Miscellaneous Questions from the Vulgate

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It is an impersonal verb.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
(When used in this sense, that is. It has other meanings where it isn't impersonal.)
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Deum nostrum sic peccatis offensum (esse)

Just to make sure that I follow, one could say that the infinitive is implied here.

is an accusative-and-infinitive clause subject of the verb constat.
In other words, that Deum is not the subject of the verb constat, but that the clause Deum nostrum sic paccatis offensum (esse) is subordinate to, or subjected to the verb constat which has an impersonal subject of its own, no?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Just to make sure that I follow, one could say that the infinitive is implied here.
Yes (it's frequently left implied with participles).
In other words, that Deum is not the subject of the verb constat,
Indeed, it isn't.
but that the clause Deum nostrum sic paccatis offensum (esse) is subordinate to, or subjected to the verb constat which has an impersonal subject of its own, no?
The clause is the impersonal subject. Deum nostrum sic peccatis offensum (esse) is what constat. In the English translation "it is certain that our God is so offended with sins", "it" is a dummy subject, the "real" (logical) subject being "that our God is so offended with sins" (if you ask "What is certain?" the answer will be "That our God is so offended with sins etc."). Whether the Latin has an "implied dummy subject" of its own is up for debate, I suppose, but one would usually say that the clause is the subject (and in any case, it is the logical subject).
 
Last edited:

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
tunc levare poteris faciem tuam absque macula; et eris stabilis, et non timebis. Miseriæ quoque oblivisceris, et quasi aquarum quæ præterierunt recordaberis. Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam -Job 11:14-17

then mayst thou lift up thy face without spot, and thou shalt be steadfast, and shalt not fear. Thou shalt also forget misery, and remember it only as waters that are passed away. And brightness like that of the noonday, shall arise to thee at evening
Hello, I'm a bit confused by this syntax, can you explain it?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
You shall remember (recordaberis) [it—i.e. miseriae, mentioned in the previous clause and implied here from there] like waters (quasi aquarum) that have passed away (quae praeterierunt).

Both obliviscor and recordor can take a genitive object, hence miseriae and aquarum.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Thank you, and how are you able to tell that it is miseriae which is implied instead of something else?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
In theory, it could be "remember (something) like waters..." But it doesn't seem as likely.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Ok, thank you. However I'm still having a little trouble with quasi. Just to clarify things I hope that you wouldn't mind a comparison.

a) recordaberis eius quasi aquarum quæ præterierunt

b) recordaberis eius quasi aquae quae praeterierunt


Are these statements grammatically correct or incorrect?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Option b would mean "you shall remember it as (if you were) waters that have passed away"—because aquae, being nominative, could only agree with the subject "you". To get the intended meaning—i.e. for the comparison to be between the waters and the implied miseriae, the waters must agree with the latter.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Destruxit me undique, et pereo: et quasi evulsæ arbori abstulit spem meam. -Job 19:10

He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am lost, and he hath taken away my hope, as from a tree that is plucked up.
Thank you, here is a related problem. Could you help me to identify the cases of evulsae arbori?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It's dative.

Verbs of taking away often go with the dative of the person that something is taken away from. Here that person is mihi, but that's left implied and the dative is only seen in evulsae arbori that the speaker is comparing himself to.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Detraxit fortes in fortitudine sua, et cum steterit, non credet vitæ suæ. Dedit ei Deus locum pœnitentiæ, et ille abutitur eo in superbiam: oculi autem ejus sunt in viis illius. Elevati sunt ad modicum, et non subsistent: et humiliabuntur sicut omnia, et auferentur, et sicut summitates spicarum conterentur. -Job 24:22-24
Thank you. My question here is: Who/what is ille referring to? And eo? And ejus? And illius? I'm wondering if the pronouns assigned remain constant or if they change throughout the sequence; and what would be conventional in other Latin works.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Ille is the person to whom God gave an opportunity to repent. Eo refers to locum. That part is all very clear. God was the subject of the previous clause, and ille is used to mean the other person, not the subject of the previous clause. This is standard. Eo refers back to what was just mentioned (locum paenitentiae). This is standard as well.

Oculi autem eius sunt in viis illius has more potential for confusion, but based on the context I would say that eius is God and illius is the other person: God is watching that person's ways.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Thank you,
pretium enim scorti vix est unius panis, mulier autem viri pretiosam animam capit. -Pro 6:26

For the price of a harlot is scarce one loaf: but the woman catcheth the precious soul of a man.
Would you say that panis is here in the nominative or the genitive?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Genitive. That can be seen from the fact that the unius that goes with panis is distinctly genitive.
 
Top