Disputatio:Rectio

Rectio civitatis

The English word comprises both the action of exerting executive and administrative functions and the body which in most modern countries consists of the head of state and council of ministers plus all subordinate agencies. Rectio (civitatis / rerum publicarum) only represents the first meaning. Regimen would include both (and I have found it practical when writing about politics).--Ceylon 17:25, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's surprising. I thought regimen only meant the particular government actually in power. Rectio would be more general by refering to the process (-io ending). Also since regimen and rectio both come from regere (to rule) I would have thought both encompass legislative and administrative functions of ruling a country.--Rafaelgarcia 17:33, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think government in the sense of "state goverment" si correctly translated as "gubernatio" (pilotage), although I know that many countries may use the term gubernator/gubernatio for governor/government, but I suspect that these are very recent usages. Cicero for instance used "rectio civitatis" for government in De Re Publica and Hobbes in De Cive uses "regimen" (perhaps in the sense of "the governance").--Rafaelgarcia 20:39, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought first of using administratio, which Cassell's, for "the business of governing," gives first in its list: administratio, gubernatio, procuratio, cura. For "supreme power," it gives imperium, regnum, dicio. It says regimen is 'a directing, guiding, controlling; a rudder; guidance, rule, government, direction, the government of a state; a ruler, governor'. Before posting the text, I noticed that Romance articles on the subject use a reflex of gubernatio. Perhaps regimen would be best. Let others chime in. IacobusAmor 21:17, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the fact that 'these are recent uses' disqualify them? [Scripsit TV]

Indeed. Sometimes we may have to use recent terms, like Colonialismus, Globalizatio, et Nationalismus, which might set Cicero turning in his grave! IacobusAmor 21:22, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being recent doesn't disqualify, but if there is a perfectly good classical term that is attested then it takes precedence according to our custom.--Rafaelgarcia 21:38, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The mos maiorum... --Ioscius ^(disp) 02:26, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why on earth should Classical Latin have precedence over later Latin? Do we take the same line with English? Mr Cicero might turn in his grave. On the other hand he might rejoice in the vastly extended vocabulary of Mediaeval and Modern Latin and the subtlety of expression thus provided! On 'gubernatio' for government, is this preferable to 'gubernamentum'? -- [Anon]

Let's just say that Latin is in a different situation from English. In English there is a huge current speaking and writing community. Those people, de facto, establish a standard (or standards). In Latin

1. the current speaking and writing communities are, mainly, the Catholic church and the biological nomenclature people. Both of those are a bit specialised (or wouldn't you agree, O Anon?)
2. there has been a widespread acceptance, by many trendsetters from Charlemagne's time onwards, that the classical standard is a good one to aim at.

