we have something that even by the standards of the Vulgate is unusual.
But ne faceret malum can hardly be a result clause, as you want it to be. ut non was available for that (e.g. 5.9, 8.22).
But it can hardly be an ordinary purpose clause either, and subordinate clauses with ne do tend to have wider application. I noted an instance after reputans in my first post in this thread. That was readily intelligible as tantamount to a clause of fearing. (Similarly at 26.7.)
This instance at 32.14 is different again. To understand it we must consider the prayer that leads up to it: quiescat ira tua et esto placabilis (32.12). Read in that context, the Lord’s prompt and forgiving response makes good sense: placatusque est Dominus ne faceret malum quod locutus fuerat adversus populum suum.
Thank you, that is very helpful. Ex. 32.14 makes better sense now.
Would you recommend a more fitting grammar for the Vulgate?
There’s J.Herman’s Le latin vulgaire and V.Väänänen’s Introduction au latin vulgaire; wider coverage in the three-volume Lateinische Grammatik by M.Leumann and others. I expect there’s work specifically on the Latin Vulgate but I don’t know; it’s not my field. truks may know more.
In sampling the Vulgate I’ve been struck by its linguistic consistency: strict observation of sequence of tenses, multiple run-on relative clauses (some of them ungrammatical by classical standards), extensive classical use of the future perfect, etc.etc.
Unfortunately, it’s not my field either. But just to add to what mwh has already said – since OP originally took this to be a negative result clause and will come upon more of them – there’s a tendency as time goes on for ne to replace non in negated result clauses. Pinkster touches on this in vol. 1, § 7.153. Matthias, if you don’t have access, let me know.
Thank you, I’ve just purchased Herman’s book, and it will arrive in a week or so.
Here’s one which seems fairly simple:
Si ergo inveni gratiam in conspectu tuo, ostende mihi faciem tuam, ut sciam te, et inveniam gratiam ante oculos tuos: respice populum tuum gentem hanc. -V. Ex. 33.13
If therefore I have found favour in thy sight, shew me thy face, that I may know thee, and may find grace before thy eyes: look upon thy people this nation. -DR
But I’m wondering if we could distinguish between result and purpose here. What do you think?
It’s definitely to be understood as a purpose clause. If it were meant as a result clause that would be made clear, probably by adding ita before the ut (cf. e.g. 4.3, 8.32, 21.19, 26.5). I commented similarly in my first post in this thread on Imple gomor ex eo … ut noverint panem, and there are many other instances.
Ok, thank you. I also found a nice article in Wheelock’s (6th edition pg. 196) describing the distinction. mwh I’m amazed at how well you can cite Exodus! Do you have a Vulgate concordance?
No, I just used a plain text I found online (https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Vulgate/)—unpunctuated, the way it ought to be. It’s easy to read, since the text effectively articulates itself.
My plan is to skip the segments on the Law tables, so this about does it for the book of Exodus. I hope to start a new thread soon skipping Leviticus and beginning midway through Numbers. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread and to my understanding of this marvelous language.