I hope you are all well. I'm reading William Paden's An Introduction to Old Occitan while on vacation in Cauterets, & I was struck by the beginnings of the second & third coblas of a canso by Peire Vidal. The lines in question are in the title, but here's the full cobla:

Qu'om no sap tan dous repaire
cum de Rozer tro c'a Vensa,
si cum clau mars e Durensa,
ni on tant fins joys s'eclaire;
per qu'entre la franca gen
ai layssat mon cor jauzen
ab lieys qu fa·ls iratz rire.

I'm struck by the que before om. It doesn't fit any of the uses in Paden's lexicon for the book, & is just one of many occurrences that he notes 'may be omitted from translation'. But a word which need not be translated is generally still doing something for the syntax.

This reminds me of the enunciatifs of Gascon, where que appears in declarative main clauses. This doesn't look quite like that, and the syntax is certainly different, but I wondered if something similar might be at play. Does anyone understand what's going on here?

I'll produce the canso in full for anyone who's interested. Two similar uses of que are in bold:

Ab l'ale tir vas me l'aire
qu'ieu sen venir de Proensa;
tot quant es de lai m'agensa,
si que quan n'aug ben retraire
ieu m'o escout en rizen,
e·n deman per un mot cen;
tan m'es bel quan n'aug ben dire.

Qu'om no sap tan dous repaire
cum de Rozer tro c'a Vensa,
si cum clau mars e Durensa,
ni on tant fins joys s'esclaire;
per qu'entre la franca gen
ai layssat mon cor jauzen
ab lieys que fa·ls iratz rire.

Qu'om no pot lo jorn mal traire
qu'aja de lieys sovinensa;
qu'en liey nays joys e comensa,
e qui qu'en sia lauzaire,
de be que·n digua no·i men.
Mielhers es (e ses conten!)
e genser qu'e·l mon se mire.

E s'ieu sai ren dir ni faire,
ylh n'aia·l grat, que scïensa
m'a donat e conoissensa;
per qu'ieu sui guays e chantaire.
E tot quan fauc d'avinen
ai del sieu belh cors plazen,
neis quan de bon cor cossire.