Timeline for Using subjunctive in relative clause linked to indirect command
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:26 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 12, 2017 at 6:52 | comment | added | ktm5124 | I wonder if it's a lapse by the textbook author? I'm assuming that this is a textbook composition exercise. | |
| Mar 12, 2017 at 2:55 | comment | added | cmw♦ | @TKR At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a flurry of activity relating to attraction. That might be the best bet to search for examples. I don't have time for that at the moment, but it certainly would be my first bet to search the literature to see what they all had to say about it. I might very well be wrong here. | |
| Mar 12, 2017 at 1:36 | comment | added | TKR | It's a difficult thing to search for, but it isn't at all clear to me that the subjunctive is possible here -- I can't find any examples in either G&L or A&G where a relative clause modifying a noun that isn't syntactically part of an indirect construction takes a subjunctive because of an indirect construction that follows later, which would be the case here. | |
| Mar 12, 2017 at 0:24 | comment | added | cmw♦ | @TKR I guess it depends on how dependent the actions of walking were to the choosing and soldier's life. It's difficult to tease that out of sample sentences. If it truly was only an aside, I'd say it'd be difficult to see even attraction taking place, but it's possible---so we'd be in agreement. | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 23:17 | comment | added | TKR | I wouldn't say the relative clause is part of the indirect command here at all -- it's modifying militi, but the indirect command begins with ut. Indicative seems to me to be the only option, as in the G&L examples involving "explanations of the narrator". | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 21:29 | comment | added | cmw♦ | @Cataline Last time! Found an indicative for ya. | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 21:28 | history | edited | cmw♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 599 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2017 at 21:03 | history | edited | cmw♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 459 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:52 | comment | added | cmw♦ | @Cataline The tenses follow secondary sequence, and therefore take the imperfect subjunctive since the main verb is a perfect with a past tense aspect (I ordered v. I have ordered). | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:51 | history | edited | cmw♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 212 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:48 | vote | accept | Cataline | ||
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:33 | comment | added | Cataline | Thanks for the response. I meant indirect object in that the object of 'imperare' will be in the dative case. I would have gone about it by saying 'militi imperavi, qui in horto ambulabat/ambularet, ut flores colligeret'. In addition, is there a grammatical reson for the choice of tenses or is that a question of style? | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:31 | history | edited | cmw♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2017 at 20:23 | history | answered | cmw♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |