OK, so maybe it’s late and maybe it’s been a long day but whilst enjoying some of my favourite pastime of late I’ve run up against this. On page 23 of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (LLPSI), Pars 1, Familia Romana, at L80. ‘Puer quem Iulius audit est Marcus.’.
So, I understand that we’re learning about relative pronouns here. My understanding is that, the case of the pronoun ‘quem’ is in agreement with the direct object of the verb.
Am I correct to take Iulius to be the subject and Marcus the direct object of the verb, ‘audit’. I’m at a loss as to why it’s not ‘Marcum’?
I’d be grateful for any help here. Indeed, I’m using LLPSI as these excellent books were recommended to me in a response to a previous post.
I think a clue to why it’s “Marcus” and not “Marcum” is to consider that the relative clause functions as a modifier of its antecedent, “puer”, i.e. the whole relative clause just gives you more info about the puer. But if you take the relative clause out of the sentence and simplify it that way, it becomes “Puer quem Iulius audit est Marcus.” So you’re left with just “Puer est Marcus.” Then it seems clearer (to me at least) why it’s “Marcus” and not “Marcum”…“Marcus” is just a predicate noun, which takes the same case as the subject, nominative for both.
The actual direct object of “audit” is the relative pronoun “quem” which needs to take its proper case from its function inside the relative clause, where it is the object of the verb “audit”. Since it’s the object, it’s in the accusative case.
I’m going to put it down to being tired and hungry but I now realise that I was thinking of ‘quem’ as an adjective rather than a pronoun… feel a bit silly now. Never mind, onwards and upwards.
There are two rules you have to follow in understanding relative clauses.
First the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent in gender and number. Secondly the case of the relative pronoun is determined by its function in it’s own clause.
So in this sentence Puer is the antecedent to which the relative points. Therefore the relative has to be singular and masculine. In the relative clause “quem Iūlius audit” Iūlius is the subject of the verb audit, so the relative clause has to be in the accusative case as the object of the verb, hence “quem”.
If you remember the two rules you are less likely to go wrong in future.
unanimus wrote:
‘Puer quem Iulius audit est Marcus.’
There are two rules you have to follow in understanding relative clauses.
First the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent in gender and number. Secondly the case of the relative pronoun is determined by its function in it’s own clause.
So in this sentence Puer is the antecedent to which the relative points. Therefore the relative has to be singular and masculine. In the relative clause “quem Iūlius audit” Iūlius is the subject of the verb audit, so the relative clause has to be in the accusative case as the object of the verb, hence “quem”.
If you remember the two rules you are less likely to go wrong in future.
Of course "so the relative clause has to be in the accusative case as the object of the verb, hence “quem”. " should read
"so the relative pronoun has to be in the accusative case as the object of the verb, hence “quem”.
Apologies for this. I am unable to correct my original post, so I will repeat it.
There are two rules you have to follow in understanding relative clauses.
First the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent in gender and number. Secondly the case of the relative pronoun is determined by its function in it’s own clause.
So in this sentence Puer is the antecedent to which the relative points. Therefore the relative has to be singular and masculine. In the relative clause “quem Iūlius audit” Iūlius is the subject of the verb audit, so the relative pronoun has to be in the accusative case as the object of the verb, hence “quem”.
If you remember the two rules you are less likely to go wrong in future.
(I have edited and reposted my original post as explained in my immediately preceding post).