# ..quo opus esset...



## shannenms

I have no idea why quo is used in this sentence:
Hoc facto duabus legionibus quas proxime conscripserat in castris relictis ut, _*si quo opus esset*_, subsidio duci possent...

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## modus.irrealis

The notes in my book imply that the _quo_ here is the adverb and (because of the _si_) means "to any place." You also need to supply _duci_ from the context, so loosely the _si quo opus esset_ is "if they need to be led anywhere."


----------



## Probo

shannenms said:


> I have no idea why quo is used in this sentence:
> Hoc facto duabus legionibus quas proxime conscripserat in castris relictis ut, _*si quo opus esset*_, subsidio duci possent...
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.


 
Salue: Post coniunctionem *si*, non *aliquo* uel* aliquis (aliqua, etc.)* dicitur, sed *quo*, *quis*, etc. Itaque haec sententia legenda est: *si aliquo opus esset*. Britannice verti potest "If it were necessary for something". *It=*subsidio duci possent. Veniam uobis peto, quod Britannice non bene loquor. Curate ut ualeatis


----------



## shannenms

Thank you for your post, but I think you are on the wrong track; in some editions it has been read si qua opus esset, so I don't think it is a good idea to regard it as aliquid.
I read that this quo refers to the direction, but I am not still convinced that is correct.

Best of luck,


----------



## Probo

shannenms said:


> Thank you for your post, but I think you are on the wrong track; in some editions it has been read si qua opus esset, so I don't think it is a good idea to regard it as aliquid.
> I read that this quo refers to the direction, but I am not still convinced that is correct.
> 
> Best of luck,


 
In oxoniensis editio by Renatus du Pontet, we read *quo *and only *quo*. I think *qua* is not possible here. In _The Perseus Project _we read, as well, *quo. *I didn't find any edition with *qua*. I'm sure, that after *si* the correct form is *quis-quae-quid*. So, you can translate: _After doing this, and leaving in the camp the two legions which he had last raised, that, if there should be any occasion, they might be brought as a reserve_. This is the _Perseus_ translation. I don't like it very much, but I have not any doubt it is correct. Sorry again for my horrible english. Cura ut ualeas


----------



## shannenms

I agree completely with you, but I don't why Long and Anthon have tried to translate and analyze it inother way.(Please see the post 2).

Thanks.


----------



## Probo

Sorry Shannenms, but it's very difficult for me writing in english. Who are Long and Anthon? Latin is not easy, and the texts are often damaged; but in this case I don't find any problem. I have in front of me the english text (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001&layout=&loc=2.8 ) and it agrees with my own translation In spanish it would be, more or less: _Hecho esto, y habiendo reservado en el campamento a las dos legiones que acababa de reclutar para que pudieran ser llevadas como ayuda _(subsidio duci possent_), *si fuera necesario*_ (in fact, I don't traslate *quo*,because it isn't necessary_), dispuso en formación de combate delante del campamento las seis legiones restantes._  I don't know if I help you, but is wonderful to talk about latin. Salutem plurimam tibi do.


----------



## shannenms

Sorry those two guys are just two editors of Caesar's bello galico, you can download them in the free google books.
I can't find out why duci is not supplied if I accept your translation, which I think is flawless.
P.S: Your English is far better than mine, but if it is difficult for you to write in English keep on posting in Latin.
Thanks.


----------



## Probo

Probo said:


> Sorry Shannenms, but it's very difficult for me writing in english. Who are Long and Anthon? Latin is not easy, and the texts are often damaged; but in this case I don't find any problem. I have in front of me the english text (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001&layout=&loc=2.8 ) and it agrees with my own translation In spanish it would be, more or less: _Hecho esto, y habiendo reservado en el campamento a las dos legiones que acababa de reclutar para que pudieran *ser llevadas* como ayuda _(subsidio duci possent_), *si fuera necesario*_ (in fact, I don't traslate *quo*,because it isn't necessary_), dispuso en formación de combate delante del campamento las seis legiones restantes._ I don't know if I help you, but is wonderful to talk about latin. Salutem plurimam tibi do.


 
Duci=Ser llevadas=Be brought.   _Duci_ is the passive form of  _ducere_. I have translated it. Thank you for your kind words about my english. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me too speaking latin... but it is funnier
Iterum salue!


----------



## shannenms

I didn't mean that you did not translate it, but duci means "brought", and I am curious to know where they were brought to, your translation fails here.
By the way, unfortunately I don't know any Spanish.

Thanks.


----------



## Probo

Nuper inueni librum Anthonis de quo locuta es. Nescio cur editor scribat *qua*. Fortasse error est. Fortasse lectior difficilior despecta ab allis editoribus... Nescio. In lingua Hispanica et, quoque, in Brittanica, ut credo, _duco (=conducir, to bring)_ sine complemento uti potest. _Pueri a parentibus ducti sunt _(quo? nescimus); Dux copias ducit (quo? e quo?). In texto nostro, potes legere, si uis, _subsidio duci *e castris* possent._ Sed mihi non placet. Ut ualeas.


----------



## shannenms

Anthon says: ...si qua opus esset: "If there should be need in any part", with qua supply parte.some editions have si quid, others si quo, the Greek paraphrast has "ei ti deon eie"
But Long says: quo expresses the direction they might have to move, if they were wanted.
As you see there are many ambiguities in this line.


