Indirect Speech Questions in DBG

[scaevola]

Hello, everyone:
I'm having trouble a sentence in this passage from De Bello Gallico ( 4.8 ).

Ad haec Caesar quae [ei]* visum est respondit; sed exitus fuit orationis:...
*Added by my commentary

I think know what this means - that he responded with what he thought proper - but how does quae fit into this part? It doesn't match visum in gender or number, so there must be some kind of construction here that I don't understand.
Thank you

[seneca2008]

Hi and welcome to textkit!

What gender and number do you think haec and quae are? Quae begins a relative clause so it agrees in number and gender with its antecedent but it takes its case from its grammatical function in its own clause. You might want to assume that respondēre is missing from this clause.

I think you are misleading yourself by eliding in your translation the exact meaning of the relative clause, and introducing the idea "with what". If Caesar thought it proper why is visum neuter?

I think the added ei is not helping you.

Is this enough help?

[scaevola]

You might want to assume that respondēre is missing from this clause.

That makes a little more sense.

I understand now that haec is the antecedent to quae, but this is what's confusing to me. From a professional translation:
"To these remarks Caesar replied in such terms as he thought proper;"
So quae is in the neuter plural nominative, right? But it's introducing a clause with a singular verb and a singular neuter participle, which can be. It just looks to me like there's just this floating subject and floating visum est, and I don't really know precisely how to piece it together.
What is the object of quae or what is working upon it, and what is the subject of est? Something's really just going over my head here and I'm not sure what.

Thank you for your help

[seneca2008]

Translation into English will aim for a readable translation rather than trying to capture literally what the latin says.

Perhaps on reflection the ei (dative masculine singular) suggested by your commentary is helpful.

I take quae to be neuter accusative plural.

if you understand respondēre with quae visum est you have an accusative and infinite construction with an impersonal verb and implied dative.

To these things, which it appeared (to him) right (appropriate) to answer, Caesar replied.

That clearly wont cut the mustard as a smooth English translation but once you have sorted out what the Latin means, the translation is a matter of choice. The Loeb has "To this Caesar replied as seemed good;" James O'Donnell in his new and admired translation has "Caesar answered appropriately,"

What commentary are you using?

Is that ok? Happy to be corrected if I have it wrong.

[scaevola]

if you understand respondēre with quae visum est you have an accusative and infinite construction with an impersonal verb and implied dative.

So it's kind of like:
Ad haec Caesar quae [ei] visum est respondere respondit

Is that what you meant when you said (I may have overlooked this at first, my mistake):

You might want to assume that respondēre is missing from this clause.

Is it like in English where I might say: I replied with the words I thought I should have, instead of
I replied with the words I thought I should have replied with?

Now I definitely see how (and why) a translation may stray far from the literal.

Do I have the right idea?

I am using Orberg's abridged and annotated version from the LLPSI series.

[seneca2008]

Hi, yes I think you have the right idea. But I think it's best to think of respondēre as being before visum est as it belongs in the relative clause.

Looking at Ørberg I see that his hint is that quae eī vīsum est = respondendum esse cēnsuit ( which he judged to be the way he ought to reply).

This ( assuming a gerundive) amounts to the same thing as understanding respondēre in the relative clause, but is in my view a bit more complicated.

The important thing to take away from this is that one has to understand the grammar before trying to translate. Translation is the last step in the process.

[scaevola]

Thank you, Seneca!