All editors help make our policy. Rather than ask heated questions from the outside, join us and see how it goes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatio, rectio, and regimen all existed in Cicero's time. No one has added nothing to the vocabulary in this case. It's a question of which word means what. You can compare the meanings in classical latin: rectio is specifically used by Cicero for the government of a republic. Regimen means guiding, guidance, and direction in general; it is also the preferred post classical term for "the direction of State affairs, rule, government", which explains why Hobbes used it. gubernatio means primarily pilotage of a boat, but also captures the meaning of government as a very secondary, extended meaning. So I ask you is there any need to invent new usages? Why create confusion?--Rafaelgarcia 10:56, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne's efforts were a failure though! My concern is that there is a tendency among some to make this Wiki Ciceronian rather than Wiki Latin, which exercise has a slight odour of geekery of the sort one might associate with Wiki Klingon. The discernment should not be between a Classical Word which 'will do' but is better because its what Cicero would have said and a later and therefore less acceptable latin word, but to find the word that is the clearest and least ambiguous expression of the term needed. The recent resuscitation of Hebrew never attempted to be classically purist - that was found to be impossible and impractical. (I don't use emotica, but my question was not heated!)Tergum violinae 11:00, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've restated some of the arguments I made long ago for there to be two Latin wikis: a strictly classical one and an evolved modern one. But Vicipaedia has hardly enough participating writers to be a single entity, so we're stuck with whatever compromises we have to make. The classical ideal is a gift from the Renaissance humanists, who spurned the vulgar Latin of their day in favor of Cicero and their friends. It remained and remains the pedagogical ideal. ¶ In addition to accepting neologisms galore, and new meanings for old terms, an evolved Latin style should presumably accept other medieval & later innovations. Are you really arguing for these? Beeson's Primer of Medieval Latin gives a summary of them, including: spellings change; genders shift (mons is neuter); conjugations change (ligavi becomes ligui, and vellent becomes volerent); cases interchange almost randomly (paenitet takes the ablative instead of the genitive, confido takes the ablative with in instead of the bare dative or ablative); prepositions replace the locative with the names of towns; unus becomes an indefinite article; deponent verbs develop active forms; the imperfect tense is used for the perfect (we already see a lot of that in Vicipaedia [e.g., erat for fuit], mostly, perhaps, from native speakers of Romance languages); the acc. + inf. construction of indirect discourse yields to a clause introduced by quod ; the subjunctive goes haywire (technical term); debeo now means 'will' or 'shall'; habere gains new functions (cantare habes 'you must sing'); likewise facere (facere confessionem for confiteri); quantity is ignored in verse (and presumably the pronunciation even of prose). If these peculiarities—and many, many more!—were accepted here in Vicipaedia, we might have a veritable babel of incomprehensibility. IacobusAmor 13:35, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is yes. We belong to the Mediaeval Latin tradition in that we are using Latin as a second Language. It is utterly pointless trying to say things as Cicero would have said them when they are things he wouldn't have said. Languages evolve to express new ideas. You talk of the idiosyncracies of mediaeval grammar with the horror of an Erasmus. Are they really that wrong? Most of them make simply for greater clarity and freedom of expression. they are to be welcomed. It is for example very useful to be able to use both ACC + INF and 'quod' + INDICATIVE especially if you want to neatly embed one substantive clause within another. Those Renaissance people were talking crap. Have you read any Erasmus? Deeply stylish I'm sure, but how BORING! Style over content. Give me mediaeval any day.Tergum violinae 17:06, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the point is to recreate medieval latin styles, including all of their corruptions of grammar, I would suspect that there is not much interest for that among the users here. I don't think modern latin writers like Newton or Euler would have wanted that either.

If the point is to create an international language, there are better candidates out there. English evidently already plays this role. Evidence: what language are we writing in?

With regard to acc+inf versus quod clauses, the issue is not whether quod clauses are right, but whether they should be used to replace acc+inf. There are many attested perfectly good examples of quod clauses (in the sense of that/wherefore...see L&S quod and A&G) both in classical latin and the bible. However, all things being equal over-using them is simply bad style. And using them to replace acc+inf is simply wrong.--Rafaelgarcia 20:29, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are NOT corruptions of grammar any more than Cicero's grammar was a corruption of earlier Latin grammar. They are developments. The Latin of Bede, Anselm, Abbo, Abelard & co was not the language of idiots. "Dixit quod" was a legitimate construction for them despite their familiarity with Cicero. Cicero was still doing his best with the rude language of peasants, all the while envying the Greeks their language like all his contemporaries. The mediaeval scholars turned latin into a vehicle capable of the highest and most subtle expression. It is preposterous to say that Mediaeval Latin is wrong - and I suspect, misguided to assume that there is not much interest in mediaeval Latin here.Tergum violinae 22:05, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the unfortunate choice of words. I didn't mean to disparage medievals in any way. I recognize that language is always in a process of continual change and that changes don't make people bad. On the other hand, it seems that you are making a negative value judgment against those of us who follow modern usage prefering for classical grammar in favor of medieval grammar. If we must accept that language changes, why not accept the modern developments? Isn't that as legitimate an evolution? I fail to see any value in the various medieval innovations that Iacobus mentions: "genders shifts, random conjugations changes, interchanging cases, prepositions replacing the locative, unus becoming an indefinite article, deponent verbs becoming active, using the imperfect tense for the perfect.

