Qui, Quae, Quod - Latin Relative Pronouns

How is the imperfect form of "possum" formed ("he/she was able")

• pos+vi, visti, vit, etc...

• pot+eram, eras, erat, etc...

• pot+o, es, est, etc...

• There are no rules, any verb could be an imperfect form of possum.

What is the function of a relative clause?

• It is nominal clause, it acts as the subject or object of the sentence.

• It is an adverbial clause, it explains why, when, or how the main clause happened.

• It is an adjectival clause, it describes a noun in the main clause.

• It is the main clause of a sentence.

Where does a relative pronoun (qui, quae, quod) take its person and number from when used in a relative clause?

• Relative pronouns are always only neuter singular (eg quod)

• It depends on the tense of the verb in the relative clause

• It's function in the relative clause (ie whether it is the subject or object of the verb in the clause)

• It's antecedent (the noun in the main clause it is referring back to)

What determines a relative pronoun's (qui, quae, quod) case in a relative clause.

• Relative pronouns are used adverbially, so their case is always neuter accusative.

• It depends on the tense of the verb in the relative clause

• It's function in the relative clause (ie whether it is the subject or object of the verb in the clause)

• It's antecedent (the noun in the main clause it is referring back to)

What is the difference between "in+abl" and "in+acc"

• in+acc does not indicate motion, in+ abl means motion "into"

• in only takes the ablative, not the accusative

• in+abl does not indicate motion, in+ acc means motion "into"

• They are used interchangeably, there is no difference

How can "quam" function?

• either as a relative pronoun ("who") or as a subordinating conjunction in a causal clause ("because")

• either as a subordinating conjunction in a causal clause ("because") or as an adverb introducing comparison ("than")

• either as a relative pronoun ("which") or as an adverb introducing comparison ("than")

• It only functions as an accusative singular relative pronoun ("who" or "which")

How can "quod" function?

• either as a relative pronoun ("who") or as a subordinating conjunction in a causal clause ("because")

• either as a subordinating conjunction in a causal clause ("because") or as an adverb introducing comparison ("than")

• either as a relative pronoun ("which") or as an adverb introducing comparison ("than")

• It only functions as an nominative or accusative singular neuter relative pronoun ("who" or "which")

What declensions are litus, mare, sacerdos, and agmen

• They are all 3rd declension

• 2nd, 3rd (pure i-stem), 2nd, and 3rd

• 4th, 3rd (pure i-stem), 3rd, and 3rd

• 4th, 3rd (pure 1-stem), 2nd, and 3rd

How would this sentence best be translated: "alius āthlēta Canticus, quī perītissimus erat, discum longius quam cēterī ēmīsit."

• Furthermore, Canticus, who was very afraid, sent the discus to the other athlete, who was a long way away.

• Another athlete, Canticus, who was very scared, threw the discus a long way away, which is where the others were.

• Another Cantincan athlete, who was very skilled, threw the discus farther than the others.

• Another athete, Canticus, who was the most skilled, threw the discuss further away to the other.

What is the best translation for this sentence: "Dumnorix, ubi saxō appropinquāvit, nāvem subitō ad dextram vertit, quod scopulus sub undīs latebat."

• When he approached the rock, Dumnorix immediately turned the ship to the right because a reef was lying under the waves.

• Where the rock was drawing near, Dumnorix at once turned towards the ship's right because a reef lay beneath the sea.

• Dumnorix, when a rock approached, immediately turned the ship's right beneath which an ocean reef was lying.

• Dumnorix, where he was drawing near to the rock, immediately turned the ship to the right which was concealing a reef under the waves.