... anyone who will can oust us from possession.

[ZdenSvk]

Hi, I have started reading Seneca's Moral letters. I've made a resolution that I am not going to skip parts that make no sense to me at first glance, but work on them, seeking help or information wherever necessary. So here I am, a new member.

My first question is, whether the verb "will" shouldn't be in form of "wills" in this quote or I am simply misunderstanding the sentence?
"Nothing, Lucilius, is ours, except time. We were entrusted by nature with the ownership of this single thing, so fleeting and slippery, that anyone who will can oust us from possession".

I understand the sentence in this way: time is slippery, because anyone who wants can easily take it from us.

Book is translated by Richard Mott Gummere, 1915.


If this isn't the right forum for questions like these, I am very sorry. Please point me towards the correct one, where I can seek help in understanding harder sentences in the book.
Have a nice day

Zdenko

 

[probus]

You are correct. Things may perhaps have been different way back in 1915, but current usage requires wills rather than will.

 

[5jj]

I don't agree. 'Wills' makes no sense to me here.

 

[Barque]

that anyone who will can oust us from possession".

"Will" is fine. It's to be read as "...that anyone who will do so, can oust us..."

Anyone who will [do so] = Anyone who's willing to do so.

 

[güey]

"...that anyone who will do so, can oust us..."

Anyone who will do what?

 

[Barque]

Anyone who will (is willing to) [oust us], can oust us.

When "do so" occurs in a sentence, it refers to the action contemplated by that sentence.
So when I say "Anyone who will do so can oust us", " you need to understand "do so" as referring to "oust us".

 

[Barque]

I've just edited my last post as I typed too fast the first time. Please refresh the page and read it again if necessary.

 

[güey]

Anyone who will (is willing to) [oust us], can oust us.

When "do so" occurs in a sentence, it refers to the action contemplated by that sentence.
So when I say "Anyone who will do so can oust us", " you need to understand "do so" as referring to "oust us".

I wouldn't have problem with: anyone who wants to / wishes to / is willing to / wills can..., ("wills" indeed seems to be an oudated use)
But "anyone who will (do so) can..." doesn't feel right to me (I'm not insisting because I'm not sure).

 

[Barque]

It might be a little old-fashioned, and it's formal. You may not come across such a structure very often in modern writing. But it's correct.

By the way,

I wouldn't have a problem with:

 

[Barque]

I wouldn't have problem with: anyone who ...wills can...,

"Wills" doesn't fit. That would change the meaning a little.

 

[güey]

"Wills" doesn't fit. That would change the meaning a little.

It might be a little old-fashioned, and it's formal. You may not come across such a structure very often in modern writing. But it's correct.

By the way,

I found only one example of "anyone who will can" besides the one in question, but quite a few of "anyone who wills can" by Googling, though.

 

[Barque]

but quite a few of "anyone who wills can"

I didn't say "anyone who wills" is incorrect. I said it would mean something different, and that other meaning doesn't fit the context.

 

[Barque]

"Any one who wills" would mean "Anyone who wishes so". Different. In this context it would mean "Anyone who wants to oust us can do so by just willpower" which isn't the intended meaning.

 

[Barque]

"Will" is fine. It's to be read as "...that anyone who will do so, can oust us..."

Let me put it differently. "Anyone who will" in the original quote means "Anyone who will make the effort to do so..."

 

[Barque]

I understand the sentence in this way: time is slippery, because anyone who wants can easily take it from us.

I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but you have the right idea.

 

[5jj]

"Any one who wills" would mean "Anyone who wishes so". Different. In this context it would mean "Anyone who wants to oust us can do so by just willpower" which isn't the intended meaning.

No.

The non-modal verb will is transitive.

 

[Barque]

I'm not really good with terms like "non-modal" and "transitive" but I stand by what I said in #13.

 

[5jj]

When the third-person form of will ends in -s, then the verb must have a direct object.

 

[Tdol]

Anyone who wills sounds very odd to me without an object, though it could be possible- anyone who wishes would work better, though I'd stick with the original.