Noun clause after 'aliud quam' or 'praeter'?

[Quercus]

Might there be a noun clause after 'aliud quam', 'praeter' and the like?

If so, how? I guess it would take an infinitive, not an accusative gerund. Is then "Nihil scio aliud quam illos fortes esse" grammatical? Also, is "Nihil scio praeter illos fortes esse" grammatical?

Of course such constructions could be simplified through use of adverbs like 'solum' or 'tantum' instead of 'aliud quam' / 'praeter' and the negative, but I'm intererested now in figuring out the latter.

Thank you very much.

 

[Dantius]

aliud quam can be followed by anything; nihil scio aliud quam illos fortes esse is completely fine Latin. Similarly, "I did nothing but save myself" could be Nihil aliud feci quam me servavi. Sentences like that sometimes have an ellipsis of the verb facio and would just be written nihil aliud quam me servavi if the context is clear. Praeter is a preposition, and thus cannot take anything other than an accusative noun as an object (or, in very rare instances, an infinitive used as a noun, like Ovid's "quod crimen dicis praeter amasse meum?" (What crime of mine do you speak of other than having loved?)). However, you can use praeterquam.

 

[Dantius]

Also, nihil aliud scio quam illos fortes esse is slightly more natural word order.

 

[Hortatus]

Cassell's dictionary gives the example of praeter used as an adverb: nil praeter canna fuit
Does that sound right?

 

[Dantius]

Looks like that is a thing, but not common.

Exceptionally, except, excepting, unless, save (class. but rare): etiam e Graecis ipsis diligenter cavendae sunt quaedam familiaritates, praeter hominum perpaucorum, Cic. Q. Fr. 1, 1, 5, § 16: ne quis praeter armatus violaretur, Liv. 4, 59, 7 Weissenb. ad loc.: diem statuit, ante quam liceret sine fraude ab armis discedere, praeter rerum capitalium damnatis, Sall. C. 36, 2: religionum usquequaque contemptor, praeter unius deae Syriae, Suet. Ner. 56; id. Claud. 4 fin.: exsules, praeter caedis damnati, restituebantur, Just. 13, 5, 2: praeter hodie, Vulg. Gen. 21, 26: nil praeter salices cassaque canna fuit, Ov. F. 6, 406: uti pueri in curiam ne introeant, praeter ille unus Papirius, Gell. 1, 23, 13.

 

[Pacifica]

However, you can use praeterquam.

Can praeterquam be followed by an acc.-inf. clause? I don't actually remember seeing that (I'm more used to praeterquam quod, which probably wouldn't be the best construction to use here).

etiam e Graecis ipsis diligenter cavendae sunt quaedam familiaritates, praeter hominum perpaucorum

religionum usquequaque contemptor, praeter unius deae Syriae

I'm not sure these two quotes belong under that heading. I would tend to read praeter in them as the usual preposition with the objects familiaritates and religiones implied.

 

[Iáson]

Can praeterquam be followed by an acc.-inf. clause? I don't actually remember seeing that (I'm more used to praeterquam quod, which probably wouldn't be the best construction to use here).

nūlla exempla inuēnī praeterquam haec:

cēterum in praesentiā nihil, praeterquam fuisse in curiā regem, scire quisquam potuit (Liv. 42.14)
nunc praeterquam laudāre eōs quī rem pūblicam armātī dēfendunt nihil valeō (Rutilius Schēmata Lexeos 2.16, sed fortasse interpretātum ex graecā linguā)

nisi nōnnumquam appāret in tālibus, sed nōn inuēnī cum accūsatīuō et īnfīnītīuō.
'Nihil scio' inquiēs 'nisi quae praedia habuerit.' (Cic. Phil. 2.41.7)
nihil sē scīre dīcat nisi id ipsum, eōque praestāre cēterīs, quod illī quae nesciant scīre sē putent, ipse sē nihil scīre id ūnum sciat... (Cic. Acad. 1.16)

 

[Pacifica]

cēterum in praesentiā nihil, praeterquam fuisse in curiā regem, scire quisquam potuit (Liv. 42.14)

Haec fieri posse demonstrant, etsi forsitan non saepe.

nunc praeterquam laudāre eōs quī rem pūblicam armātī dēfendunt nihil valeō

Non inest hic structura quae accusativus cum infinitivo dicitur, sed tantummodo verbum infinitivum cum obiecto suo.