Accusative in genitive relative clause with verb finiebat











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I am working on Satyricon, currently chapter 30, and have stumbled upon a passage with a grammar that baffles me:




Et quod praecipuē mīrātus sum, in postibus triclīniī fascēs erant cum secūribus fīxī, quōrum ūnam partem quăsĭ embŏlum nāvis aēneum fīniēbat, in quō erat scrīptum:




My current translation is such:




And that which particularly baffled me / had me wondering, was that fasces were attached to the doorway with [their] axes, which [had] one part finished like the blazened beak of a ship, on which were written:




The relative clause, ‘quōrum … fīniēbat’, is where the problem is. The relative pronoun quōrum is such because it possessive; it is the fasces’ axes that are being described. Then follows ‘ūnam partem’, which is in the accusative. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the cause of this accusative is. It is as far as I can tell, not the object of the verb, but rather the subject!



This same conundrum applies to ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’. I interpret this to be a direct object, but find ‘quăsĭ’ to make this harder. With regards to ‘nāvis’, it is genitive, and again I believe this to be a possessive genitive.



My suspicion is that there is something either with the verb ‘fīniēbat’ or the conjunction ‘quăsĭ’ that causes these strange things, but I suppose I am completely wrong about this as well. My grammar led me to comparative conditional clauses with regards to ‘quăsĭ’, but then ended up even more confused, because I after reading about that, expected ‘quăsĭ’ to call a subjunctive verb.



I hope I have explained the problem well enough. In summary:




  • Why is ‘ūnam partem’ accusative?

  • Am I correct in assuming that ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’ is a direct object?

  • Why doesn’t ‘quăsĭ’ cause ‘fīniēbat’ to be ‘fīnīret’?

  • And finally, do ‘fīniēbat’ and ‘quăsĭ’ have some special properties to them calling specific cases?










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I am working on Satyricon, currently chapter 30, and have stumbled upon a passage with a grammar that baffles me:




    Et quod praecipuē mīrātus sum, in postibus triclīniī fascēs erant cum secūribus fīxī, quōrum ūnam partem quăsĭ embŏlum nāvis aēneum fīniēbat, in quō erat scrīptum:




    My current translation is such:




    And that which particularly baffled me / had me wondering, was that fasces were attached to the doorway with [their] axes, which [had] one part finished like the blazened beak of a ship, on which were written:




    The relative clause, ‘quōrum … fīniēbat’, is where the problem is. The relative pronoun quōrum is such because it possessive; it is the fasces’ axes that are being described. Then follows ‘ūnam partem’, which is in the accusative. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the cause of this accusative is. It is as far as I can tell, not the object of the verb, but rather the subject!



    This same conundrum applies to ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’. I interpret this to be a direct object, but find ‘quăsĭ’ to make this harder. With regards to ‘nāvis’, it is genitive, and again I believe this to be a possessive genitive.



    My suspicion is that there is something either with the verb ‘fīniēbat’ or the conjunction ‘quăsĭ’ that causes these strange things, but I suppose I am completely wrong about this as well. My grammar led me to comparative conditional clauses with regards to ‘quăsĭ’, but then ended up even more confused, because I after reading about that, expected ‘quăsĭ’ to call a subjunctive verb.



    I hope I have explained the problem well enough. In summary:




    • Why is ‘ūnam partem’ accusative?

    • Am I correct in assuming that ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’ is a direct object?

    • Why doesn’t ‘quăsĭ’ cause ‘fīniēbat’ to be ‘fīnīret’?

    • And finally, do ‘fīniēbat’ and ‘quăsĭ’ have some special properties to them calling specific cases?










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I am working on Satyricon, currently chapter 30, and have stumbled upon a passage with a grammar that baffles me:




      Et quod praecipuē mīrātus sum, in postibus triclīniī fascēs erant cum secūribus fīxī, quōrum ūnam partem quăsĭ embŏlum nāvis aēneum fīniēbat, in quō erat scrīptum:




      My current translation is such:




      And that which particularly baffled me / had me wondering, was that fasces were attached to the doorway with [their] axes, which [had] one part finished like the blazened beak of a ship, on which were written:




      The relative clause, ‘quōrum … fīniēbat’, is where the problem is. The relative pronoun quōrum is such because it possessive; it is the fasces’ axes that are being described. Then follows ‘ūnam partem’, which is in the accusative. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the cause of this accusative is. It is as far as I can tell, not the object of the verb, but rather the subject!



      This same conundrum applies to ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’. I interpret this to be a direct object, but find ‘quăsĭ’ to make this harder. With regards to ‘nāvis’, it is genitive, and again I believe this to be a possessive genitive.



