Miscellaneous Questions from the Vulgate

[Pacifica]

And if quod is a conjunction, then Para would be intransitive, and cœnem a substantive clause.

If quod were a conjunction here (which it isn't) and if it introduced a substantive clause (meaning "(the fact) that"), then that clause would presumably have to be the direct obect of para (which therefore wouldn't be intransitive). If quod were a causal conjunction meaning "because", then the quod clause would be adverbial rather than substantive (it wouldn't be playing the role of a noun).

 

[Dantius]

I'm not sure whether τί should be called interrogative or an indefinite relative here. From a Latin perspective, the latter would make more sense; but I can't make a definitive pronouncement about Greek.

I think I've seen one instance in a Hellenistic epigram of τίς as an indefinite relative; it's certainly not common and I think in this case you should just take it as a slightly odd construction with the interrogative. Whether δειπνήσω is future ind. or aor. subj. is hard to say.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, this is of course a Greek grammar question, but I'm guessing that an indirect question can be formed in Greek with either a subjunctive or indicative? The indicative being more certain and the subjunctive more hypothetical?

 

[Pacifica]

As Dantius said a while ago:

an indirect question (which in Greek can use the indicative; it can also optionally use the optative in secondary sequence

Normally no subjunctive, I think, though as often when Greek is concerned, I could be wrong.

 

[Pacifica]

Unless you mean that a verb in an indirect question can be subjunctive for a distinct reason (rather than just because it's in an indirect question). In that case I guess it can.

 

[Dantius]

Yeah, normally no subjunctive, but in this case it felt like it could have a deliberative sense ("what I am to eat" as opposed to "what I will eat") which should allow for a subjunctive.

 

[Quaeso]

If quod is interrogative, then cœnem could be indirect question.

Thank you, I noticed that I didn't receive any correction for this, It looks like quod cannot be an interrogative. And as it is, it looks like the Latin here is a bit of a paraphrase of the Greek, since it makes a purpose clause where there was an indirect question (from what you've said, the future indicative seems more likely).

 

[Pacifica]

I noticed that I didn't receive any correction for this

When I said:

In any case, in Latin, quod cœnem is a relative clause of purpose (something that I may dine on = something for me to dine on). You can probably also call it a relative clause of characteristic, but I find the other term more precise.

I also meant to imply that quod wasn't an interrogative.

It looks like quod cannot be an interrogative.

Not here (but in some contexts it can).

it looks like the Latin here is a bit of a paraphrase of the Greek, since it makes a purpose clause where there was an indirect question

I still struggle to understand how an indirect question makes sense here in the Greek, to be honest—but maybe I'm too influenced by Latin...

 

[Pacifica]

Whatever the Greek is, the translator just used what made sense in Latin. Granted, Bible translators didn't always do the Latin language that favor—I guess using quid here would have been going too far even for them, or this one anyway; unless he didn't even notice the difference and just used what made sense without analysing.

 

[Quaeso]

But why don't you think that an indirect question fits here? "para quid caenem" ? Prepare what I would eat (whatever uncertain thing that might be either to the speaker or the listener)?

 

[Pacifica]

I still struggle to understand how an indirect question makes sense here in the Greek, to be honest

I guess something like "prepare (something for me) with regards to the question of what I'm going to eat" makes some sort of sense.

Prepare what I would eat

"What I would eat" there is a relative clause.

 

[Pacifica]

If you'd like a detailed explanation of the difference between relative clauses and indirect questions: Indirect Question vs. Relative Clause | Latin D

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, that is a nice reference which I've read multiple times, but maybe I don't understant it yet precisely. Isn't it true in English that "Prepare what I eat" could be taken as either in indirect question or a relative? Whereas "prepare that which I eat" would certainly be a relative?

 

[Pacifica]

"Prepare what I eat" means "prepare that which I eat", not "prepare the question of what I eat" or "prepare the answer to the question of what I eat". Therefore "what I eat" in that sentence is a relative clause rather than an indirect question.

 

[Dantius]

I guess something like "prepare (something for me) with regards to the question of what I'm going to eat" makes some sort of sense.

Or maybe even something like "prepare (an answer for the question of) what I'm going to eat"?

 

[Pacifica]

Or maybe even something like "prepare (an answer for the question of) what I'm going to eat"?

With a broad interpretation of "answer" then. An indirect question doesn't usually refer to such a concrete "answer" (I mean it normally represents information).

 

[Quaeso]

In crastinum voluit exire in Galilæam, et invenit Philippum. Et dicit ei Jesus: Sequere me. -Jn. 1,43

On the following day, he would go forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philip. And Jesus saith to him: Follow me.

Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· καὶ εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ἀκολούθει μοι.

Thank you, is there any difference in sense between In crastinum and simply cras?

 

[Pacifica]

Usually the difference is that cras = "tomorrow" and in crastinum = "for tomorrow" or "until tomorrow". We may have a bit of a non-classical usage here.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Odd use of 'aio' rather than 'dixi' or 'locutus ſum'.
Zacharias 4:4. -- Et reſpondi, et aio ad angelum qui loquebatur in me, dicens : Quid ſunt haec, domine mi?
Jerome uses 'ait' very often to lend weight to declarations, but only twice in the entire Vulgate have I noticed the relatively rare first person 'aio'.
Is variety of verbs perhaps the only intention?

 

[Pacifica]

Is variety of verbs perhaps the only intention?

That's likely. The Hebrew has the same verb for both aio and dicens. Aio dicens is redundant as it is; dixi dicens perhaps felt unbearable to the translator. As for locutus sum, maybe it was considered not literal enough (spoke vs. said), rightly or wrongly.