This kind of construction is impossible in English or German, so translation will necessarily involve significant restructuring. The only connection between (a) and (b) is the quam in (c), which has no semantic role in (b). Magna vis conscientiae quam qui neglegunt.
This creates a situation in which there is no element expressing the relationship between (a) and (b) except for the pronoun in (c), which has no semantic value in (b). In this construction, three clauses are in play:Ī) a superordinate clause, which contains a coreferential element Ĭ) a clause subordinate to (b), which contains a relative pronoun coreferential to its counterpart in (a). In particular, this is "relative interlacing" (OLS 18.2). This passage exhibits "interlacing," a construction in which "a constituent that belongs semantically to a subordinate clause fulfils a function in the superordinate clause" (Oxford Latin Syntax 14.19). Does this explain why the first relative pronoun, "quo", is in the ablative or, would "quo" have been used anyway, because it fits? (iii) Deponent verb, "potior", selects the ablative, sometimes the genitive, according to context. (ii) Then, "which necessarily makes its possessor happy" there is no verb, in the Latin, for something making anything happen. The present subjunctive "necesse sit" = "would be necessary" might have been better than "necesse est", in Cicero's example: "cum" = "since" was already dictating the use of the present subjunctive (sequence-of-tenses)). "with how great loss and the death of how many gallant men the victory would necessarily be purchased "' "quanto detrimento et quot virorum fortium morte necesse sit constare victoriam " = If this sentence only works with adverb, "necessarily", why didn't Cicero use "necessario"?
(i) The adverb "necessarily" is "necessario" for "necesse est" Oxford lists one meaning, "it is necessary"-nothing else. This implies that "to be happy" is necessary-an obligation-which happiness isn't. "and since that ('the increase') alone is good, from which (quo) it is necessary (necesse est) that he who possesses this (qui potiatur) is happy (beatus sit),"
LATIN NECESSE EST PLUS
If you are curious, you have to find out yourself."in virtute enim sola et in ipso honesto cum sit bonum positum, cumque nec virtus, ut placet illiis, nec honestum crescat, idque bonum solum sit, quo qui potiatur, necesse est beatus sit,".įor since the good consists solely in virtue and in actual Moral Worth, and neither virtue nor Moral Worth, as they hold, admits of increase, and since that alone is good which necessarily makes its possessor happy,".įrom ("cum" = since, plus subjunctive) ".idque bonum solum sit, quo qui potiatur, necesse est beatus sit," the English translation clearly works but it leaves some questions. Much later I found out the background to this quote made of Pompeijus. *History was not included in the latin studies. We have a need of changing ourselves not only to be beautiful – but also to show that we are rich, dangerous, powerful, energetic, intelligent, aware etc.īut being in this act, seeing the change, can be a strong motivation. There is a special kind of obsession you can meet among tattooed and pierced people who will cover more and more of their bodies with tattoos and holes. To be so obsessed with the acting that everything else loses its meaning. During many years trying to understand, my interpretation was that the importance of the act (of sailing). Not knowing the history* it made no sense for someone born in the inlands of north Sweden not seeing the sea until grown up. One was “Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse” translated would be To sail is necessary, to live is not necessary. In high school studying latin, we were learning well-known sentences.
0 kommentar(er)