Regardless of who is right, An encyclopedia requires a certain editorial standard. Vicipaedia can't have two contradictory grammars side by side, any more than can we have two spelling systems. Alternatively, one could also start a separate medieval latin wiki. If you wish to change our Vici to a medieval latin wiki, then you should propose the change in the Taberna and put it to a vote. --Rafaelgarcia 22:54, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how familiar you are with Mediaeval Latin. Let us just run through some of these grammatical anomalies you list. (I will say first that here and there you find some quite atrocious Latin from the middle ages - the Bayeux tapestry and the Domesday book being good examples - but we are dealing with the great mediaeval writers Anselm, Bede andd co. who knew what they were doing and were in no way ignorant of Latin grammar or even the writings of the classical authors). 1. Gender shifts are EXTREMELY rare, and result from understandable error in the minds of authors whose native language is a Germanic one which assigns different genders to some objects. We can ignore that. 2. The conjugation shifts are not random and haphazard as you think, but again very rare affecting a handful of verbs (degeo, degui for dego, degi is an example) and are consistently used. 3. The interchange of cases is not as haphazard as you imagine. It affects the case governed by some verbs. Prepositions replacing the locative is the end of a process that was well under way in Cicero's time. Good riddance to the Locative. 'In' and 'apud' do the job much better. This is a development Latin should welcome. Tergum violinae 11:50, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the impression that linguistic evolution implies linguistic improvement. IacobusAmor 12:33, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Unus as an indefinite article (and hic and ille as definite articles) is only used when sense demands it, as it does in some theological and philosophical writings. 5. Deponent verbs are active, I think you'll find. That is their point.Tergum violinae 11:50, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but someone has misread something: what was written was "deponent verbs develop active forms"—a different point altogether. IacobusAmor 12:33, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Imperfect for perfect is more common among some writers of Germanic origin as Germanic languages only have a single preterite which does for both, so the mental distinction is not clear to them. There are not two contradictory grammars as you suggest. Mediaeval grammar improves and augments where it differs at all as in the freer use of the present participle and the dixit quia... construction alongside the dixit ACC + INF. Tergum violinae 11:50, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me, both of you, if I'm wrong, but I suspect there may be easier solutions than turning the whole of Vicipaedia from classical to medieval. Latin is actually a broad church (forgive the metaphor). When we write about classical topics we are likely to get a bit Ciceronian or Suetonian. When we write about mediaeval things, we may well be drawing on mediaeval Latin sources and our style changes. When we write about natural history, our models may well be Pliny, Clusius or Linnaeus.

The question naturally arises on this page because classical, mediaeval and early modern Latinists have all written copiously on political philosophy. So we could discuss endlessly which models to choose and whose vocabulary to prefer. The more important thing, in my mind, will be to get the text written and to see if it makes sense.

I still think that in appealing to classical vocabulary, as we sometimes do when in doubt, we are following the same practice that Carolingian, Scholastic, Renaissance and early modern Latinists all followed. At least, they thought they were, and we think we are ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is a language that spans over 2000 years, many continents, states and cultures. When there are many distinct terms used for a given word, there have to be rules to decide which term to use for what. The same issue I am sure occurs in other language wikis, including english. Do you call the engine cover on a car a hood or a bonnet? Is it behavior or behaviour? The standard we have adopted for Latin is to give the oldest, classical term precedence (all other things being equal). If one doesn't care for the ancient language then this does beg the question: why is one here? Why bother with latin at all? In this wiki, we believe we are in the business of learning and conserving the latin language, not in the business of creating a new one.

The sources in this case, in this writer's opinion, are clear: Rectio means the institution of government, regimen means the direction of state affairs, and gubernatio means pilotage. (Thus, we have types of government: rectionis genera; Obama's government: regimen Obamae; and Rafael's bad driving: mala Rafaelis gubernatio ;-)--Rafaelgarcia 11:41, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utinam esset Rafaelis regimen! ;] --Ioscius ^(disp) 16:36, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to points above made by Tergum violinae: 1. Gender shifts are EXTREMELY rare, and result from understandable error in the minds of authors whose native language is a Germanic one which assigns different genders to some objects. We can ignore that.

So it is admitted to be a error, which is hardly different from a corruption.

2. The conjugation shifts are not random and haphazard as you think, but again very rare affecting a handful of verbs (degeo, degui for dego, degi is an example) and are consistently used.

Thus it is admitted that this "innovation" offers no grammatical advantage whatsoever.

3. The interchange of cases is not as haphazard as you imagine. It affects the case governed by some verbs.

Again no advantage is given.

4. Prepositions replacing the locative is the end of a process that was well under way in Cicero's time. Good riddance to the Locative. 'In' and 'apud' do the job much better. This is a development Latin should welcome. 4

Why? You're just giving an opinion, without an argument.

5. Unus as an indefinite article (and hic and ille as definite articles) is only used when sense demands it, as it does in some theological and philosophical writings.

Why is this better than the classical quidam?

It isn't. You seem to think it is a consistently used form. It isn't. I can't think of anywhere I've found it used so in fact. Again, I think we need to make a distinction between Bayeux Tapestry type Latin and literary Mediaeval Latin.

6. Deponent verbs are active, I think you'll find. That is their point.

What is the great advantage of turning deponent verbs into nondeponent ones? Is the advantage enough that it overcomes the disadvantage of the confusion of having to deal with two distinct meanings for the passive forms? .