----------



## wonderment

Probo said:


> Salue: Post coniunctionem *si*, non *aliquo* uel* aliquis (aliqua, etc.)* dicitur, sed *quo*, *quis*, etc. Itaque haec sententia legenda est: *si aliquo opus esset*. Britannice verti potest "If it were necessary for something". *It=*subsidio duci possent. Veniam uobis peto, quod Britannice non bene loquor. Curate ut ualeatis





shannenms said:


> Thank you for your post, but I think you are on the wrong track; in some editions it has been read si qua opus esset, so I don't think it is a good idea to regard it as aliquid.
> I read that this quo refers to the direction, but I am not still convinced that is correct.



Probo is right. _quis, quid,_ is generally an interogative pronoun (who? what?), but becomes an indefinite pronoun (anyone/anything, someone/something) after _si, nisi, ne, nescio,_ and _num_. (e.g. _si quis_ = anyone, _ne quis_ = that no one) In effect _si quis_ = _aliquis_, and _si quid_ = _aliquid_. 

Following Probo, I would translate "si quo opus esset, subsidio duci possent" as "if there were need for anything, they could be brought in as reserve troops." And as he also noted, "for anything" is not really necessary here. If you translate the sentence literally, the text is not problematic: _si quo_  = _aliquo_ = anything/something, indefinite pronoun, ablative, singular, neuter--ablative because the construction, _opus est_, requires either an ablative or genitive of what is needed.

Okay, now to the problem raised by _qua_ and _quo_: (I agree with Probo that most editors go with _quo_ because _qua_ seems to be the more difficult reading, perhaps a scribal error.) In the dictionary, _quo_ and its variant _aliquo_ are adverbs (undeclinable by definition) meaning "to anywhere, in some direction, to what end, for what purpose." And _qua_ and _aliqua_ are adverbs meaning "in what direction, where, by what way, in any way." So...you can still take _quo_ and _qua_ as adverbs and the text would still make sense: "if there were need in any way (_qua_)/for any purpose (_quo_), they could be brought in as reserve troops." I wouldn't opt for "where" as a definition since that makes less sense to me. But why bother with the adverb when the indefinite pronoun works just fine? I honestly don't see any ambiguity here. 

_Valete!_

(p.s. For what it's worth, even native speakers of English make mistakes all the time, and will continue to do so, and it’s okay! If only people with perfect English contributed to these forums, it wouldn’t be a place I’d want to visit.)


----------



## brian

shannenms said:


> Anthon says: ...si qua opus esset: "If there should be need in any part", with qua supply parte.some editions have si quid, others si quo, the Greek paraphrast has "*ei ti deon eie*"
> But Long says: quo expresses the direction they might have to move, if they were wanted.
> As you see there are many ambiguities in this line.



It's strange that the same editor would say that "parte" needs to be supplied when he also quotes the Greek "ει τι δεον ειε," which means literally "If there be something (that is) needed" or "If there be any need," and which makes no mention of "in any part" or "anywhere."


----------



## shannenms

wonderment said:


> Okay, now to the problem raised by _qua_ and _quo_: (I agree with Probo that most editors go with _quo_ because _qua_ seems to be the more difficult reading, perhaps a scribal error.) In the dictionary, _quo_ and its variant _aliquo_ are adverbs (undeclinable by definition) meaning "to anywhere, in some direction, to what end, for what purpose." And _qua_ and _aliqua_ are adverbs meaning "in what direction, where, by what way, in any way." So...you can still take _quo_ and _qua_ as adverbs and the text would still make sense: "if there were need in any way (_qua_)/for any purpose (_quo_), they could be brought in as reserve troops." I wouldn't opt for "where" as a definition since that makes less sense to me. But why bother with the adverb when the indefinite pronoun works just fine? I honestly don't see any ambiguity here.


 

Honestly I didn't get your point, I see that you first agree with quo then at the same time confirm qua as meaningful


brian8733 said:


> It's strange that the same editor would say that "parte" needs to be supplied when he also quotes the Greek "åé ôé äåïí åéå," which means literally "If there be something (that is) needed" or "If there be any need," and which makes no mention of "in any part" or "anywhere."


 
I feel the same


----------



## wonderment

shannenms said:


> Honestly I didn't get your point, I see that you first agree with quo then at the same time confirm qua as meaningful



In my reading of the text, both _quo_ and _qua_ (the adverbs) are possible variants; they are almost synonymous:

_si quo opus esset, subsidio duci possent_ = if there were need for any purpose, they could be brought in as reserve troops
_si qua opus esset, subsidio duci possent_ = if there were need in any way, they could be brought in as reserve troops

But as I've also tried to explain in post #13, it's best to take _quo_ (the accepted reading by most editors) as an indefinite pronoun after _si_ (_si quo_ = _aliquo_).


----------



## shannenms

wonderment said:


> _si qua opus esset, subsidio duci possent_ = if there were need in any way, they could be brought in as reserve troops


 
I always have difficulty with English, sorry to bother you with these questions(one of the members, spectre scolaire, used to correct my English at times).

"in any way" in your second translation means "in this manner" or "in any place"?

Thanks.


----------



## wonderment

shannenms said:


> "in any way" in your second translation means "in this manner" or "in any place"?



In this context "in any way" means "in any condition."


----------

