Tafsiri - Kilatini-Kiingereza - Si enim dicamus praecedentes legales , hos...

"As if we said that the previous legislation books were the/these prophetic ones..."

hos --> the/these

I remain by the idea that "praecedentes " isn t related to that "hos", but it s related with obiciet. The true problem with latin is that there aren t native speakers to call in aid.

Tarinoidenkertoja, I can see you doubt in my Latin skills.
Well, I claim what I do and I can't change my mind, because I know Latin rules. Accusativus cum infinitivo syntax doesn't work back! So, "hos" can't be connected with "obiciet"(We have comma before "obiciet" and this should tell us that we can't connect the verb with a pronoun from the previous clause).I'm very sorry.

Oops! I think we'd better ask for some help here

@ Efylove, could you take some time and read the previous posts so that you can help us solve the issue? Otherwise this evaluation will take ages to be completed
Thanks in advance

CC: Efylove

I think some background might be helpful here. The author discusses the criteria according to which the books of the canon should be divided, subject matter or status of author. even without being a latin expert, the following translation (approximately, of course) seems sensible to me:

"If we consider the previous books, the ones pertaining to law, and also those that are prophetical, then it might be objected that also the books of Moses are prophetical, since they were written by the greates of prophets (that is, we might argue that the Torah as well as the ones called "prophets" should all be considered prophetical, from the p[oint of view of their authors)".

The continuation goes like this: "Si autem dixerimus praecedentes legales, & hos historicos esse, obijcietur etiam praecedentes magnam temporum historiam continere" - to say, that if, on the other hand, we divide acc. to subject matter, then the Torah might be placed in the section of the historical books, since it contains many historical descriptions (besides law).

Thank you, jairhas, for your effort, but I don't agree with your version, even if we know the background. It's quite out of Latin gramma.

I don't claim we have to translate anything in a literal way, but I only showed up the literal version to understand the text corectly.
First we have to know the literal version and then we can start making beautiful literary version.

I am not a person who translates the text, but only the person who shows the literal meaning and grammatical issues.

So, I repeat once again:
We have here 'modus potentialis' in conditional clauses (in English - second conditional)- typical hypothesis and it should be concerned here.

This is my (literal)bridge once again:

As if we said that the previous legislation books (=Law) were the prophetic ones, one could claim that the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) were the prophetic books , because the greatest prophet had composed them.

It doesn't deny at all your thesis that Pentateuch could be concidered as propetical books.

There is a "&" sign before the word "hos"

Where? I can't see it in the source.

someone must have omiited it, do you remember that Francky thought it to be a mistake, but when he checked the internet, he found that this sign was in use in Latin already in the first century ?

So, you, as the requester, should correct the text...

Now we have "Accusativus duplex syntax" in "Accusativus cum infinitivus syntax" (one syntax in another syntax ), but if we put "&" instaed of comma, it would completely change the meaning and the "accusativus duplex syntax" would disappear!

Look, please:
'Si enim dicamus praecedentes legales & hos prophetales esse,..."

"As if we said that the previous ones were legislative (=Law) and the prophetic books,..." (but still second hypothetical coditional)

In fact, if we say that the previous ones are the books of the law (and) that these ones are the prophetical books, someone could object that the prophetical books are the five books of Moyses, because they were composed by the greatest prophet.

This is my opinion... hope it could help!

Efee, as it is modus potentialis I insisted on 2nd conditional in English, so:

if we say --> if we said

the previous ones are --> the previous ones were
and so on...

Yes, modus potentialis of course!

It is almost fine.

One thing:
"praecedentes legales , hos prophetales esse"
- "the previous law book was the prophetical one"

but it should be in plural, so:

"the previous law books were the prophetical ones"

Done! Is that fine now?

Just great! At last!

Ufff!

Yeaaah! Ufff! Thank you, Lilly.

Thank you everyone!