It would actually be a massive advantage to turn deponents into active forms - of course it would - but Mediaeval Latin doesn't do this except in the worst sort of Bayeux tapestry Latin which represents a tiny fragment of the whole corpus. If we had every trifle written in Cicero's day, we'd find similar abuses - there have been badly educated people in every age.

I don't see any "massive advantage" in saying, for 'I take my shoes off for myself', meos calceos mihi removeo (four words) instead of excalceor (one word). IacobusAmor 17:14, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I think you might be missing the point...What I meant is it would solve a lot of probelems for so many of the folk who contrbute here if we had sequo -ere, sequi( or sexi?) secutum, and loquo, loquere, loqui, locutum would it not? But I'm not proposing that by any means! These things or similar may have occurred in Vulgar Latin - but Vulgar Latin and Mediaeval latin are not the same thing at all. Bede was not a vulgar man as far as I am aware!

7. Imperfect for perfect is more common among some writers of Germanic origin as Germanic languages only have a single preterite which does for both, so the mental distinction is not clear to them.

Thus this seems to be an error in grasping the meaning of the latin, due to the fact that it is a second language to them. It doesn't sound intentional, nor do I see an advantage in this.

8. There are not two contradictory grammars as you suggest. Mediaeval grammar improves and augments where it differs at all as in the freer use of the present participle and the dixit quia... construction alongside the dixit ACC + INF.

You have yet to demonstrate any advantage. You have not demonstrated a single thing that you can say with greater clarity using the medieval language styles. "dixit quia...." = "he speaks because..." is not the equivalent by a longshot to ACC+inf. If there ever was a contradiction it is contained in this one statement of yours!--Rafaelgarcia 12:23, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this last point I can only imagine that you are being deliberately obtuse. Quia, Quod and Quoniam are all used as conjunctions to introduce an indirect statement - it is the form that has survived in every Romance language. This use was probably found in colloquial Latin in Cicero's time but considered vulgar. Certainly by Augustine's time, though he rarely used it, it was widespread - as Jerome's Vulgate provides lots of examples. Dixit usually means he said, rather than he spoke, you'll find, so that "He said that he had seen the farmer's wife" can be rendered either "Dixit se uxorem agricolae vidisse" or Dixit quod uxorem agricolae viderat". In a short indirect statement the first is probably the better, but He said that the farmers wife wanted to milk the cow can become "Dixit uxorem agricolae vaccam mulcere velle" starts to lead to a pile up of accusatives and infinitives which are not too great a problem in this case - the cow presumably would not want to milk the farmer's wife - so we can say Dixit quod uxor agricolae vaccam mulcere volebat - which leaves no possibility of confusion. When we go to something like He said he knew the farmers wife wanted to milk the cow - Acc and Inf becomes even more of a pile up. Mediaeval writers like Bede freely use both constructions to make the best sense. If you have one indirect statement embedded in another, you can introduc the main one with quod/quia and put the subordinate one into an acc + inf. It is really not very clever to say that a construction used in literary Latin for at least thirteen centuries is wrong. I would also think that your Latin is good enough for you to know that quod has other meanings that 'because'. It is a relative pronoun for example. When reading Latin and 'quod' follows a verb of saying, it is read as 'that'. Quite simple really.

Perhaps you meant "dixit quod..." versus "dixi acc+inf". If so. then please explain the great advantage of this construction that makes up for the confusion caused by the ambiguity of the meaning of quod which can mean "because", "which", "wherefore" and "that". It is specifically because of this ambiguity that "quod clauses" in the sense of "that...." or "inf+acc" should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. When used as an across the board substitute, it is just bad. --Rafaelgarcia 12:46, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A possible difficulty in TV's proposal is that there may not be a single "medieval Latin" that would serve as a standard.

I think that unconsciously many mediaeval writers may have held the Vulgate to be paradigmatic.

With Latin of the Golden Age, we have a fairly clear set of rules, a fairly clean code. Of course no spoken language is exceptionless. Some writers prefer seemingly irregular forms (e.g., egenti for the ablative singular of egens and other present participles), and others prefer to force them into seeming consistency (using, e.g., egente); but these variations are minor compared with what the Middle Ages would bring. ¶ One of TV's first efforts here, IIRC, or maybe it was somebody else's, was to change a word like sollemnis (but perhaps not that word specifically) to a medieval representation of it: sollempnis. I've been trying to find it again, but it's elusive; maybe somebody has already changed it back. IacobusAmor 13:01, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have changed 'sollemnis to sollempnis, but I certainly may have written it! That is somewhat irrelevant. Any written texts of the Classical authors in the middle ages would have had such spellings as well. Its reflevts way Latin was pronounced then and therefore the way it was transmitted. A lot of Mediaeval Latin hasn't had the subsequent hand of editors over it, so the strange spellings remain.

