'alterum... alterum' modifying noun clauses?

[Quercus]

Hi there. I cannot quite grasp the syntactic function of alterum [...] alterum (usually one [...] the other as masculine singular accusative adjectives) in this passage by Cicero (De natura deorum, 1.5):

"[O]piniones [de natura deorum] cum tam variae sint tamque inter se dissidentes, alterum fieri profecto potest ut earum nulla, alterum certe non potest ut plus unā vera sit." H. Rackham's translation for the Loeb edition: "[T]he views entertained are so various and so discrepant, that, while it is no doubt a possible alternative that none of them is true, it is certainly impossible that more than one should be so."

Since alterum cannot be an adverb, just an adjective, at least according to the dictionaries I've looked up, the only reading I can possibly gather is that the two ocurrences of alterum modify their respective noun clauses (both introduced by ut). To put it in an easier order: "alterum [?] ut nulla earum [opinionum] [vera sit] profecto fieri potest, alterum [?] ut plus unā vera sit certe non [fieri] potest". But I would still find this rather bizarre. In all the modern languages I know to a certain degree (English and the four major Romance languages) an adjective cannot possibly modify a noun clause, so that a quasi-literal English translation would perforce have to leave out alterum [...] alterum (one [...] the other): "That none of them is true may evidenly happen, [and] that more than one is true may certainy not." For it would of course be inconceivable to add one before the first that and the other before the second — and the same goes for the Romance languages. If Latin enjoys that syntactic possibility of an adjective modifying a noun clause, are there any other examples? Or I just got the sentence flat-out wrong?

A secondary question, if you don't mind too awfully much. Another weird thing that seems to be going on there is that the first ut is, or so it looks to me, a merging of the ut conjuction introducing a consequence clause (in consequence of "tam variae [...] tamque inter se dissidentes") with the ut conjunction introducing the noun clause. At least this weirdness, unlike the other one, I can wrap my head around. Anyway, is this really what's happening?

Thank you.

 

[Pacifica]

the only reading I can possibly gather is that the two ocurrences of alterum modify their respective noun clauses (both introduced by ut).

That's right.

In all the modern languages I know to a certain degree (English and the four major Romance languages) an adjective cannot possibly modify a noun clause, so that a quasi-literal English translation would perforce have to leave out alterum [...] alterum (one [...] the other): "

Alterum is arguably more of a pronoun here. It's possible, if somewhat clunky, to say in English "the one thing is possible: that etc.; the other is not: that etc."

A secondary question, if you don't mind too awfully much. Another weird thing that seems to be going on there is that the first ut is, or so it looks to me, a merging of the ut conjuction introducing a consequence clause (in consequence of "tam variae [...] tamque inter se dissidentes") with the ut conjunction introducing the noun clause. At least this weirdness, unlike the other one, I can wrap my head around. Anyway, is this really what's happening?

It only introduces a noun clause. It isn't correlative to the quams (Cicero isn't saying "the views are so various that none of them is true etc."; he is saying "since the views are so various, it is possible that none of them is true etc.").

 

[Pacifica]

It only introduces a noun clause. It isn't correlative to the quams (Cicero isn't saying "the views are so various that none of them is true etc."; he is saying "since the views are so various, it is possible that none of them is true etc.").

(I see you were misled by the translation, which isn't literal.)

 

[Quercus]

Thank you very much, Pacifica.

It's possible, if somewhat clunky, to say in English "the one thing is possible: that etc.; the other is not: that etc."

Indeed. But still that doesn't make me squeeze my brains out like the original does. Do you happen to know any other case, in Latin, of an adjective (or adjective pronoun?) directly modifying a noun clause?

(I see you were misled by the translation, which isn't literal.)

Yes, for sure. (For a second I overlooked the conjunction cum.)

 

[Pacifica]

Do you happen to know any other case, in Latin, of an adjective (or adjective pronoun?) directly modifying a noun clause?

It would probably be more accurate to say that it anticipates (rather than directly modifies) it. There are loads of examples of this; the most frequent pronouns used that way are the demonstratives id, illud, etc. Here are two random examples, one with illud and the other with alterum again; you can certainly find more by looking up the relevant adjective-pronouns in a good dictionary, or by searching for key words on PHI (the site in these links):

Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Iure Civ. in Artem Redig. 63.1 (packhum.org)
Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Iure Civ. in Artem Redig. 2.20.1.1 (packhum.org)

 

[Pacifica]

Perhaps it can help to think of this:

A similar kind of thing happens in English with the pronoun "it". Take a sentence like "it's possible that they're right": "it" only anticipates "that they're right".

Now Latin does this with a greater variety of words and the Latin constructions thus produced convey a precise meaning or emphasis whereas the English "it" is just a dummy pronoun required by grammar. For instance, illud interest, ut vincamus isn't only "it matters that we should win" but "that matters, (namely) that we should win" = "what matters is that we should win", "the important thing is that we should win."