1. Latin Chapter 38

Front 1

CAPVT XXXVIII Relative Clauses of Characteristic; Dative of Reference; Supines

Back 1

x

Front 2

Relative Clauses of Characteristic

Back 2

relative clause which describes some general quality of an antecedent that is itself either general, indefinite, interrogative, or negative. The verb is subjunctive and its antecedent is often obviously general, negative, etc:

Front 3

typical antecedent: sunt qui

Back 3

there are people who

Front 4

typical antecedent: quis est qui

Back 4

who is there who

Front 5

typical antecedent: nemo est qui

Back 5

there is no one who

Front 6

Quis est qui huic credat?

Back 6

Who is there who trusts this man (of such a sort that he would trust this man)?

Front 7

Nemo erat qui hoc sciret.

Back 7

There was no one who knew this.

Front 8

Sunt qui hoc faciant.

Back 8

There are some who do this (of such a sort as to do this).

Front 9

Is non est qui hoc faciat.

Back 9

He is not a person who does (would do) this.

Front 10

Hic est liber quem omnes legant.

Back 10

This is the kind of book that all read (a book that all would read).

Front 11

Hie est liber quem omnes legunt.

Back 11

This is the book that all are reading (= a fact, hence the indicative).

Front 12

Some relative clauses have the force of

Back 12

result, purpose, causal, or adversative clauses

Front 13

da mihi libros quos legam (same as: da mihi libros ut eos legam)

Back 13

Give me books to read (Give me books that I may read them)

Front 14

DATIVE OF REFERENCE OR INTEREST

Back 14

used to indicate a person (or a thing) to whom some statement refers, or from whose perspective it is true, or to whom it is of special interest. [LIKE IN ITALIAN "PER ME"

Front 15

Si quis metuens vivet, liber mihi non erit umquam.

Back 15

If anyone lives in fear, he will not ever be free—as I see it (mihi) [or to my way of thinking or in my opinion.]

Front 16

Nullius culpae mihi conscius sum.

Back 16

In my own heart I am conscious of no fault

Front 17

Claudia est sapiens multis.

Back 17

To many people Claudia is wise.

Front 18

SUPINES

Back 18

verbal nouns, based on the same stem as the perfect passive participle; only two forms were in common use, the accusative and ablative singular (4th declension).

Front 19

to praise: supine

Back 19

acc. laudatum, abl. laudatu

Front 20

to advise: supine

Back 20

monitum, monitu

Front 21

to do: supine

Back 21

actum, actu

Front 22

to hear: supine

Back 22

auditum, auditu

Front 23

to capture: supine

Back 23

captum, captu

Front 24

The ablative is used with

Back 24

the neuter of certain adjectives to indicate in what respect a particular quality is applicable: e.g., mirabile dictu, amazing to say (lit., amazing in respect to saying); facile factu, easy to do.

Front 25

The accusative

Back 25

(which must not be confused with the perfect passive participle) is employed with verbs of motion to indicate purpose:

Front 26

Ibant Romam rogatum pecuniam,

Back 26

they were going to Rome to ask for money

Front 27

persuasum amicis venerunt

Back 27

they came to persuade their friends

Front 28

Cognitive psychology is a

Back 28

subdiscipline of psychology which explores internal mental processes.

Front 29

It is the study of

Back 29

how people perceive, remember, think, speak, and solve problems.

Front 30

The sibling field of

Back 30

cognitive neuroscience has provided evidence of physiological brain states that directly correlate with mental states, thus providing support for the central assumption of cognitive psychology

Front 31

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is

Back 31

an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective.

Front 32

It seeks to identify which

Back 32

human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection.

Front 33

Evolutionary psychology argues that

Back 33

the mind has a modular structure similar to that of the body, with different evolutionarily developed modular adaptations serving different functions.

Front 34

Computational theory of mind:

Back 34

is the view that the human mind is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of computing.

Front 35

The theory was proposed in its modern form by

Back 35

Hilary Putnam in 1961 and developed by Jerry Fodor in the 60s and 70s. This view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by theorists of evolutionary psychology.

Front 36

According to the computational theory of mind

Back 36

the mind functions as a computer or symbol manipulator, computing input from the natural world to create outputs in the form of further mental or physical states

Front 37

A computation is the process of taking input and

Back 37

and following a step by step algorithm [a procedure for calculations (code)] to compute representations of the world.

Front 38

The computational theory of mind requires

Back 38

representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects.

Front 39

A computer cannot compute an

Back 39

actual object, it must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute [code] the representation [sign].

Front 40

In philosophy of mind, the language of thought hypothesis (LOTH) put forward by

Back 40

American philosopher Jerry Fodor describes thoughts as represented in a "language" (sometimes known as mentalese) that allows complex thoughts to be built up by combining simpler thoughts in various ways.

Front 41

In its most basic form the theory states that

Back 41

thought follows the same rules as language: thought has syntax.