ZdenSvk
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2023
- Location
- Nitra
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Slovak
- Home Country
- Slovak Republic
- Current Location
- Slovak Republic
Hi,
I read through the 3rd Seneca's letter yesterday. I came upon one unfamiliar grammatical structure and one sentence.
Quote #1: "Indeed, I would have you discuss everything with a friend; but first of all discuss the man himself".
Question: By googling I figured that the meaning of this piece of grammar is: "Indeed, I desire, that you discuss...". But this is unfamiliar to me. I found some examples in King James Bible as well (But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren), and through looking up a newer translation I figured the meaning. Is it something archaic? Is it still used? I know that auxiliary verb "would" is used to express desire or intent and sentence like this would make perfect sense: "Indeed, I would like that you discuss". But what is with the verb "have" here? It isn't used as an auxiliary verb, because the verb "discuss" is in present simple. So does it act like a regular verb, meaning possession?. Does the whole sentence therefore, literally mean: "Indeed, I desire that you possess (the ability ) to discuss..."?
Quote #2 (This is a longer quote, to provide a context for you.): " Ponder for a long time whether you shall admit a given person to your friendship; but when you have decided to admit him, welcome him with all your heart and soul. Speak as boldly with him as with yourself. As to yourself, although you should live in such a way that you trust your own self with nothing which you could not entrust even to your enemy, yet, since certain matters occur which convention keeps secret, you should share with a friend at least all your worries and reflections."
Question: This complex sentence confused me a bit. The message starts with an advice to tell your friends everything, but ends with basically saying "but not everything", which is based on an argument that some conversations are socially unacceptable. Does "as with yourself" means the same as "as to yourself"? The start of the sentence "as to yourself" confuses me the most. Is it just a sort of repetition so that Seneca is able to expand his claim from the previous sentence? If I rewrite the message like this: "Speak with your friend as with yourself. You should live in a way that you shouldn't worry to tell everything about you even to your enemy. Some topics are however taboo and you should not bother your friends with those." is it close in meaning with original?
I am very grateful for any help
Have a nice day
Zdenko
I read through the 3rd Seneca's letter yesterday. I came upon one unfamiliar grammatical structure and one sentence.
Quote #1: "Indeed, I would have you discuss everything with a friend; but first of all discuss the man himself".
Question: By googling I figured that the meaning of this piece of grammar is: "Indeed, I desire, that you discuss...". But this is unfamiliar to me. I found some examples in King James Bible as well (But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren), and through looking up a newer translation I figured the meaning. Is it something archaic? Is it still used? I know that auxiliary verb "would" is used to express desire or intent and sentence like this would make perfect sense: "Indeed, I would like that you discuss". But what is with the verb "have" here? It isn't used as an auxiliary verb, because the verb "discuss" is in present simple. So does it act like a regular verb, meaning possession?. Does the whole sentence therefore, literally mean: "Indeed, I desire that you possess (the ability ) to discuss..."?
Quote #2 (This is a longer quote, to provide a context for you.): " Ponder for a long time whether you shall admit a given person to your friendship; but when you have decided to admit him, welcome him with all your heart and soul. Speak as boldly with him as with yourself. As to yourself, although you should live in such a way that you trust your own self with nothing which you could not entrust even to your enemy, yet, since certain matters occur which convention keeps secret, you should share with a friend at least all your worries and reflections."
Question: This complex sentence confused me a bit. The message starts with an advice to tell your friends everything, but ends with basically saying "but not everything", which is based on an argument that some conversations are socially unacceptable. Does "as with yourself" means the same as "as to yourself"? The start of the sentence "as to yourself" confuses me the most. Is it just a sort of repetition so that Seneca is able to expand his claim from the previous sentence? If I rewrite the message like this: "Speak with your friend as with yourself. You should live in a way that you shouldn't worry to tell everything about you even to your enemy. Some topics are however taboo and you should not bother your friends with those." is it close in meaning with original?
I am very grateful for any help
Have a nice day
Zdenko
