De Bello Gallico

[CMatthiasT88]

Conclamant Aedui et Litaviccum obsecrant ut sibi consulat. "Quasi vero," inquit ille, "consili sit res, ac non necesse sit nobis Gergoviam contendere et cum Arvernis nosmet coniungere. Dbg 7,38

The Aedui shouted with one accord and entreated Litaviccus to take counsel for their safety. "As if," quoth he, "this were a matter of counsel, and it were not necessary for us to make speed to Gergovia and join ourselves to the Arverni!

Thank you. Dr. Greenough says that Quasi...coniungere is a conditional clause of comparison. However I'm struggling to see how this type of thing is a conditional statement at all. The grammar says that the apodosis is contained within the particle quasi, but I'm not sure how this. And apparently the protasis here takes a future less vivid form. This is all a bit complicated in my mind, so I was hoping you could tell me how you understand this.

 

[Pacifica]

However I'm struggling to see how this type of thing is a conditional statement at all.

Quasi indeed has si in it, and it means "as if", which likewise has "if" in it.

The grammar says that the apodosis is contained within the particle quasi, but I'm not sure how this.

I'm not sure it would have occurred to me to put it that way, but I guess it's a bit like that. In a "simple" conditional statement you have a protasis and an apodosis: "if X happens, Y happens". But in a phrase like "as if Y were the case", there's no full "X" part; there's just the "as" idea, which is short for an apodosis like "as would be the case".

And apparently the protasis here takes a future less vivid form.

Quasi takes the subjunctive because it doesn't introduce a fact (it says "as if this were the case", not "this is the case").

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Conditional Clauses of Comparison.

307. 1. Conditional Clauses of Comparison are introduced by the particles, ac sī, ut sī, quasi, quam sī, tamquam sī, velut sī, or simply by velut or tamquam. They stand in the Subjunctive mood and regularly involve an ellipsis (see § 374, 1), as indicated in the following examples:—

tantus patrēs metus cēpit, velut sī jam ad portās hostis esset, as great fear seized the senators as (would have seized them) if the enemy were already at the gates;

sed quid ego hīs testibus ūtor quasi rēs dubia aut obscūra sit, but why do I use these witnesses, as (I should do) if the matter were doubtful or obscure;

serviam tibi tam quasi ēmerīs mē argentō, I will serve you as though you had bought me for money.

2. Note that in sentences of this kind the Latin observes the regular principles for the Sequence of Tenses. Thus after principal tenses the Latin uses the Present and Perfect (as in the second and third examples), where the English uses the Past and Past Perfect.

Thank you, likewise I found Bennett's treatment helpful in that it is a bit simpler to understand, although it is perhaps not as substantial as Greenough's. Now I seem to understand why this type of thing is called a conditional clause; however still I wonder why it is called a clause of comparison, and what you would say is actually being compared to what.

 

[Pacifica]

What is happening is being compared to what would happen in a different situation. E.g. in "You're acting as if you were the boss", the way that you're acting now is being compared (and likened) to the way you'd be acting if you were the boss.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Ex eis Eporedorix cognito Litavicci consilio media fere nocte rem ad Caesarem defert; orat ne patiatur civitatem pravis adulescentium consiliis ab amicitia populi Romani deficere; quod futurum provideat, si se tot hominum milia cum hostibus coniunxerint, quorum salutem neque propinqui neglegere, neque civitas levi momento aestimare posset. - Dbg 7,39

Of these two, Eporedorix, when he learnt the design of Litaviccus, reported the matter about midnight to Caesar. He besought him not to allow the state to fall away from the friendship of Rome through the mischievous designs of the young men; yet this, as he foresaw, would happen if those thousands of troops joined forces with the enemy, for their kindred could not ignore their safety, nor could the state account it of slight importance.

Thank you, here I'm struggling a bit with quorum...posset, which I take to be informal indirect speech according to Eporedorix. It looks like a "zeugma" with posset having as its subjects both propinqui and civitas. This seems odd since the verb is singular and one of the subjects would be plural. Otherwise I wonder if there is any chance that propinqui could be in the genitive?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, here I'm struggling a bit with quorum...posset, which I take to be informal indirect speech according to Eporedorix.

