Gallic War 7.85

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

I am having trouble with

"....quid quaque..."

as found at the start of 7.85:

"Caesar idoneum locum nactus quid quaque
ex parte gerantur cognoscit;..."



Since I have Loeb, I know what the accepted
English translation is, in practical terms.
I would like to see how that Loeb translation
arises from the meanings and uses of
"quid" and "quaque".

[Johannes Patruus]

On 22/03/2012 16:44, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am having trouble with
>
> "....quid quaque..."
>
> as found at the start of 7.85:
>
> "Caesar idoneum locum nactus quid quaque
> ex parte gerantur cognoscit;..."

For "gerantur" read "geratur".

> Since I have Loeb, I know what the accepted
> English translation is, in practical terms.
> I would like to see how that Loeb translation
> arises from the meanings and uses of
> "quid" and "quaque".

"Quid"
= interrogative "what?",
here introducing an indirect question.

"Quaque"
= feminine ablative of "quisque"
= "each".

"Quaque ex parte"
= "in each part/region/direction/etc."
= "in each quarter" (Loeb)

Patruus

[Evertjan.]

Keeping the rogative feeling:

... in whatever quarter ...



--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Ed Cryer]

Ah, Julius Caesar at the siege of Alesia (modern Arles). He trapped
Vercingetorix there and threw siegeworks all around the place. But then
tens of thousands of Gauls turned up and surrounded the Ropmans. And
good old JC won a superb victory, accepted surrender fom V and sent him
to Rome to be paraded in a later triumph.

In the previous section (84) he wrote "Pugnatur uno tempore omnibus
loci"; and that must have been absolutely chaotic; so he "
idoneum locum nactus" for himself and staff officers, from where he
could see as much as possible, and then "quid quaque ex parte geratur
(not geraNtur!) cognoscit".

Ed

[David Rodez]

And the "nactus", because nancisci is deponent, is acting as a
participle and is active in meaning.

Rod.

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

Very interesting, that comment about
"nactus". I am inspired to once again
joust with what, for me, is the difficult
concept of deponent verbs.

[Johannes Patruus]

Were it not deponent "nactus" would carry the expected passive meaning of
"having been obtained" (like "amatus" = having been loved), but being
deponent it instead carries the active meaning of "having obtained".

Deponent = passive in form but active in meaning.

Patruus (The actively passive One!)

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Patruus.
I think I understand the concept of the
deponent verb and this snippet from
Caesar has helped my understanding.
What constantly amazes me is that
language seems so much smarter than we are.
How do we manage, on the fly, without
really thinking to speak so wonderfully
well? How did Caesar in the midst of
a raging battle casually juggle the
passive and active semantics of his
"nactus" usage? It is really quite hard,
and time consuming,
for me to deal with just that one word
as I struggle to read his account.

[Ed Cryer]

He fought on the front line himself sometimes. And he says that it
always put new life in the men to see him in his red cloak, sword in hand.

As for deponent verbs, he spoke Greek fluently, and the middle voice in
that language prepares you.

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

You've raised a very interesting point here. First, second, third etc.
language; and whether there is a language of thought or whether we just
form all understanding on our mother tongue.

It's my firm belief that consciousness is a mere fraction of all mental
activity; it's what the brain fashions for us to intermediate with the
world, and it could well be that it's a mere epiphenomenon and that
subconscious processes have already chosen the action some time before
they appear to conscious mind. If that's the case, then I guess you
could say that there is a primordial mind-language; some autonomic
control mechanism at least to regulate behaviour; and that our languages
are means of interpersonal intercourse, socially fashioned. Just look
how quickly kids pick up their first language, using copy techniques
mostly and then using it to promote self and personal advantage. No
wonder most philosophies and Weltanschauungen fail eventually with some
irresolvable paradox. Our languages weren't made to fathom reality; they
developed to promote social interaction so that we could build
communities, work together and become top of the food-chain.

But could we get beyond language? Or could we fashion some language
from, say, pure mathematics or particle physics? It's a question that
Leibniz wrestled with, and concluded that we could - in some kind of
universal calculating machine, what we'd call, I guess, a computer.

Ed

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

Geez I'm still having troubles.
I am inclined to make the favorable
spot what "quid" refers to and the
subject for "cognocit'. i.e., it is
the favorable spot which "knows" or
"sees" all around.

Loeb, for example makes Caesar the subject
of the two clauses:

Caesar finds the viewing spot
Caesar sees from the viewing spon

Hammond does likewise.

And, also Devitte,

85 Caesar, having selected a commanding situation, sees distinctly whatever is going on in every quarter,...

On the other hand,
what seems to me to be the most natural
translation which explicitly handles the presence
of "quid" makes the spot also a subject. It is
the spot which knows the situation:

"Caesar found a favorable spot
which showed, in all parts, what was going on."

[Ed Cryer]

Ah, ah. It was probably at the top of a tower on the surrounding wall
and ditch that they'd built. That's why he doesn't use "collis" or "moenia".

