Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Technologia" differant

::::Yes, the "descriptive, generic qui-clause" may afford an apter angle, the original being understood as 'The sort of person who devises new tools, methods, and other things is called. . . .' The example in Cassell's is that ''qui'' takes the subjunctive when it serves "to express a general description, parallel to an adj.: mihi carus et illum qui pulchre nosset, Hor." Perhaps a pertinent section in Bradley's Arnold is #503: "Especially common are consecutive ''qui''-clauses which define a ''quality'' of the antecedent. [But is there a real antecedent in the sentence at hand?] ''Is est qui haec dicat.'' He is the sort of man to say this." But maybe not, though one returns to the tentativeness of the clause: since not every person who 'devises new tools, methods, and other things' is 'called a scientist' &c., the ''qui''-clause here isn't a factually true statement, and contrafactual expressions often invite the subjunctive. Is this clause perhaps a cousin of ''sunt qui'' constructions? All sources checked here agree that existential ''qui''-clauses with indefinite references (''Sunt qui, Erant qui,'' &c.) require the subjunctive. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:02, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

::::: I must add a few words in defense of 123.192.69.44. Generally, the same rules of modal use (indicative vs subjunctive) apply to the relative clauses as to normal sentences. I don't think there's a syntactic mechanism by which we should say ''Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitet'' instead of the normal and straightforward ''Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitat'' (cf. Apul. ''de mundo'' 12 ''Turbo autem dicitur, qui repentinis flabris prosilit atque universa perturbat''). If the writer or speaker wishes to add a pragmatic, modal (causal, concessive, conditional, consecutive, final) nuance to it, he may use subjunctive in the relative clause. In the case at hand, it's not necessary to think of any such nuance that should be added to the proposition. In other words, ''Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitat'' gives an extensional definition of the concept 'ingeniarius', and that should be sufficient in an encyclopedia. I don't think anything important is achieved by forcing out an added consecutive interpretation. I suggest ''excogitat'' instead of ''excogitet''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 11:28, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)