De Bello Gallico

[Pacifica]

Thank you, here I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to imply [veritus],

No. For one thing veritus wouldn't agree with Caesari. (It could possibly start a new sentence with est implied but that doesn't seem to be what you had in mind.) If you made it dative, then it would work grammatically, but it's unnecessary and is not implied. The ne clauses just loosely explain what the "difficulty" is.

and whether deficeret is in the imperfect subjunctive because it is in the apodosis of a future conditional in past tense, or for another reason.

There is a conditional here, but deficeret is subjunctive because it depends on ne, which takes the subjunctive.

but it seems to relate to the future, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why it would be in the imperfect subjunctive.

It's indirect speech.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, would you be able to explain why [veritus] would have to agree with Caesari instead of contineret? And then also unfortunately I don't see how the verb videretur is within indirect speech. It appears to me that videretur is the verb which governs the indirect speech: [quod videretur] nullum amicis in eo praesidium positum esse- "Since it would seem [to all] that no protection was set for his friends". But now I realize that I also don't know what in eo is doing (in Gaul?).

There is a conditional here, but deficeret is subjunctive because it depends on ne, which takes the subjunctive.

I'm not sure I know what the conditional is. If the ne clause is not the apodosis, I don't see what it would be.

 

[Dantius]

Thank you, would you be able to explain why [veritus] would have to agree with Caesari instead of contineret?

It could agree with the subject of contineret in theory, but that would require the ne clause to be a subordinate clause within the contineret clause (i.e. "if Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]"; the translation you posted and the other questions you've asked indicate that you are aware that that's not the relationship between the clauses.

And then also unfortunately I don't see how the verb videretur is within indirect speech. It appears to me that videretur is the verb which governs the indirect speech: [quod videretur] nullum amicis in eo praesidium positum esse- "Since it would seem [to all] that no protection was set for his friends". But now I realize that I also don't know what in eo is doing (in Gaul?).

videretur introduces a nominative+infinitive phrase (nullum praesidium positum esse), but the whole quod clause is also a sort of indirect speech in that it's representing the thoughts of cuncta Gallia as to why it might deficere. in eo = in Caesare; the point is that if the Aedui are defeated, Gaul would abandon the Romans "because it seemed that there was no protection placed in Caesar for his friends"; i.e. Caesar couldn't or wouldn't do anything to help his friends.

I'm not sure I know what the conditional is. If the ne clause is not the apodosis, I don't see what it would be.

You can say that the ne clause is the apodosis, though it's somewhat loosely constructed (he could've said ne, si x, y to make it clear that the si clause is subordinate to the ne clause, but he's kind of operating in between "Caesar was having a hard time coming up with a plan, lest, if he did [x], [y] would happen" vs. "If Caesar did [x], that was going to give him great difficulty in avoiding [y]"); Pacifica's point is just that rules about conditional statements can't be the reason that deficeret is subjunctive; a ne clause would require the imperfect subjunctive no matter what.

 

[Quaeso]

It could agree with the subject of contineret in theory, but that would require the ne clause to be a subordinate clause within the contineret clause (i.e. "if Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]"; the translation you posted and the other questions you've asked indicate that you are aware that that's not the relationship between the clauses.

Actually, I'm not aware of that. I still think that "if Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]" is how the conditional is operating.

I thought that I understood this at first, but now I'm afraid that I am quite lost here. Perhaps an overall walkthrough of these verses and which grammatical principles are being used would be helpful.

 

[Dantius]

I still think that "if Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]"

It's the exact opposite. It's not that he would keep his legions in one place out of fear of x (which would mean that keeping his legions in one place would prevent x); in fact, he's afraid that x would happen if he kept his legions in one place.

The point of the sentence is: "Caesar had great difficulty in figuring out what to do, lest Gaul go into revolt if he kept his legions in one place for the winter."

 

[Dantius]

Caesar's issue is that the normal thing to do during the winter is to keep your legions in one place, since moving around during the winter is hard, but in Caesar's case keeping his legions in one place might cause him big problems, so he's not sure what to do.

 

[Dantius]

Actually, I'm not aware of that. I still think that "if Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]" is how the conditional is operating.

To be clear, the reason why I said you seemed to be aware of that is because you said that the ne clause seems to be the apodosis of the conditional. That is completely incompatible with interpreting it as "If Caesar kept his legions in one place out of fear that [x would happen]," which would make the ne clause a subordinate clause within the conditional.

