quum = cum?

[Klaus Scholl]

I had this Question, and noone could give me an Answer, so i tried it here:
cum means basically 'when', i found another a more or less synonymously
Word: quum.
The Dictionaries explain it differently:

| quum, ungebr. für 1. cum, w.s.
[Source: Georges]

| Quum, So. Quum primu<^->, So bald / als bald.
[Source: Dasypodius]

| quum CONJ Late
| when, while, as, since, although; as soon;
| quum PREP ABL Late
| with, together with, at the same time with; under; at; along with, amid;
[Source: Whitaker]

In the Orbis it is used only twice, and i guess the Author wouldnt use it
there,
if its Meaning would be 100% synonymously with 'cum':

| Navale Praelium terribile est, QUUM ingentes Naves, veluti Arces,
| concurrunt Rostris, aut Tormentis se in Vicem quassant,
| atque ita perforatae, Perniciem suam imbibunt et submerguntur;
| aut, QUUM Igne corripiuntur, et vel ex Incendio Pulveris tormentarii,
| Homines in Aërem ejiciuntur, vel in Mediis Aquis exuruntur,
| vel etiam in Mare desilientes suffocantur.
[Source: Orbis]

So how does quum differ from cum in Meaning?
Why does the Author use it here instead of cum?
My Proposal: quum = a Mixture of [if] + [when]?

Greet from Klaus

[Edward Casey]

"Klaus Scholl" <sch...@sensualium.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:bibsqg$7vd$03$1...@news.t-online.com...

Many writers for centuries distinguished between the adverb (quom, quum)
and the preposition (cum). Modern spelling uses cum for both.

Eduardus.

[Edward Casey]

"Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote in message
news:vkj02c...@corp.supernews.com...

> Many writers for centuries distinguished between the adverb (quom, quum)
> and the preposition (cum). Modern spelling uses cum for both.
>
> Eduardus.
>

More of a conjunction than an adverb isn't it, Ed.

[Edwin Menes]

As Mr. Casey said,. it is a matter of spelling conventions. The
preposition is always 'cum'. On the basis of some manuscripts and some
inscriptions, the conjunction is occasionally spelled 'quum', though I
doubt anyone can tell when the pronunciation changed.

The etymological reason for the qu-spelling is that it is a frozen form
of the qu-pronominal declension (qui-quae-quae/quis-quid). 'Quum' is
acc. sg. masc., supplanted as a form by 'quem', just as 'qui' (how) is
an instrumental, supplanted by 'quo'. The same kind of thing happened
with 'that' in English and 'dass' in German. 'Quod', which never lost a
case function, was also the causal conjunction and became the word to
introduce indirect discourse in Medieval Latin. 'Ut' and 'ubi' were
part of the same complex.

Semantically, there was no difference between 'quum' and 'cum' as
conjunctions.

[Klaus Scholl]

> More of a conjunction than an adverb isn't it, Ed.

Sure, and i besaw the Text again:
The Author uses cum (with) mostly as Preposition, like you said.
But, in the whole Book, there are 8 Exceptions:

-- Cum apparatur Convivium, Mensa sternitur
-- Cum Procella repente oritur, contrahunt Vela,
-- Hěc, cum imbueretur sacro Baptismo,
-- cum comederent de Fructu Arboris vetitae,
-- Ideň, cum Luna incidit in Umbram Terrae, obscuratur:
-- Cům Tempus vindemiandi adest, abscindunt Botros,
-- Primň, cům pulsantur,
-- Cům verň Luna currit

And in the whole Book there are 4 Uses of quum (last Time i oversaw 2):
-- terribile est, quům intentes Naves ... concurrunt Rostris
-- aut, quům Igne corripiuntur,
-- [Jesus] quům priůs instituisset Coenam mysticam,
-- Sed tertiâ Die, quům revixisset

So i can not get Clue out of this, it seems for me like Randomness.

Greet from the Klaus.

[Klaus Scholl]

"Edwin Menes" <hora...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F498C9E...@earthlink.net...

> As Mr. Casey said,. it is a matter of spelling conventions. The
> preposition is always 'cum'. On the basis of some manuscripts and some
> inscriptions, the conjunction is occasionally spelled 'quum', though I
> doubt anyone can tell when the pronunciation changed.

> The etymological reason for the qu-spelling is that it is a frozen form
> of the qu-pronominal declension (qui-quae-quae/quis-quid). 'Quum' is
> acc. sg. masc., supplanted as a form by 'quem', just as 'qui' (how) is
> an instrumental, supplanted by 'quo'.

My Georges says something different: its oldlatin Form is quom,
an old Accusative Genitive Neutrum of qui (quorum).
So the etymol. Processes was:
quorum > quom > cum (the Conjunction).
con > cun > cum (the Preposition)

> The same kind of thing happened
> with 'that' in English and 'dass' in German. 'Quod', which never lost a
> case function, was also the causal conjunction and became the word to
> introduce indirect discourse in Medieval Latin. 'Ut' and 'ubi' were
> part of the same complex.
>
> Semantically, there was no difference between 'quum' and 'cum' as
> conjunctions.
>

What i dont understand is, that the Author seems to use cum (conj.) and
quum,
alternatingly without Difference in Meaning (so it seems for me).
I would not be confused if he had replaced *all* the Conjunctions-cums by
'quum' coherently.

Greet from Klaus.