I'm not sure what you mean by "informal". It's simply indirect speech.

It looks like a "zeugma" with posset having as its subjects both propinqui and civitas. This seems odd since the verb is singular and one of the subjects would be plural.

It's typical for the verb to agree with the nearest subject (here civitas).

Otherwise I wonder if there is any chance that propinqui could be in the genitive?

No.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you, A&G distinguishes "formal indirect discourse" (#579ff- subject accusative with infinitive) from "informal indirect discourse" (#592-introduced by quod or a relative)

[matresfamiliae gallicae] obtestabantur Romanos, ut sibi parcerent neu, sicut Avarici fecissent, ne a mulieribus quidem atque infantibus abstinerent -Dbg 7.47

...beseech the Romans to spare them, and not to sacrifice to their resentment even women and children, as they had done at Avaricum .

Here looks like neu...abstinerent would be two negative purpose clauses, with my trouble being abstinerent. The verse seems to say that that the women wished that the Romans 'would not abstain from them and the infants'. But it seems that the women would want the Romans to indeed stay far away from them so that they are not killed or injured. Could abstineo here be in respect to the mind instead of location, meaning something like "despise", or "scorn"?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, A&G distinguishes "formal indirect discourse" (#579ff- subject accusative with infinitive) from "informal indirect discourse" (#592-introduced by quod or a relative)

Well, here you have a relative clause (quorum...) depending on another relative clause (quod...) depending on an indirect command (ne...). To my mind that's not quite the same as when you have a subordinate clause that isn't dependent on any visible indirect speech but takes the subjunctive because it's reporting someone else's thoughts/words.

The verse seems to say that that the women wished that the Romans 'would not abstain from them and the infants'.

No. You're interpreting it as if there were only one negative. But there are two negatives there: neu and ne... quidem. So it's more like "that they would not NOT abstain"—that they would not fail to abstain—"even from women and children, as the Avarici had done". With "abstain from" meaning refrain from harming.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Ex eis Eporedorix cognito Litavicci consilio media fere nocte rem ad Caesarem defert; orat ne patiatur civitatem pravis adulescentium consiliis ab amicitia populi Romani deficere; quod futurum provideat, si se tot hominum milia cum hostibus coniunxerint, quorum salutem neque propinqui neglegere, neque civitas levi momento aestimare posset.

here you have a relative clause (quorum...) depending on another relative clause (quod...) depending on an indirect command (ne...).

Thank you, so then at which point does it become indirect discourse? At ne?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you, I recognized the ne clause as only a substantive clause and not indirect discourse. However I'm guessing that not every substantive clause would be considered indirect discourse?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, I recognized the ne clause as only a substantive clause and not indirect discourse.

It's both.

However I'm guessing that not every substantive clause would be considered indirect discourse?

Indeed.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Nam ut commutato consilio iter in provinciam converteret, id ne metu quidem necessario faciendum existimabat; cum infamia atque indignitas rei et oppositus mons Cevenna viarumque difficultas impediebat, tum maxime quod abiuncto Labieno atque eis legionibus quas una miserat vehementer timebat-Dbg 7.56

As for changing his plan and turning his march into the Province, even apprehension did not seem to necessitate it: there was the shame and disgrace of the thing, as well as the barrier of the Cevennes and the difficulty of the roads, to prevent it, and more especially there was his pressing anxiety for Labienus and the legions which he had sent with him on a separate mission.

Thank you, I'm wondering why impediebat would be in the indicative here since it looks like a cum causal, explaining why he should not withdraw to the province. I noticed that cum...tum is likely a correlative, so perhaps that affects it?

 

[Pacifica]

This is not a cum causal. Cum... tum... can mean "both... and (even more importantly)...", "first... second (and more importantly)...", "not only... but also...", and the like.

 

[Matthaeus]

Yes, whatever follows tum is to be understood as being more emphatic (and more importantly/especially/but also) than what's after cum.