Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Technologia" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Linea 18:
:For ''Scientificus vel ingeniarius vel inventor dicitur qui nova instrumenta, rationes, et cetera excogitet,'' one reads: 'Whoever devises new tools, methods, and other things is called a scientist or an engineer or an inventor'. And so on. Wouldn't that require the subjunctive? We don't know who they might be. The subject is ''qui,'' its reference is indefinite (thereby invoking Gildersleeve's section 631.2), and the ''scientificus'' &c. look like predicates of some sort. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 01:13, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
::I don't think that is correct or you are misinterpreting it; there are lots of examples to the contrary everywhere in latin literature of qui+indicative being the subject of a sentence with that sense, eg. [http://books.google.com/books?id=rAXHv7KlHxMC&pg=PA95&dq=qui+amat&hl=en&ei=nGguTrSsE_HQmAW9vtFP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=qui%20amat&f=false] and also in the bible all over...--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.69.44|123.192.69.44]] 07:18, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
:::This is discussed in Woodcock, ''A New Latin Syntax'' section 155. My understanding, after reading it, is that the subjunctive is classical in this context, not the indicative (though I feel guiltily sure that I have often, Biblically, used the indicative). The Vulgate wouldn't be a good guide to classical usage, I think, (a) because it is late, (b) because it often literally translates the Greek text. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 08:16, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
| |||