Lastly I'm not promoting Mediaeval Latin as some kind of ideal but objecting to the rather ignorant notion that it is somehow corrupt or inferior and its influence should be purged from modern Latin usage. I am rather certain that the traditional contempt for the so called "Dark Ages" in the English speaking world has done a lot of damage to the whole study of Latin.

For the record I am never deliberately obtuse.

In summary I take it that you agree with all of my points above, except arguing for the usefulness, every once in a while, of using quod and quia clauses in place of acc+inf. So we have reduced the entirety of the innovation of the middle ages latin to greater flexibility in this one kind of construction. Rather than arguing for medieval latin, it would appear that you are merely arguing for the utility of one kind of construction that was present in classical latin but not so widespread. So it seems that you have failed to prove your point that medievalisms present us with an adavantage.--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record I should add that the issue isn't the value of medieval latin literature, but what standard we should adopt at Vicipaedia for deciding correctness of spelling, grammar and vocabulary.--Rafaelgarcia 17:12, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been more excusable to be deliberately obtuse than unwittingly. You appear to have a very distorted view of mediaeval Latin, which might well be corrected if you read some of Bede's Historia - a model of elegance and clarity. Every author has his individual style, but the ONLY things which would mark this as very different to Classical Latin, apart from the 'quod' clauses, are a freer use of the present participle (as in Greek - a very useful thing sometimes), a more extended vocabulary including a number of technical terms, and a greater use of abstract nouns (this has advantages and disadvantages - English uses abstract nouns a lot more than some other languages) and finally the use of in and apud with appropriate case rather than the locative - completing a process that was under way in the Classical period. All the other 'horrors' you suspect are not there. My real concern is living Latin. that is where this conversation started in the first place. It was felt that 'gubernatio' was a later Latin use, so it was necessary to step backwards and adopt an earlier use. I can't see the point in going backwards.

It is unclear that taking Bede's work as "representative" of medieval latin would be appropriate, since the medieval period spans many centuries. I again am focused on grammatical and spelling standards. If Bede is indistinguisable from classical latin execept for personal style of expression, then this hardly is an argument for adopting a standard which is different from that which we currently have.--Rafaelgarcia 18:33, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not share your concern with "living latin" and upholding the value of medieval latin literature. Rather my concern is only which grammatical, spelling/ and vocabulary standard we should adopt for the encyclopedia. So far, you haven't presented any evidence for changing the standard we now have, which is to give precedence to the oldest attested term for a given thing when naming pages and for holding up the standard of classical grammar, all other things being equal.

