Quod + indicative or quid + subjunctive

[Quintilianus]

Here's a problem that's puzzled me for quite a while now and that I don't seem able to solve.
"Nescio quid sit amor."
"Age quod agis"
"... quia quod verum fuit dixerat"
These sentences illustrate my problem.
When use an indirect question "quid" + subjunctive and when quod + indicative ?
Why not "Nescio quod est amor" and why not "... quia quid verum fuerit dixerat".
Both seem to translate equally the relative "what". I'd like a bit of light being shed on this, if you got some explanation.

Edit :
By the way, I've found this thread. THREAD: it-is-what-it-is The "Est quid est" and the like using quid as a relative are obviously wrong right ? I'm amazed so many make that error, so maybe it's me ?

 

[Pacifica]

Hi,

You (like others) are being confused due to the fact that English "what" can be an interrogative as well as a relative, and as a result you have trouble distinguishing between the two as Latin does.

In nescio quid sit amor, "I don't know what love is", quid sit amor/"what love is" is an indirect question. "What is love? — I don't know the answer to this question."

In age quod agis, "Do what you do", and quod verum fuit dixerat, "He had said what was true*", quod agis/"what you do" and quod verum fuit/"what was true" are not indirect questions, but relative clauses. You could also say, with the same meaning, "Do that which you do" and "He had said that which was true (he had said the truth)". The clause doesn't represent a question the answer of which one knows or not or is wondering about, but a thing.

Let's maybe take an example that should make it clearer: there is a difference between saying "I know who stole your money" and "I know the man who stole your money", right? The former means you know the answer to the question "Who stole the money?", whereas the latter means that you know a man, who is the one who stole the money. The former contains an indirect question, the latter a relative clause. Well, it's just the same with your sentences: nescio quid sit amor means you don't know the answer to the question "What is love?", so it's an indirect question. Age quod agis means that you must do something, which is what you're doing. This is a relative clause, and an indirect question would make absolutely no sense here — what would it mean? "Do the question/the answer to the question of what you're doing"?

I haven't taken the time to read the thread you're linking to, but est quid est indeed isn't a correct translation for "It is what it is".

*This isn't the only possible translation and the use of tenses there looks a bit weird at first sight, but we'd need to see the complete sentence to tell.

 

[Quintilianus]

Hi,

You (like others) are being confused due to the fact that English "what" can be an interrogative as well as a relative, and as a result you have trouble distinguishing between the two as Latin does.

In nescio quid sit amor, "I don't know what love is", quid sit amor/"what love is" is an indirect question. "What is love? — I don't know the answer to this question."

In age quod agis, "Do what you do", and quod verum fuit dixerat, "He had said what was true*", quod agis/"what you do" and quod verum fuit/"what was true" are not indirect questions, but relative clauses. You could also say, with the same meaning, "Do that which you do" and "He had said that which was true (he had said the truth)". The clause doesn't represent a question the answer of which one knows or not or is wondering about, but a thing.

Let's maybe take an example that should make it clearer: there is a difference between saying "I know who stole your money" and "I know the man who stole your money", right? The former means you know the answer to the question "Who stole the money?", whereas the latter means that you know a man, who is the one who stole the money. The former contains an indirect question, the latter a relative clause. Well, it's just the same with your sentences: nescio quid sit amor means you don't know the answer to the question "What is love?", so it's an indirect question. Age quod agis means that you must do something, which is what you're doing. This is a relative clause, and an indirect question would make absolutely no sense here — what would it mean? "Do the question/the answer to the question of what you're doing"?

I haven't taken the time to read the thread you're linking to, but est quid est indeed isn't a correct translation for "It is what is is".

*This isn't the only possible translation and the use of tenses there looks a bit weird at first sight, but we'd need to see the complete sentence to tell.

First and foremost, thanks for your thorough and quick reply, I much appreciate it.
English is not my mother tongue so I guess it's not "what" itself that confused me. I knew the distinction between the indirect question and the relative clause but wasn't quite able to grasp in practice the nuances.
"You could also say, with the same meaning, "Do that which you do" " Yes, Age id quod agis. I had that but nonetheless it's troubling me.
Thanks to you, it is becoming a little clearer to me.
So, for example, "nescio quod est amor" would mean "I don't know, which (the fact that I don't know) is love." right ?
And "nescio quod sit amor" would mean "I don't know wich one is love" right ?

