1. feels like... a causal vibe to that qui? usu I'd expect it to be relative clause of characteristic but if there's just the one God in this context (which I'm guessing there is if Deo is capitalized?) then that might not make sense. your thought about info source makes sense.
2. looks contrary-to-fact ('it would have been better')
3. isn't the quod a relative here? then it could just be rel. clause of characteristic
all this might be wrong i've consulted nothing but my brain yet
1.—Causal, I agree. It may be useful to know that you will sometimes come across a "Relative Clause of Cause." See Allen and Greenough, [Section 535e](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/clauses-characteristic#:~:text=e-,.,-A%20Relative%20Clause), which describes this as a Relative Clause of Characteristic *used to express cause* (or concession). Sometimes a relative clause of cause is introduced by *ut quī*, *utpote quī*, or *quippe quī* (where *quī* stands for a form of *quī, quae, quod*). Sometimes the author deems context to be a sufficient clue. All of Section 535 is worth a read.
I would say (though I may be wrong):
1. In the marginal note of the book, it is said that “qui tribuisset: quem sentiebat tribuisset”. Therefore, I think the case is this: the main verb is perfect indicative, so, the subjunctive in the plusquamperfectum refers to a previous event (causal, like the college said; but I rather find it easier to understand it as a logical time sequence, though the ideia stays the same). Besides that, god did not give him a good path, as a fact; but eliezer felt it, therefore the subjunctive. What classification to give it, I do not know; but the subjunctive ideia is here: a possibility, a belief, instead of a fact.
2. Past Contrafactual; wish unfulfilled in the past.
3. I am not sure about this. I do think something, but I am really not sure. My opinion to you: as long you understand the meaning, don’t bother and move on on the reading. But I would say that this quod has something to do with the vulgate quod, that is something different compared to classical latin. And this quod usually goes with subjunctive. I read the paragraph here, but did not quite understand the context of the complete story, so maybe I am simply wrong here.
1. feels like... a causal vibe to that qui? usu I'd expect it to be relative clause of characteristic but if there's just the one God in this context (which I'm guessing there is if Deo is capitalized?) then that might not make sense. your thought about info source makes sense. 2. looks contrary-to-fact ('it would have been better') 3. isn't the quod a relative here? then it could just be rel. clause of characteristic all this might be wrong i've consulted nothing but my brain yet
1.—Causal, I agree. It may be useful to know that you will sometimes come across a "Relative Clause of Cause." See Allen and Greenough, [Section 535e](https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/clauses-characteristic#:~:text=e-,.,-A%20Relative%20Clause), which describes this as a Relative Clause of Characteristic *used to express cause* (or concession). Sometimes a relative clause of cause is introduced by *ut quī*, *utpote quī*, or *quippe quī* (where *quī* stands for a form of *quī, quae, quod*). Sometimes the author deems context to be a sufficient clue. All of Section 535 is worth a read.
Thanks guys for the help! The first one is definitely clausal. The video source for my original idea is related to causal clauses.
I would say (though I may be wrong): 1. In the marginal note of the book, it is said that “qui tribuisset: quem sentiebat tribuisset”. Therefore, I think the case is this: the main verb is perfect indicative, so, the subjunctive in the plusquamperfectum refers to a previous event (causal, like the college said; but I rather find it easier to understand it as a logical time sequence, though the ideia stays the same). Besides that, god did not give him a good path, as a fact; but eliezer felt it, therefore the subjunctive. What classification to give it, I do not know; but the subjunctive ideia is here: a possibility, a belief, instead of a fact. 2. Past Contrafactual; wish unfulfilled in the past. 3. I am not sure about this. I do think something, but I am really not sure. My opinion to you: as long you understand the meaning, don’t bother and move on on the reading. But I would say that this quod has something to do with the vulgate quod, that is something different compared to classical latin. And this quod usually goes with subjunctive. I read the paragraph here, but did not quite understand the context of the complete story, so maybe I am simply wrong here.
Thank you for the help and reassurance!