Could you help me with the following (both from de Amicitia):
1. “Numquam illum ne minima quidem re offendi, quod quidem senserim” (103)
What is the antecedent of “quod”? Is the whole sentence before it its antecedent?
2. “una domus erat, idem victus, isque communis” (103)
Is “erat” understood after “victus”? The grammar of “isque communis” is not clear to me? Is a verb understood?
1.In “Numquam illum ne minima quidem re offendi, quod quidem senserim” (Cicero, Laelius sive De amicitia, 103) there is no antecedent of “quod” because the “quod” clause is a substantive clause with quod + the potential subjunctive “senserim” where the conjunction "quod" corresponds to the English “as to the fact that”/"so far as".
Therefore” quod quidem senserim” literally means :”so far as (quod quidem) I could realized (senserim)”, i.e. "so far as I was aware".
For the substantive clauses see AG 572,a.
2.In “una domus erat, idem victus, isque communis” (103)the verb “erat” is understood after “victus”.
As for “isque communis”, it stands for “et is communis” where “is” connected with “-que” gives prominence to a preceding idea, and means “and that”.
So, “una domus erat, idem victus, isque communis” literally means:”there was (erat) [to us] [nobis.Dative of possession] only one (una) home (domus), [there was/erat] the same (idem) diet (victus) and that (isque) common (communis)”, i.e.:
“We had only one home, the same diet that we shared in common”.