Basically if we remove the si clause entirely, the main structure of the sentence is: Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat, ne cuncta Gallia deficeret. As Pacifica pointed out, the ne clause "loosely explains what the 'difficulty' is." It's basically telling you what outcome Caesar is trying (with difficulty) to avoid. "This situation gave Caesar great difficulty in coming up with a plan, lest all of Gaul revolt." The si clause has nothing to do with explaining the grammatical function of anything in that part of the sentence.

Now we can add in the si clause. One way to interpret it is as logically a subordinate part of the ne clause (i.e. "This situation gave Caesar great difficulty in coming up with a plan, lest, if he kept his legions in one place, all of Gaul revolt."). This would make it a pretty standard "future" conditional within reported thoughts (it's not an indirect statement, but the principle is the same; we're reporting Caesar's worries about what might happen if x happens).

You could also interpret it as a subordinate clause directly dependent on the main clause: "If Caesar were to keep his legions in one place, this situation was bringing Caesar great difficulty." Here it is the sort of future conditional retrojected into the past that we see in the first two examples of A&G §516 f.

My guess is that if you were to resurrect Caesar and ask him which it was, he wouldn't be able to answer; the meaning is basically the same either way, and it's a slightly loosely constructed sentence.

 

[Quaeso]

Oh yes, I see that the customary thing to do would be for Caesar to emcamp his legions through the winter. But since the enemy attacked an allied town, he was in a dilemma whether to assist them and risk his legions, or to abstain by staying put and risk losing any allies he had remaining in Gaul.

Thank you for your explanations, but I'm still missing some things I'm afraid.

ne stipendiariis Aeduorum expugnatis cuncta Gallia deficeret

Would you say this is negative purpose clause, then?

 

[Pacifica]

You could say it's something like a negative purpose clause, or something like a fear clause. Maybe a bit more like the latter, but the two are very close concepts. In any case, it's a substantive clause explaining what the "difficulty" is, what Caesar wanted to avoid.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, so assuming that it is indeed a substantive clause, what would be the verb which governs it?

 

[Pacifica]

There isn't one, really. These clauses are just loosely describing what the difficultas is.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, I can't recall having seen a substantive clause without a governing verb. What clues are you using to infer that the clause is related to difficultas? Also if possible, I would like to know what you think is the conditional here.

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, I can't recall having seen a substantive clause without a governing verb.

A substantive clause can also describe a noun (or a pronoun).

What clues are you using to infer that the clause is related to difficultas?

The meaning of the whole thing.

Also if possible, I would like to know what you think is the conditional here.

I agree with what Dantius said about it.

 

[Quaeso]

I'm not sure I know what the conditional is. If the ne clause is not the apodosis, I don't see what it would be.

You can say that the ne clause is the apodosis, though it's somewhat loosely constructed (he could've said ne, si x, y to make it clear that the si clause is subordinate to the ne clause, but he's kind of operating in between "Caesar was having a hard time coming up with a plan, lest, if he did [x], [y] would happen" vs. "If Caesar did [x], that was going to give him great difficulty in avoiding [y]"); Pacifica's point is just that rules about conditional statements can't be the reason that deficeret is subjunctive; a ne clause would require the imperfect subjunctive no matter what.

I'm sorry, I'm about ready to move on to the next question. I can't tell if I'm frustrating you, but in the event you are still interested, I have to say that I'm unable to understand this paragraph from Dantius.

 

[Pacifica]

What Dantius means is this:

If Caesar had written his sentence as follows:

Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat, ne, si reliquam partem hiemis uno loco legiones contineret, ... cuncta Gallia deficeret

Then si... contineret would totally be a protasis to cuncta Gallia deficeret. It couldn't be otherwise, since the si clause would be within the ne clause. The meaning would then be "... a great difficulty [involving a risk] that, if he kept his legions in one place for the rest of the winter, the whole of Gaul would revolt..."

But Caesar actually wrote his sentence like this, with the si clauses outside the ne clauses:

Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat, si reliquam partem hiemis uno loco legiones contineret, ne ... cuncta Gallia deficeret; si maturius ex hibernis educeret, ne ab re frumentaria ... laboraret

So the grammatical connection between the si clauses and the content of ne clauses isn't so strong. You could still say that the si clauses are the protases of what's in the ne clauses, perhaps, but in a loose kind of way. The meaning is more like "... a great difficulty, [and this difficulty would,] if he kept his legions in one place for the rest of the winter, [consist in a risk] that the whole of Gaul would revolt; [and] if he led them out of winter quarters too soon, [it would consist in a risk] that he would have trouble getting provisions"

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you both for you patience. I do understand more or less now the paragraph from Dantius, although sadly I'm still somewhat unresolved. I think that several things are contributing to my own difficulties here: Firstly conditionals remain somewhat mysterious to me and seem to present a few problems which I wasn't able to resolve earlier in the thread. Also, I would like a more precise category for the ne clauses than simply a loose apodosis (which I don't know what that means really), or whether it be a purpose clause, or perhaps a fear clause, or some combination of these. So I would like to accept what you both agree upon, but struggling because it seems inconsistent with my limited Latin knowledge and desire for something more precise. I've read these posts several times over but some of these things may take awhile to sink in.

