This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The BIG Classics Discussion Thread

As suggested by Zem (since we cannot get our own forum) the UKL Classical Society is going to try holding all its discussions in one big classics thread. I hope that the members will put a link to this thread in their sigs.

Hypnos
--------
So, to get the ball rolling, who's going to Bryanston this year?

Reply 1

hypnos

OP

I'm going along with 5 (?) other people from my school.

Reply 2

GH

13

Can we have a general definition of "Classics" here. Becasue I'm not too sure what this entails as a course.

Reply 3

shiny

12

The study of Roman and Greek culture during the 'Classical Antiquity' period, i.e. from Homer to the fall of Rome (?)

Reply 4

Kalypso

1

I thought about going to Bryanston, but decided I couldn't afford to in terms of cost of course and also earning potential over summer lost. Pity, because Bryanston would have covered most of the Greek reading which I will now have to do at home all on my lonesome :frown:

Reply 5

Alexander

12

shiny

The study of Roman and Greek culture during the 'Classical Antiquity' period, i.e. from Homer to the fall of Rome (?)

I think that just about covers it, but it should be noted that traditionally Classics is mainly studied through literature in Latin and Greek.

I'll be at Bryanston, so I hope to see a few people about there -- if there are enough of us we should arrange meet up in the bar one night :smile:

Reply 6

d750

8

Alexander

I think that just about covers it, but it should be noted that traditionally Classics is mainly studied through literature in Latin and Greek.

I'll be at Bryanston, so I hope to see a few people about there -- if there are enough of us we should arrange meet up in the bar one night :smile:

Homer seems a bit late for a starting point, surely? :confused:

Reply 7

hypnos

OP

Classics is (in school terms anyway) Latin, Ancient Greek and Ancient History (or Classical Civilisation).

In a broader sense it is the study of the classical world (Greece and Rome: (Proto-Greek 2000BC to about 500AD) primarily through the detailed and close reading of primary sources (i.e. literature) in the original.

Some parts of Classics courses overlap with other areas: at Oxford I believe that you can study non-classical philosophy within classics; philology includes general stuff on phonetics and historical and comparative linguists (not to mention research into other cultures e.g. Hittites).

Reply 8

hypnos

OP

Oh and it appears we thrashed you *lol who cares?* at Badminton or something Alexander

Reply 9

naelse

15

I'll be at bryanston!!

Reply 10

hypnos

OP

3 of us so far then!

Reply 11

hypnos

OP

Caesar Gallic War I.3

"In eo itinere, persuadet Castico, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis moltos annos obtinuerat et a senatu 'populi Romani amicus' appellatus erat, ut regnum in civititate sua occuparet quod pater habuerat"

Meaning:

"On that journey, he persuaded Casticus, a Sequanian, whose father had held a kingdom among the Sequanians for many years and had been named by the senate "friend of the Roman people", to seize the kingdom in his state which his father had had".

Is there any way (other than sense) that we can tell that quod here means which and not because? I'm reliably informed that there is, and there's something of a contest on at the moment to find the answer.

Reply 12

theone

hypnos

Caesar Gallic War I.3

"In eo itinere, persuadet Castico, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis moltos annos obtinuerat et a senatu 'populi Romani amicus' appellatus erat, ut regnum in civititate sua occuparet quod pater habuerat"

Meaning:

"On that journey, he persuaded Casticus, a Sequanian, whose father had held a kingdom among the Sequanians for many years and had been named by the senate "friend of the Roman people", to seize the kingdom in his state which his father had had".

Is there any way (other than sense) that we can tell that quod here means which and not because? I'm reliably informed that there is, and there's something of a contest on at the moment to find the answer.

I don't really know here. I have a few ideas, perhaps if it was meant to 'because' without doubt, 'quia' might have been used. Also, if you take the two clauses separate, then quod is really a resumptive relative, so means what. Not entirely certain if you can tell from the grammar though

Reply 13

hypnos

OP

Here's a rather weak idea:
habeo is a transitive verb; "because his father had had" doesn't really make sense

No, that's rubbish actually.

Reply 14

elpaw

15

hypnos

Here's a rather weak idea:
habeo is a transitive verb; "because his father had had" doesn't really make sense

No, that's rubbish actually.

you can't translate everything literally, word for word. you have to use some context and common sense, to make it flow well.

Reply 15

hypnos

OP

Indeed. It's probably just a difference of idiom.

Reply 16

theone

hypnos

Caesar Gallic War I.3

"In eo itinere, persuadet Castico, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis moltos annos obtinuerat et a senatu 'populi Romani amicus' appellatus erat, ut regnum in civititate sua occuparet quod pater habuerat"

Meaning:

"On that journey, he persuaded Casticus, a Sequanian, whose father had held a kingdom among the Sequanians for many years and had been named by the senate "friend of the Roman people", to seize the kingdom in his state which his father had had".

If we are to translate ut regnum in civititate sua occuparet quod pater habuerat literally it means so that he might occupy the kingdom in the state quod his father was in possession of. Now because makes no sense at all here, you've supplied the additional 'had', so what is both the logical and natural translation imho

Reply 17

hypnos

OP

I agree. The translation is obvious by sense alone. However my source (doctor of classics oxfd uni...) assures me that there is some sophisticated grammatical point that makes 'because' impossible.

Reply 18

hypnos

OP

quod as a relative makes a subordinate clause which does weird things in indirect speech; however, the verb is not subjunctive!

Reply 19

theone

hypnos

quod as a relative makes a subordinate clause which does weird things in indirect speech; however, the verb is not subjunctive!

What about this?

'templum, quod altum erat, altimissior quam cetera aedificia erat'. Apologies for incorrect spellings/grammar, i can't be bothered to check.

I mean 'the temple, because/which it was tall, was taller than the other buildings'. Here, does quod mean which or because, you would say because makes more sense, but we can't be certain. Also, i don't believe a subordinate clause requires the subjunctive....

The BIG Classics Discussion Thread

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you