You're reading more into the sentence than the sentence contains.
He could have written;
Caesar idoneum ad omnia speculanda locum nactus ."
or
"Caesar idoneum locum nactus unde quid geratur specularetur".
But he wrote neither of those.

Ed

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

Glad to see that you also think about
these peripheral matters. As someone
who thinks much more about QM than
about language, I tend to see the latter
in terms of the former. Much in agreement
with NAgArjuna, I no longer see language,
or "consciousness" itself, as arising somehow
within my mind. Put most simply, I see
the brain as an antenna which "sees" the
content of mind. Mind is seen, it does not
make. The brain is an antenna not a
generator. The brain is to thought as
the eye is to light.

Both my mind and my language are epiphenomena
of something best left unnamed. All I can do is
listen and look as acutely as I am able....
so...
so what?......
I am back to struggling, for the sake of the
struggling, with just a
few words of Julius Caesar in the hope of
hearing a voice from 2000 years past.

[Johannes Patruus]

You are trying to interpret "quid" as a relative pronoun, but if you
consult your grammar you will find that "quid" is not among the forms
tabulated for the relative. Rather, it is here an interrogative pronoun
(as confirmed by the subsequent subjunctive "geratur"), and there is
nothing in the sentence that the thus-formed indirect question could be
dependent on other than "cognoscit".

The skeleton of the sentence is "Caesar . . . quid . . . cognoscit".
Caesar ascertains something.
Q. What is this something that he ascertains?
A. "Quid quaque ex parte geratur".

Note also that "idoneum locum nactus" is not a clause but merely a
participial phrase (as reflected in the Devitte translation you cited).

Patruus

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you both very much.
Evidently the distinction between
a relative pronoun and an interrogative
is not clear enough in my mind.
Also, that very helpful skeleton of the
grammar

Caesar....quid.....cognoscit

seems odd and awkward to my English
speaking mind in that the Latin sentence
then seems to use "quid" twice, both to
ask ....

"Caesar....quid.....cognoscit"

and also to answer......

"Quid quaque ex parte geratur".

I cannot think of an equivalent in
English.

[David Rodez]

OP, I am reminded by your comment of something that Fr. Reginald Foster
said a few years back in one of his old "Latin Lover" radio bits. He
said, "Every prostitute and bum in Rome knew Latin." The so-called
language of angels was once the common tongue of slaves and lords
throughout the Roman Empire. I was a Latin tiro back then, not unlike
you now, and this statement, which I still remember, really brought home
to me the fact that Latin was once a very real and living language. As
difficult as it may seem to us, things like deponent verbs, verbal and
nominal inflection, gerunds, prolative infinitives, heteroclitic nouns,
and innumerable uses of the ablative case and of the subjunctive mood
were all second nature to the Romans even the least educated among them.
Well, if even the least educated could come to speak it fluently, so
could I. A caveat. This doesn't mean it will become second nature to us,
too. However, the more you practice, and the more Latin is on your mind,
the more inured it will become in you. Do not be surprised if you happen
one day to randomly use a Latin word or manner of expression in place of
an English one in casual conversation, or you cannot remember how
something is said in English but you recall the Latin. These things have
happened to me.

Rod.

[Johannes Patruus]

Caesar quid geratur cognoscit.
Caesar ascertains what is happening.

One "quid", one "what", no problem.

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

What is happening and where
or
What is happening and whence it's coming.

Ed

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, indeed you have it right. That it took
me so long to get so myself, is concerning,
but, getting there in the end is OK also.
My key problem was with that "quid". As I understand
the text now, "quid" is the acc. neuter form
of the relative pronoun. My mistake was in putting
it into the nominative. That really, really,
screwed up the syntax.

gratias semper

[jsqu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:44:51 AM UTC-8, jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:

"QM" is a common abbreviation for "quantum mechanics".
It currency is similar to "EM" for "electromagnetics".
I use it mostly out of laziness and am careless
in its use; I should not expect a group of
Latinists to be familiar with it.

The comment about a popular medieval
conception that the eye sends out rays
which illuminate the world is interesting.
At the start of a class I once gave on
pencil and paper drawing, I asked the class,
who were all around 7 years old, how they
thought they perceived the world. They all
had the very same explanation common in the
middle ages. Seeing that that explanation
was so natural, and that it worked so well,
I did not abuse them of it. All that stuff
about waves and particles, lens and neurons,
etc. could come in its own time when it
served better than that active medieval eye.

[Johannes Patruus]

1. "Quid" can *never* be a relative pronoun. It is here an interrogative
pronoun.

2. "Quid" is in the *nominative* case, being the subject of the verb
"geratur".

3. The indirect question ("quid ... geratur") is a noun-clause, and it is
this clause *as a whole* which stands in *accusative* relationship with
the verb on which it depends, i.e. "cognoscit".

4. It's the same in the English sentence "Caesar ascertains what is
happening" - The clause "what is happening" is accusative in relation to
"ascertains", and the pronoun "what" is nominative in relation to "is
happening".

5. In the name of all that's holy, don't confuse you quids with your
quods! Consult the tables in your grammar.

Patruus