2. My puzzle

First, three examples:

quote:

---

Let my people go.

Let there be light.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

---

Some people will already recognize a dispute that ran for a week or so in the letters column of the Grope and Flail -- ERROR UPON ERROR, I SAY! -- until some anti-intellectual came along and said who are these grammar-nazis anyway (imagine!), and the whole discussion got shut down.

The original question was about the third example above. People seemed to think that the first word in that construction, "Let," is an imperative verb, and that "he" (the KJ translators' choice) is therefore an error -- by their logic, the pronoun following an imperative should be the object, "him."

To me, "Let" in the second and third examples is not, repeat not, an imperative, but here I need a Latinist to give me the category I'm fumbling for. We can all see that "Let" in the first example is a simple imperative, a direct order; "people" is indeed the object of that verb, and if we substituted a pronoun, the order would correctly read "Let them go."

But the "Let"s in the two further examples are not direct orders. They are exhortations, or prayers, or the expressions of things to be wished or desired.

It is my contention that that use of "Let" is a short form for a longer expression that produces a suppressed relative clause in each case.

Thus, our reading of example 3:

Let {he [who is without sin] cast the first stone}

could be more fully written out:

May it be {that he [who is without sin] cast the first stone.}

Do you see what I mean by a suppressed relative clause? "He" is obviously the subject of the (iussive subjunctive) verb "cast." (Note that there is an interior relative clause, "who is without sin," which modifies "he" and which I'm dropping out here.)

Two questions:

1. What does one call that use of "Let," as a prayer or exhortation, in Latin grammar? I know that it dictates the iussive subjunctive following. I know that it exists, and I think that it justifies the written-out variation I've done, but I forget its name or exactly how it works.

2. A small wrinkle: when I look up "iussive subjunctive" on Google, I see that iussive subjunctives do often have object forms as their subjects. *frazzle*

And it is true enough that when we do drop the interior relative clause out of that sentence, we end up with "Let he cast the first stone," which none of us would write.

So anyway, that's my question.

In the third example, the context suggests giving conditional permission for a behaviour, not commanding it, and not to a "he" but to one or several in a defined catagory of people represented by "he" . If you are without sin you may cast the first stone, but there's nothing to say you have to. You just may not if you're a sinner.

I don't know if that even addresses your concern, 'cause I skipped shop class the day we took up iussive subjunctives. I love hearing you talk that way though.

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

That he should cast!

What I find frustrating and confusing about grammar is when it's limited to the words of one language and doesn't take into account aesthetics, common usage and comparison with similar forms in other languages.

For example, a phrase that starts with "Let..." first of all, we don't talk that way much anymore, do we? So I'd vote for what sounds best: Let him who is without sin... as in Let him do whatever he wants. Maybe "Let he..." was more common usage in KJV times.(?) Don't writers get together every so often to debate on what will be proper usage and so "what's right" gets decided upon consensus by users rather than any scientific or purely linguistic criteria?

So he walks out of St. John's airport and jumps in a cab. "Say buddy" he says "can you tell me where I can get scrod"?

I'll do the short no first, because we probably want to leave that example behind us quickly (it being the scene of my shame). The rules for the subjunctive are the same in English as in French, and that wasn't the problem. It's that silly pronoun ...

And one other no, at least as I know lexicographers and grammarians: the shifts and changes that gradually get accepted for reasons of common usage generally are ... shifts and changes in usage (semantics), rather than structure (grammar). There have been changes in English grammar since the C14, but far far fewer than changes in usage, and they have taken place much much more slowly.

I agree with you that trying to fit together the grammars of different languages leads to major and minor curiosities. At some point, Mandos will be along to tell us that there is a universal human grammar, and maybe there is -- I am only semi in agreement with that claim, although I can see that there must be something common in the structure of the brain.

But even at simple levels, we can think of differences between, eg, French and English grammar.

For instance, you would never say, in French, "C'est je," would you?

But in English, there's a big debate over "It is I" and "It is me." In English, we presume that the verb to be takes a complement rather than an object, and the complement takes the form of the subject -- the verb to be is an equation, in other words. So technically, "It is I" is correct, although almost no one still uses that form.

I'm not up on my Greek imperatives. Didn't someone write the Globe saying that the original Greek was a tense Latin did not have, a third-person imperative? (Although "Let there be light" sounds like a third-person imperative, doesn't it? "Shine, light!" What do you call that, hortative?)

Therefore, both the Latin and the King James version are loose translations, and you can read it however you like, more or less?

But does "Let him cast" mean "Cast, sinless one!", or "He that is without sin, go ahead and cast?" Or more gently "May he who is without sin cast" or more colloquially, "He that is without sin should cast" or still more colloquially "If anyone here is free of sin, he can cast the first stone." Or perhaps "Who is so pure should cast the first stone" (with a Yiddish accent.)

In French: Que la beaute soit! (Let there be beauty!) And how would one treat a pronoun there? "Que celui soit"? I guess so.

̔Ο ἀναμάρτητος ὑμω̂ν πρω̂τος ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω λίθον

Ho anamartêtos humôn prôtos ep' autên baletô lithon

I guess.

quote:

---

May it be {that he [who is without sin] cast the first stone.}

---

quote:

---

May it be {that he [who is without sin] cast the first stone.}

---

I'm in the him camp. As in: "May it be {that we [who are so resolved] go forth together.}" or "Let we go forth."

quote:

---

"Whoever" would be right there, though, not "whomever." Subject, not object.

---

"Who and whom correspond to he and him."

[ 11 December 2004: Message edited by: verbatim ]

"Who(m)ever here is without sin can cast the first stone."

The argument is about what should follow "let", however.

Therefore the analogy would be:

"Let whoever here is without sin cast the first stone," which would be correct. With or without the "let", 'lance is correct -- it MUST be "whoever" because the case of "whoever" is determined by its relation to the verb in the clause it is part of. In this respect it is no different from "who" or "he" or other pronouns, but it IS different in that the correlative pronoun with the relative "whoever" is almost always suppressed in English (but not in ancient Greek).

And I gleen the well thought out posts by Skdadl, Oldgoat, Raven, lagatta and more for clues to apply toward my own quest for basic literacy. I think some of you may have some idea how I struggle with grammar and the writing process in general, and I want to thank you all for your well worded posts.

A little Piet Hein anyone ? It's from one of the very few books of poetry I own.

"To Charles Chaplin

The well you invite us to drink of
is one that no drop may be bought of.
You think of what all of us think of
but nobody else could have thought of."

Here's to grammar anxiety.

cheers!

nonesuch, no: that "that" also dictates the subjunctive: "that he ... cast" is correct in a speculative or contrary-to-fact construction. That happens in simpler examples, not that I can think of one just now, or even want to any more.

You can find the correspondence reproduced here on Latin-L.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
God said "Let there be light" I would not call that a prayer or exhortation but a command. What follows is "and there was light"

---