      My suspicion is that there is something either with the verb ‘fīniēbat’ or the conjunction ‘quăsĭ’ that causes these strange things, but I suppose I am completely wrong about this as well. My grammar led me to comparative conditional clauses with regards to ‘quăsĭ’, but then ended up even more confused, because I after reading about that, expected ‘quăsĭ’ to call a subjunctive verb.



      I hope I have explained the problem well enough. In summary:




      • Why is ‘ūnam partem’ accusative?

      • Am I correct in assuming that ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’ is a direct object?

      • Why doesn’t ‘quăsĭ’ cause ‘fīniēbat’ to be ‘fīnīret’?

      • And finally, do ‘fīniēbat’ and ‘quăsĭ’ have some special properties to them calling specific cases?










      share|improve this question













      I am working on Satyricon, currently chapter 30, and have stumbled upon a passage with a grammar that baffles me:




      Et quod praecipuē mīrātus sum, in postibus triclīniī fascēs erant cum secūribus fīxī, quōrum ūnam partem quăsĭ embŏlum nāvis aēneum fīniēbat, in quō erat scrīptum:




      My current translation is such:




      And that which particularly baffled me / had me wondering, was that fasces were attached to the doorway with [their] axes, which [had] one part finished like the blazened beak of a ship, on which were written:




      The relative clause, ‘quōrum … fīniēbat’, is where the problem is. The relative pronoun quōrum is such because it possessive; it is the fasces’ axes that are being described. Then follows ‘ūnam partem’, which is in the accusative. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the cause of this accusative is. It is as far as I can tell, not the object of the verb, but rather the subject!



      This same conundrum applies to ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’. I interpret this to be a direct object, but find ‘quăsĭ’ to make this harder. With regards to ‘nāvis’, it is genitive, and again I believe this to be a possessive genitive.



      My suspicion is that there is something either with the verb ‘fīniēbat’ or the conjunction ‘quăsĭ’ that causes these strange things, but I suppose I am completely wrong about this as well. My grammar led me to comparative conditional clauses with regards to ‘quăsĭ’, but then ended up even more confused, because I after reading about that, expected ‘quăsĭ’ to call a subjunctive verb.



      I hope I have explained the problem well enough. In summary:




      • Why is ‘ūnam partem’ accusative?

      • Am I correct in assuming that ‘embŏlum nāvis aēneum’ is a direct object?

      • Why doesn’t ‘quăsĭ’ cause ‘fīniēbat’ to be ‘fīnīret’?

      • And finally, do ‘fīniēbat’ and ‘quăsĭ’ have some special properties to them calling specific cases?







      coniunctivus accusativus relative-clause object






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 23 at 21:27









      Canned Man

      258112




      258112






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          Your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.



          As for quasi, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase embolum navis aeneum. In addition to being a conjunction, quasi can be a kind of adverb meaning something like "nearly, sort of" (see section II of the L&S entry).






          share|improve this answer





















          • I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
            – Canned Man
            14 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "644"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7581%2faccusative-in-genitive-relative-clause-with-verb-finiebat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          6
          down vote













          Your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.



          As for quasi, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase embolum navis aeneum. In addition to being a conjunction, quasi can be a kind of adverb meaning something like "nearly, sort of" (see section II of the L&S entry).






          share|improve this answer





















          • I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
            – Canned Man
            14 hours ago















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          Your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.



          As for quasi, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase embolum navis aeneum. In addition to being a conjunction, quasi can be a kind of adverb meaning something like "nearly, sort of" (see section II of the L&S entry).






          share|improve this answer





















          • I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
            – Canned Man
            14 hours ago













          up vote
          6
          down vote










          up vote
          6
          down vote









          Your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.



          As for quasi, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase embolum navis aeneum. In addition to being a conjunction, quasi can be a kind of adverb meaning something like "nearly, sort of" (see section II of the L&S entry).






          share|improve this answer












          Your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.



          As for quasi, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase embolum navis aeneum. In addition to being a conjunction, quasi can be a kind of adverb meaning something like "nearly, sort of" (see section II of the L&S entry).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 23 at 21:59









          TKR

          12.9k2755




          12.9k2755












          • I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
            – Canned Man
            14 hours ago


















          • I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
            – Canned Man
            14 hours ago
















          I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
          – Canned Man
          14 hours ago




          I am assuming this means that my final question is a ‘No, there aren’t any special properties to them’, correct?
          – Canned Man
          14 hours ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7581%2faccusative-in-genitive-relative-clause-with-verb-finiebat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

          How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

          QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater