Subjunctive mood in comparisonMemento quod <subjunctive>Memento quod <subjunctive>What mood...
I think I may have violated academic integrity last year - what should I do?
Should I disclose a colleague's illness (that I should not know) when others badmouth him
Defining the standard model of PA so that a space alien could understand
Count Even Digits In Number
Seed ship, unsexed person, cover has golden person attached to ship by umbilical cord
Employer asking for online access to bank account - Is this a scam?
Website returning plaintext password
How to respond to an upset student?
Why colon to denote that a value belongs to a type?
Where is the logic in castrating fighters?
Cipher Block Chaining - How do you change the plaintext of all blocks?
Which is the common name of Mind Flayers?
Why are C64 games inconsistent with which joystick port they use?
What is the object moving across the ceiling in this stock footage?
Should breaking down something like a door be adjudicated as an attempt to beat its AC and HP, or as an ability check against a set DC?
Crossing US border with music files I'm legally allowed to possess
Pirate democracy at its finest
Binary Search in C++17
How do Human Traits Work?
How strong are Wi-Fi signals?
Does the unit of measure matter when you are solving for the diameter of a circumference?
Why is this Simple Puzzle impossible to solve?
In general, would I need to season a meat when making a sauce?
How to pull out the underlying query syntax being used by dataset?
Subjunctive mood in comparison
Memento quod <subjunctive>Memento quod <subjunctive>What mood should the verb of a relative clause within a purpose clause be?Does verbum also mean verb?How to say “interrogative mood”? Is it “modus interrogativum”?Imperative vs Hortatory Subjunctivesubjunctive after “Hoc est, quod”Why doesn't Caesar use the subjunctive consistently?Help finding the use of the subjunctiveSequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctiveweird pluperfect subjunctive in Eutropius
In Spinoza's Ethics we see:
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
I know meaning of the sentence. My question is about debeat. Why is this verb subjunctive? I can somehow justify it's mood for myself but I want to know that a subjunctive verb in this structure exactly belongs to which class of using subjunctive.
coniunctivus grammarians
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
add a comment |
In Spinoza's Ethics we see:
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
I know meaning of the sentence. My question is about debeat. Why is this verb subjunctive? I can somehow justify it's mood for myself but I want to know that a subjunctive verb in this structure exactly belongs to which class of using subjunctive.
coniunctivus grammarians
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
add a comment |
In Spinoza's Ethics we see:
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
I know meaning of the sentence. My question is about debeat. Why is this verb subjunctive? I can somehow justify it's mood for myself but I want to know that a subjunctive verb in this structure exactly belongs to which class of using subjunctive.
coniunctivus grammarians
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
In Spinoza's Ethics we see:
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
I know meaning of the sentence. My question is about debeat. Why is this verb subjunctive? I can somehow justify it's mood for myself but I want to know that a subjunctive verb in this structure exactly belongs to which class of using subjunctive.
coniunctivus grammarians
coniunctivus grammarians
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
asked 8 hours ago
Ali NikzadAli Nikzad
1176
1176
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.
The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive.
This question quotes Harrington and Pucci:
Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.
Though this answer to that question notes:
I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that quia takes the indicative and quod takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is not a hard and steadfast rule
While quod + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10849%2fsubjunctive-mood-in-comparison%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.
The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive.
This question quotes Harrington and Pucci:
Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.
Though this answer to that question notes:
I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that quia takes the indicative and quod takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is not a hard and steadfast rule
While quod + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
add a comment |
(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.
The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive.
This question quotes Harrington and Pucci:
Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.
Though this answer to that question notes:
I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that quia takes the indicative and quod takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is not a hard and steadfast rule
While quod + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
add a comment |
(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.
The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive.
This question quotes Harrington and Pucci:
Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.
Though this answer to that question notes:
I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that quia takes the indicative and quod takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is not a hard and steadfast rule
While quod + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)
nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi
Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.
The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, quod often takes the subjunctive.
This question quotes Harrington and Pucci:
Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.
Though this answer to that question notes:
I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that quia takes the indicative and quod takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is not a hard and steadfast rule
While quod + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
edited 5 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.7k22888
20.7k22888
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
Your answer is substantially correct (+1), but this isn't indirect discourse, since there isn't anything being summarized or reported. Rather, it's a substantive clause, i.e., a clause occupying a syntactical function (subject, object) that could be expressed by a simple substantive. Here, the quod clause is the subject of the quam clause, parallel with nihil. In classical Latin, this would be quod w/ indicative (A&G 572).
– Kingshorsey
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Isn't it still called indirect discourse even when there's no discourse? For example in Classical I'd guess that this would be "…clarius quam entem debere concipi sub…" with an acc+inf?
– Draconis
6 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
See A&G 572. This is what is sometimes called a "fact clause," which is a subset of substantival clauses. It takes quod, not AcI. Also, not every AcI is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse (oratio obliqua) is one use of the AcI construction.
– Kingshorsey
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
@Kingshorsey Edited, ty
– Draconis
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10849%2fsubjunctive-mood-in-comparison%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