 

[Pacifica]

English is not my mother tongue so I guess it's not "what" itself that confused me.

Ah, right, it's French, isn't it? French also lacks the distinction, except that it's the other way around from English — we say "ce que" (literally "that which", id quod) for both. So I guess this must be the cause of your confusion in the same way as the use of "what" is a cause of confusion to English speakers.

So, for example, "nescio quod est amor" would mean "I don't know, which (the fact that I don't know) is love." right ?

Well, it could mean that in theory, or "I don't know that which/the thing which is love", and yet other things...

And "nescio quod sit amor" would mean "I don't know wich one is love" right ?

Yes.

 

[Quintilianus]

Thank you.
Yes, French, and it's "ce que" but also "ce qui"
So it quite depends on the verb of the main clause in some way. Age with an indirect question wouldn't mean much in any case I guess as it would mean "age 'the question'". But for some verbs it can be a little confusing.
For example, "Possunt percipere quid differat inter ea." from one of Miraglia's speeches. Percipere 'the question' so. "Quid differt inter ea ? -Possunt percipere." Is it correct ? What would mean, "Possunt percipere quod differt inter ea" ?
And so we'd say, Age quod tibi placet, and Manduca quod cocus coxit ?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, French, and it's "ce que" but also "ce qui"

Yes, right. I wasn't really thinking about all constructions, but just about the fact that in any case there's no difference between "what" indirect questions and relative clauses.

But for some verbs it can be a little confusing.
For example, "Possunt percipere quid differat inter ea." from one of Miraglia's speeches. Percipere 'the question' so. "Quid differt inter ea ? -Possunt percipere." Is it correct ? What would mean, "Possunt percipere quod differt inter ea" ?

There are cases, like here, where either is theoretically possible, but the nuance is different. Possunt percipere quid differat inter ea = They can perceive what differs between them = They can find the answer to the question of what differs between them. Possunt percipere quod differt inter ea = They can perceive what/that which differs between them = They can see the thing that differs between them.

And so we'd say, Age quod tibi placet, and Manduca quod cocus coxit ?

Yes.

 

[Quintilianus]

Yes, right. I wasn't really thinking about all constructions, but just about the fact that in any case there's no difference between "what" indirect questions and relative clauses.There are cases, like here, where either is theoretically possible, but the nuance is different. Possunt percipere quid differat inter ea = They can perceive what differs between them = They can find the answer to the question of what differs between them. Possunt percipere quod differt inter ea = They can perceive what/that which differs between them = They can see the thing that differs between them.
Yes.

Thank you very much, I think I've just started to really grasp the difference. With quid and subjunctive it's more the idea in abstract, per se, with quod and indicative what represents this idea. (in such cases, like it was for "quid sit amor" and "quod est amor") Because quod being a relative it links this idea to "id", a thing, etc.
Well, this may not be well said, but I got the idea. I'll just need to be very careful with this for a while now on.
Gratias multas tibi.

 

[Pacifica]

You seem to get it.

 

[laurentius curtillus]

You seem to get it.

Thank you for this very comprehensive discussion about quid + Subjunctive!

A well known ocurrance of the same combination ist the popular verse

In taberna quando sumus non curamus QUID SIT humus.

That example generates a second question though, which could be subject of another topic: Why QUANDO instead of the CUM iterativum? In taberna CUM sumus.. = everytime we seat at the tavern...

(I am a new member here, and I still have to look for such a discussion in the forum, provided that there has been such one)

 

[Pacifica]

That example generates a second question though, which could be subject of another topic: Why QUANDO instead of the CUM iterativum? In taberna CUM sumus.. = everytime we seat at the tavern...

That use of quando is rare in classical Latin; cum is much more usual. But quando in this sense became more common in medieval Latin (which this is) than it had been in classical times. In this particular case, there's also the issue of the meter, which cum wouldn't fit (not without further changes to the line anyway).

 

[Clemens]

I wouldn't go to the Carmina Burana for examples of Classical usage.