I do however think now that the quod...esse clause is within informal indirect speech (592), I hadn't realized that such a clause could exist without a "governing verb". So since it is in secondary sequence, the only two options would be either pluperfect sub. or imperfect sub., correct?

If I could rephrase the question from #280 it would be whether I could imply [veriturus erat] or [vereretur] to make it a proper future conditonal in past time with the ne clause simply a substantive depending upon [veriturus erat]. But I'm guessing that you've considered and rejected something like that already.

One thing else I would like to suggest, and I say this hesistantly, since I don't want to seem like I am disregarding your previous posts: Has anyone considered that the ne clauses are optative or even jussive? I realize also that this is sort of a barrage of issues, but unfortunately I have limited internet access currently so I'm only able to write a single message every few days. Anyway please know that I very much appreciate your input.

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you both for you patience. I do understand more or less now the paragraph from Dantius, although sadly I'm still somewhat unresolved. I think that several things are contributing to my own difficulties here: Firstly conditionals remain somewhat mysterious to me and seem to present a few problems which I wasn't able to resolve earlier in the thread. Also, I would like a more precise category for the ne clauses than simply a loose apodosis (which I don't know what that means really), or whether it be a purpose clause, or perhaps a fear clause, or some combination of these. So I would like to accept what you both agree upon, but struggling because it seems inconsistent with my limited Latin knowledge and desire for something more precise. I've read these posts several times over but some of these things may take awhile to sink in.

The thing is that language doesn't always fall into clear-cut categories. I would say that sometimes (or even often), it's OK to just know what something means and how it works; you don't necessarily need a label for it. But maybe the problem here is that you still don't quite get "how it works"?

So since it is in secondary sequence, the only two options would be either pluperfect sub. or imperfect sub., correct?

Yes.

If I could rephrase the question from #280 it would be whether I could imply [veriturus erat] or [vereretur] to make it a proper future conditonal in past time with the ne clause simply a substantive depending upon [veriturus erat]. But I'm guessing that you've considered and rejected something like that already.

Indeed, there is no verb implied. Also note that, if you wanted to split the sentence and make the ne clauses dependent on the verb vereor, that verb would most likely be either in the perfect or imperfect indicative (to mean "he feared that..."). Veriturus erat ("he was going to fear...") would be unlikely in context, and the imperfect subjunctive wouldn't make much sense.

Has anyone considered that the ne clauses are optative or even jussive?

I haven't considered it, and they aren't.

 

[Quaeso]

But maybe the problem here is that you still don't quite get "how it works"?

Yes, I think that is fair to say.

Indeed, there is no verb implied. Also note that, if you wanted to split the sentence and make the ne clauses dependent on the verb vereor, that verb would most likely be either in the perfect or imperfect indicative (to mean "he feared that..."). I guess the pluperfect would still be possible although a little strange ("he had feared that..."). But the imperfect subjunctive wouldn't make much sense.

The idea that I had there was that if he contained his legions, then afterward he would then fear the defection of Gaul as a consequence. And, of course, I'm wondering why not the optative?

 

[Pacifica]

The idea that I had there was that if he contained his legions, then afterward he would then fear the defection of Gaul as a consequence.

Sorry, I had misread your veriturus erat as veritus erat (pluperfect). I've since edited my post. Veriturus erat is unlikely because, while what you say (that the fear would occur later) is theoretically possible, it's more natural in the context for the fear to be already there (Caesar was afraid of these things already).

And, of course, I'm wondering why not the optative?

For that to make sense in the context, you'd need some sort of wishing word to be present, like "'Caesar wished that...". Caesar can't just be stating a wish in direct speech now, from the point of view of the time of writing, like "Let that not have been going to happen!" That simply makes no sense.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, I'll have to think some more about the optative later.

A substantive clause can also describe a noun (or a pronoun).

What I'm wondering here is that if ne...deficeret would be a substantive clause describing the noun difficultatem, why would it be in the negative, ne instead of ut? Since it is in the negative, it would seem to say that the difficulty was that Gaul would not defect in the event of the legions being contained. And furthermore, why not simply a relative pronoun?