Ben C Smith

Dominus is an ordinary second declension noun. Dominus, domini, domino, dominum, domino. And, as spin pointed out, sum takes a subject complement (in the nominative), not a direct object (in the accusative). This is true in English, too, or at least in formal English. One says (or should say if using prescriptive grammar) it is she, not it is her.

One of my favorite movie scenes ever.

Ben.

Cesc

Not if ego + qui sum (I who am) is subject compliment to sum (I am). Its possible, maybe extreme rubbish, I wouldn't know, but possible.

I'm not really sure, honestly. That "qui" cannot possibly ever have implied pronoun in 1st person, only in 3rd (as in the examples I give below)?

Ok, fair enuff, and thx. I know I can be a difficult student!
But I only come up with these 'a priori structures' because I wanna know if the sentence can in any way be translated/interpreted/understood as such, like I said. No unstated intend.


But "qui" can have implied pronoun in 3rd person: qui est: he who is / that which is / the one who is.
So why not in 1st person ("I")? Or 2nd person ("you")? Is that the grammatical rule I must learn? That "qui" can have implied pronoun only in 3rd person? That is really the crux of the matter for me, I think.

Examples, 3rd person :

cognosco qui Dominus est
I recognize him who is the Lord

or

habeo quae rosea sunt
I have the things which are red


2nd person?
habeo quae ancilla es
I have you who are a female slave

or would you have to put the pronoun (te) explicit:
habeo te quae ancilla es
I have you who are a female slave

(excuse my examples, its just what I could come up with off the top of my head! Dont ask...)

1st person?
sum qui existo
I am I who exist

or - like in 2nd person - would you have to put the pronoun (ego) explicit:
sum ego qui existo
I am I who exist

show_no_mercy

Qui est is "he/she/it who is" but you're attaching the implied pronoun from the conjugation of "est" to the "qui".

Qui is not a verb. So it has no implied pronoun. Again, the thing is that the pronoun comes from verb conjugations (and the context of the phrase). Qui is not a verb, so it has no conjugations. You think that "est" only means "is" but since it's a conjugation it implies "he/she/it is". You're flip-flopping between your English interpretation of the phrase - reading it and interpreting it literally (something translators never do aside from pedagogical purposes) from left to right and inserting pronouns where they would be in English - and what a native speaker of the language would understand.

Are you trying to understand it, or are you trying to English-ize it literally? Can you point to any situations where "qui" by itself has an implied pronoun without an acompanying verb conjugate?

Loomis

Sure. No problem. You’re welcome. :wave:

Cesc

This is where I disagree. I believe you're mistaken because of the fact that in this example "qui" is nominative (subject). When it becomes direct object, accusative, then it becomes clear that "qui" (or "quem" in accusative) is not attaching the pronoun from any verb, but that it is implied in "quem". See below.

Yes:

edo quem habeo
I eat that which I have

amo quae edo
I love the things that I eat

There are no verbs here from where the pronouns "that" or "the things" come. Thus it is implied in "quem" and "quae".

spin

This doesn't deal with the issue at all. Verbs indicate understood pronouns. As "qui" is not a verb, it can't indicate such information.

Rewording it in English to reflect more what is happening in Latin:
I eat what I have.

I love what I eat.

(English doesn't have a feminine plural form of "what".)

You are relying on English idiomatic translation. It doesn't reflect the Latin grammatical behavior.

That's because these things do not exist in the Latin.

This is simply wrong. (And the forms "quem" [acc. sng. masc.] and "quae" [nom. plur. fem.] depend on the verb which governs them.)

You have been told several times now that you are not dealing with Latin here, but you are projecting English translations onto the Latin. They have nothing directly to do with what the Latin says. You are not trying to understand the Latin at all.

Over and out. :wave:


spin

Cesc

This is only true if you presuppose there's no context.
Suppose the context is:
She has 20 strawberries which she saves for later. I only have one.
--> I eat the one (which) I have
--> edo quem habeo

ergo, "quem" here means "the one (which)" and not "what". From the context it becomes clear that "quem" indicates that one particular strawberry (called the "correlate" in my language, Danish. Dont know the grammatical expressions in English).
In English we can bring out the nuance, but in Latin "quem" can imply "the one" strawberry, or if another context it could also mean "what".

Quae (which is plural neutral not feminine) in Latin - if it has no correlate - ususally just translates to "the things that" or "all the things that" or similar.
And as above, if there's context then quae can mean those which or indeed what or the ones that. If there's no context, then "what" would be the most proper translation, of course.
But in English you would say:
I only eat the good bananas. I love the ones that I eat. (amo quae edo)
--> quae = the ones that

You cant say:
I only eat the good bananas. I love what I eat (amo quae edo)
--> quae = what

Ergo, quae can mean both the ones that and also what. It depends on the context (or more specifically, on the correlate, here the bananas). You cant say categorically that "quae means what".


No, the forms quem and quae do not depend on any verb at all.

Their number and gender (sing. masc. and plur. neutr. respectively) depend on what they themselves indicate (their correlates). If quae indicates the bananas, then quae does not mean what, it means the ones that or those which. (That is, of course, if "banana" is neutral in Latin, which I pretend for the sake of argument.)
Whether they are nominative or accusative or dative etc. depends on - not a verb as such - but on what role (or whatever its called in English) they have in the sentence. Are they subject or direct object (as in the cases of the strawberry and the bananas) etc.
But I guess I should ask at a language forum, as this discussion about "qui, quem, quae etc." has little to do with biblical matters! :constern01:

Sheshbazzar

Even if 'something' is 'proved' about 'correct' Greek or Latin, it proves nothing at all as to whether the original thought expressed in the Hebrew is being accurately interpreted and conveyed.
Hundreds of Hebrew scholars, proficient in the Hebrew have wrestled with the implications and sense of Exodus 3:14 for millenia,
http://www.exodus-314.com
And even -they- have never arrived at any absolute consensus.

If a rendering into another language would seem to be more accurate, or pleasingly more exacting, it is only at the expense of obscuring the ambiguity inherent in the original, and forcing a sense of an absolute accuracy of interpretation, one that is both absent from, and alien to the original Hebrew text.

Shibboleth IS Shibboleth.

NO 'translation', nor 'interpretation', nor 'mispronunciation' will serve.
Sometimes -only- the original will serve.
Men can either learn it, and learn to live with it -AS IT IS;
or else die in their ignorance.

lpetrich

This discussion of the Vulgate's Latin translation of Exodus 3:14 I think is fundamentally irrelevant to the original -- it was not originally in Latin or even in Greek, but in Hebrew.

I've noted an ambiguity in it between the present tense and the present participle, making "(I) am" and "(the) being" look the same in Hebrew.


What I find annoying is the claim that Exodus 3:14 supports the claim that God is being itself, as opposed to an entity with properties. To me, that seems like an overinterpretation, and contrary to how the rest of the Bible describes the Biblical God. That entity is described as a discrete entity with lots of properties, including very anthropomorphic ones, it must be said.

spin

Sorry, this has continued to be griping from English and still has nothing to do with Latin. Your English rationalizations don't reflect anything about the significance in Latin. Languages tend to say similarly things differently. You need to understand the underlying forms.

And obviously you don't understand that if quem is accusative -- which it is -- it must depend on a verb.

Getting back to the Hebrew, the Latin reflects it well. I am who/what I am.


spin


in transit