The whole argument is tedious and you seem to grab hold of every wrong stick end there is. If you don't share any concern for living Latin what are you doing here? Don't answer because I really can't be bothered anymore. I guess its just anoher cross-ocean dispute. Tergum violinae 19:24, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three issues: first what should the name of the page be rectio or gubernatio. Second, of wider scope, what should our standards be at vicipaedia and should we change them. Third, what of the future of the latin language? The first issue can be addressed here; the second should be addressed at the Taberna, but can be discussed here too for the time being; the third is totally outside the scope of what Vicipaedians can decide, as it involves the entire community of latin writers/speakers. It is in this sense, and in the context of my restricted role as sysop, that "living latin" and "medieval latin" is not of my concern--because it is outside our scope to decide anything about it here. What's that AA saying? Deus da mihi potestatem ad rem quam possum mutandam...--Rafaelgarcia 19:47, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to gubernatio I am not aware of *any* medieval treatise that uses this term for the institution of government. Regardless of whether someone uses this term in this sense today (which is uncertain), at the very least is it not the oldest attested term with this meaning so by our current policy it is mentioned as a synonym but the page is named after the older term.--Rafaelgarcia 18:28, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia family already has excellent wikis in the modern versions of Latin: French, Italian, Spanish, and so on. Vicipaedia is on its way to attaining some small measure of excellence in a much older version of the language, the one that has almost always been held out to students as a standard: Latin of the Golden Age, an era that was not so named for no reason. Now someone vaunts an intermediate version of the code, and I'm all for that—in a wikipedia all its own, if there's enough interest in it. As our founder insists, "Wikipedia is not paper!"—from which one implication is clear: the world presents us with no practical limits to the number of articles, or even to the number of encyclopedias, that we can create. Let a thousand wikis bloom! IacobusAmor 13:01, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved by Tergum Violinae's passionate defense of medieval latin, I spent some time this evening searching online versions of the bible for dixit, quod and dixit, quia. I think I finally understand why everyone always said that the Vulgate had a different kind of latin. Apart from minor vocabulary differences, the main difference is that the vulgate latin does essentially substitute quia and quod in the sense of "wherefore" for the accussative and infinitive. I never noticed that before and just regarded the wierd construction as an artifact due to the translation of a foreign language into latin. However, it seems this style was perhaps not regarded as a bug but rather as a feature. Essentially, rather than "Jeremias dixit ignoturum esse locum..." or "Jeremias dixit fore ut ignotus fuerit locus" (Jeremiah said the place will be unknown...") the .bible says "Jeremias dixit: Quod ignotus erit locus.." (Jeremiah said: Wherefore unknown will be the place...). Very interesting that it developed this way. I can see why it happened. For a non native speaker the fore ut+subj is harder to learn that simply add a wherefore and move on. It's not clear why the acc+inf isn't easier though. --Rafaelgarcia 01:58, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That dixit may merely be functioning like ait & inquit, introducting a direct quotation, so the quod there may not be unusual. The books of the Bible have many direct quotations. A more innovative quod is seen in this sentence, from James of Vitry (m. 1240): "Audivi quod quidam praelatus in Francia optimum equum habebat" (from Beeson, p. 49). And in this one, from Einhard's Life of Charlemagne: "Valetudine prospera, praeter quod . . . uno pede claudicaret" (Beeson, p. 156); praeter quod = 'except that'. IacobusAmor 02:32, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more than one version of the Latin bible out there! New Advent Bible site gives "Alii dicebant: Quia hic est."John9:8 is translated :"Others said: he is here." (my translation: "Others were saying: wherefore he is here") and " Ille vero dicebat: Quia ego sum" John 9:9 translated: "But he said: I am he" (my translation: "He in truth was saying: wherefore I am" . But the Vatican Documenta Latina gives : "alii dicebant: “ Hic est! ”" and "Ille dicebat: “ Ego sum! ”." So apparently the Vatican subscribes to the the modern disdain of the Vulgate Clementine quia/quod construction.--Rafaelgarcia 03:05, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you will find that the dixit quod construction occurs in Pliny. It was at that stage colloquial rather than literary, and one could surmise that Cicero himself used it when chatting to his mates in the taberna. It certainly features in Augustine, but somewhat sparingly. It is a wonder that you find it all so difficult to grasp. The sense of quod meaning "wherefore" or "because" is entirely secondary to its meanings "which" and "that". The "innovative" uses of quod mentioned by IA are not innovative at all. 82.36.94.228 21:06, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that in this context quod has to be translated "that", not "wherefore" (incidentally I don't think I've ever said "wherefore" before)!

To answer Rafael's comment above, which I hadn't seen before: although the accusative + infinitive is an easy transformation in a teaching context, it is easier still to repeat the speaker's words exactly, in quoting, than to transform them. Accusative + infinitive always involves a transformation. The general trend of popular language development (especially, of course, when the language is rapidly spreading to many former speakers of other languages) is towards what is easier: hence it's not surprising that the popular Latin of the Vulgate would adopt a construction in which the speaker's words can be repeated without transformation.

I don't know the source of the Vatican text cited above, but it seems to rely heavily on punctuation. There was (practically) no punctuation when the Vulgate was written. It's a very easy system to chain together "dixit + quod/quia + words quoted". Anyone can follow it, with or without punctuation. Very much as in American English one warns the audience of a quotation by saying "quote" (clever, these Americans!) The other desirable feature -- which Sanskrit and other south Asian languages actually did develop, although Latin didn't -- is to have a word that means "end quote" (iti in Sanskrit, ti in Pali). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your comparison to "quote". I have no problem with this construction for announcing direct quotes, and in other places where an acc+inf is awkward or difficult. Although I see a definite virtue in avoiding this construction as a universal translation for "that clauses" because quod/quia have double duty: meaning both "because" and "that". For this reason they should be used sparingly and only when the context indicates it.--Rafaelgarcia 14:36, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]