IacobusAmor

*Scripsisti in Haeduorum pagina :"Cum Caesar in Galliam veniret, ...factiones erant", potius quam ''Cum Caesar in Galliam '''venit''', ...factiones erant''. Insisto tamen constructionem meam validam esse, nam ''cum'' haud semper subjunctivum appellat, et dico in hoc casu indicativum utendum esse.

::Fortasse recte dicis, Verbex, nam hac verborum structura est perdifficilis, quia ''cum'' usitate subiunctivum, sed nonnunquam indicativum, gubernat. Secundum ''Bradley's Arnold'' (#430): "When the clause introduced by ''cum'' refers to a ''past'' action[,] the verb is generally subjunctive. ''Caesar, cum haec videret, milites impetum facere iussit.'' Caesar, seeing this, ordered his troops to charge. ''Legati, cum haec non impetrassent, domum redierunt.'' The ambassadors having failed to obtain this, returned home." Sed nota proximam sententiam (#431): "But in some circumstances a ''cum''-clause referring to a past action has an indicative verb. (''a'') When the relation between the clause and main sentence is ''solely'' one of time. This relation is often impressed on the reader by the presence of ''tum'' or ''eo tempore'' in the main sentence. ''Cum tu ibi eras, tum ego domi eram.'' At the time you were there, I was at home." In sententia originali, hoc ''tum'' non vidi. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:04, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

*Reversisti significationem sententiae meae de Diviciaco. Nam Romanos non pugnavit (ut apparet in Commentariis Caesaris), sed Germanos et Helvetios, et econtra auxilium Romanorum petiit. Ordo verborum mutare potes, nam rarissime poetor, sed significationem serva.

*De ''vergobreto'' mox declarabo : officium apud Gallos erat, quod proxime Romanus praetor par est.--[[Usor:Verbex|Verbex]] 21:44, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)