We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
8

Quam here is being used as a normal relative, and could not be replaced with illam, since the relative clause quam non invenit umquam is the accusative subject of the verb esse in the accusative and infinitive construction introduced by putat in the main clause. A literal translation is: "[the one] whom (quam) he does not find anywhere, he believes to be ...


6

Well, it is a simple answer to the question itself...ubi is not a relative pronoun, even if it is sometimes used as one. Ergo, it is always safe to simply use in quo, as, when translated idiomatically into English, simply means 'where'. However, I believe the question you are asking is more akin to whether you can use ubi and in quo interchangeably. As far ...


6

The relative pronoun can also be used to start a new independent clause, and in this use it doesn't really function as a relative pronoun in the usual sense. This is sometimes known as a connecting or connective relative pronoun, and is often best translated as if it was is, ille, or similar. The same applies to relative adverbs like quo as well. See part F ...


5

Yes, the construction is the same whether the relative is modifying a noun (relative adjective) or not (relative pronoun). The latter type is more frequent, but there are examples of the former, e.g. this from Smyth: ὥστ᾽ ἀποφύγοις ἂν ἥντιν᾽ ἂν βούλῃ δίκην "so that you can get off in any suit you please” (Ar. Nub. 1151)


5

Hmm. I find your analysis elegant and alluring, but I wonder whether it's simpler than that—could it be working from two slightly different senses of vetāre? You're far more versed in the lexicon here than I am, so I'm really just offering this as something that occurs to me in case it didn't occur to you, not as any kind of authoritative answer. Could it ...


5

I'll just add one possible exception to @C. M. Weimer's excellent answer. In "A Note on Subordinate Clauses in Oratio Obliqua," The Classical Review, 1931, E.T. Salmon suggests that the rule . . . that the future perfect indicative in the protasis of a conditional sentence becomes the perfect subjunctive when transferred to Oratio Obliqua in primary ...


5

First things first, the eum in your sentence is unnecessary. In fact, using it places emphasis on the person you would be receiving: Whoever comes to us, him we will receive. The feeling that this gives off is that there is a question about whom you will receive, and so the answer is "whoever comes to us." Second, grammatically your sentence is a future ...


4

The adjective contentus (satisfied, content) can be modified with ablative. For example, viro contentus means "satisfied with a/the man". In your case the attribute has two words: unus vir (uno viro in ablative). Therefore I would translate like this: Uxor, quae bona est, uno viro est contenta. A wife, who is good, is satisfied with one man. I added ...


4

If I may play the role of arbiter between sumelic and Alex B: For a question like this it is much better to adduce citations from classical authors rather than quote a plethory of pedagogical grammars (to say nothing of Wikipedia). If Neue apud Alex B is right, the acc. sing. fem. of the interrogative pronoun occurs as quem exactly once, namely in the cited ...


4

Partial answer. I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give quem as the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the ...


4

answer in progress - I encourage you to make comments or edits, or add examples - My hypothesis (to be tested) Interrogative pronoun (ACC. FEM.SG): quem Interrogative determiner/adjective (ACC. FEM.SG): quam (quem is attested only once in Plautus, see the quote from Neue at al. below) Relative pronoun (ACC. FEM.SG): quam "The common form ...


4

This is an adverbial use of the relative and has its own entry in LSJ. It's used in comparative clauses, for example. LSJ: ᾗ, dat. sg. fem. of relat. Pron. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ, in adverb. sense ... II. of Manner, how, as. Smyth (§2463): Comparative clauses of quality or manner are introduced by ὡς as, ὥσπερ, καθάπερ just as, ὅπως, ᾗ, ὅπῃ, ᾗπερ as


4

Two ways: By agreement in gender and number—but not case, since the pronoun's case in the subordinate clause may differ from that of its antecedent in the parent clause. By sense—that is, by what interpretation makes sense in context. You're running into trouble, though, because qui in that sentence has no antecedent. It refers to the as yet unnamed ...


3

Descriptively speaking, relative clauses can be classified into two types depending on having an external antecedent or not (e.g., please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause ): cf. so-called "bound relative clauses" and so-called "free relative clauses", respectively. The former are the "typical" ones, which, as you point out, have an ...


3

It seems to me that there's a strong reason to take quod non potuere vetare with the following line, namely, that their parents could and did forbid it! The whole point of the story is that their parents forbade the marriage, which is why it all ends in tears. It would be strange to say "They would have got married, but they didn't, because their parents ...


3

In this case, it is a normal relative use of qui, but with the antecedent (like [eam] quam) included in the relative pronoun. You could translate it literally as "but he thinks [her] whom he does not find anywhere to be nowhere", relative clause in italics. Although it doesn't apply here, using qui as a demonstrative/personal pronoun is not uncommon. The ...


2

I suspect one of the things that's throwing you off is the word order: it would have been much easier if the sentence had been uxor quae bona est contenta est ūnō uirō. However, that order feels sort of strange. The thing to remember is that Latin word order is very flexible (though not infinitely flexible), and often words that appear right next to each ...


1

The problem, here, may be one of flow. The separation of the "sed" & "quod" clauses works: hard truth: (another) hard truth; it's punchy, driving the story forward; consequently, the "quod" clause flows into the next line: they-could-not-forbid-(therefore)-both-burned.. Your own translation: "but the parents forbade what they could not forbid.", sounds ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible