Nom. and Voc. ille, illa, il- Nom. and Voc. illi, illae,

lud, he or that.

Gen. illius.

Dat. illi.

Acc. illum, illam, illud.

Abl. illo, illa, illo.

illa, they or those.

Note.-Besides the forms iste, ista, istud, and ille, illa, illud, there exist in early Latin the forms istic, istaec, istoc or istuc, and illic, illaec, illoc or illuc, which, with regard to inflection, follow hic, haec, hoc, but occur only in the cases ending in c, except the dative; that is, in the accus. istunc, istanc, illunc, illanc; ablat. istōc, istāc, illoc, illac; neut. plur. istaec, illaec. (Istuc and istaec sometimes occur even in Cicero.) Priscian regards these forms. as contractions from iste and ille with hic, but it probably arose from the addition of the demonstrative ce, according to the analogy of hic, for in early Latin we find also istace, istisce, illace, illisce, illosce, illasce, though very rarely. By means of the connecting vowel i, both c and the complete ce may be united with the interrogative enclitic ne, e. g., istucine, istocine, illicine, illancine, istoscine.

*

Illi and isti are obsolete forms of the genitive for illius and istius, and the dative istae, illae, for isti, illi; and the nom. plur. fem. istaec, illaec, for istae, illae. (See Bentley on Terence, Hec., iv., 2, 17.)

Virgil uses olli as a dative sing. and nom. plur., and Cicero, in an antique formula (De Leg., ii., 9), the plural olla and ollos, from an ancient

form ollus.

Ipse (in the ancient language ipsus), ipsa, ipsum, is declined like ille, except that the neuter is ipsum, and not ipsud.

Note.-This pronoun is called adjunctive because it is usually joined to other nouns and pronouns. In connexion with some cases of is, viz., eo, ea, eum, eam, it loses the i in early Latin; thus we find eapse (nom. and ablat.), eopse, eumpse, eampse, in Plautus; and in Cicero the compound reapse re ipsa, or re ea ipsā, in fact, is of common occurence. The suffix pte in possessive pronouns is of a similar kind.

Nom. is, ea, id, he, she, it, | Nom. ii (ei), eae, ea, they

or that.

or those.

Gen. eorum, earum, eorum.

Dat. iis (eis).

Acc. eos, eas, ea.

Abl. iis (eis).

By the addition of the suffix dem we form from isidem, eadem, idem (as it were isdem, eadem, iddem), which is declined in the other cases exactly like the simple is,

[This latter is the true account, namely, that the demonstrative ce is added. Throwing aside the aspirate from isthic, we may safely conclude that istic and illic were formed, not from hic, but by the addition of the same emphatic syllable which is found in hic. Independently, too, of this, iste-hic seems impossible, because it is a contradictory combination (Journal of Education, vol. i., p. 97.)]—Am. Ed.

ea, id. In the accusative, eundem and eandem are preferable to eumdem, eamdem, and, in like manner, in the genitive plur. eorundem, earundem.

Note.-Eae as a dative singular feminine for ei, and ibus and eabus for iis, are obsolete forms. The plural ei is rare, and eidem is not to be found at all. In the dative and ablative plural, too, eis and eisdem are not as common as iis, iisdem. It must, however, be observed that iidem and iisdem were always pronounced in poetry, and therefore, probably, in the early prose also, as if they had only one i: but whether it was ever written with one i cannot be determined, on account of the fluctuation of the MSS. In most passages, however, only one i is written. In what manner ii and is were dealt with cannot be ascertained from the poets, because they dislike the pronoun is in general, and more particularly these cases of it, for which they use the corresponding forms of hic (see ◊ 702); but Priscian (p. 737, and Super xii. vers., p. 1268) asserts that in this word, as in dii, diis, the double i was formerly regarded in poetry as one syllable, and that in his time it still continued to be thus pronounced.

By composition with ecce or en (behold! the French voilà), we obtain the following expressions, which were of frequent use in ordinary life: eccum, eccam, eccos, eccas; eccillum or ellum, ellam, ellos, ellas; eccistam.

[§ 133.] 3. Declension of the relative pronoun, qui, quae, quod:

to whom.

Acc. quem, quam, quod, Acc. quos, quas, quae.

whom. [whom.

Abl. quo, qua, quo, from Abl. quibus.

Note.-An ancient ablative singular for all genders was qui. Cicero uses it with cum appended to it, quicum for quocum (§ 324), when an indefinite person is meant, and when he does not refer to any definite person mentioned before (compare the examples in § 561 and 568). Quicum, for qua cum, is found in Virgil, Aen., xi., 822. Otherwise the form qui, for quo, occurs in good prose only in the sense of "in what manner?" or "how?" as an interrogative or relative, e. g., qui fit? how does it happen? qui convenit? qui sciebas? qui hoc probari potest cuiquam? qui tibi id facere licuit? qui ista intellecta sint, debeo discere, &c., and in the peculiar phrase with uti: habeo qui utar, est qui utamur (I have something to live upon), in Cicero. Instead of quibus, in the relative sense, there is an ancient form quis, or queis (pronounced like quis), which is of frequent occurrence in late prose writers also.

[§ 134.] There are two interrogative pronouns, quis, quid? and qui, quae, quod? the latter of which is quite the same in form as the relative pronoun, and the former

differs from it only by its forms quis and quid. The interrogatives quisnam, quidnam? and quinam, quaenam, quodnam? express a more lively or emphatic question than the simple words, and the nam answers to the English " pray."

Note.-The difference between the two interrogative pronouns, as ob served in good prose, is, that quis and quid are used as substantives, and qui, quae, quod as adjectives, and this is the invariable rule for quid and quod, e. g., quod facinus commisit? what crime has he committed? not quid facinus, but we may say quid facinoris? Quis signifies "what man?" or "who?" and applies to both sexes; qui signifies "which man?" But in dependant interrogative sentences these forms are often confounded, quis being used for the adjective qui, and vice versa, qui for quis. We do not, however, consider quis to be used for qui in cases where quis is placed in apposition with substantives denoting a human being, as in quis amicus, quis hospes, quis miles, for in the same manner quisquam is changed into an adjective, although there is no doubt of its substantive character, e. g., Cic., in Verr., v., 54; quasi enim ulla possit esse causa, cur hoc, cuiquam civi Romano jure accidat (viz., ut virgis caedatur). But there are some other passages in which quis is used for qui, not only in poets, such as Virgil, Georg., ii., 178; quis color, but in prose writers, e. g., Liv., v., 40; quisve locus: Tacit., Annal., i., 48; quod caedis initium, quis finis. In Cicero, however, it is thus used, with very few exceptions (such as, Pro Deiot., 13, quis casus), only before a word beginning with a vowel, e. g., quis esset tantus fructus, quis iste tantus casus. Qui, on the other hand, is used for quis, partly for the same reason of avoiding a disagreeable sound, when the word following begins with s, as in Cic., Divin., 6, nescimus qui sis: c. 12, qui sis considera: Ad Att., iii., 10, non possum oblivisci qui fuerim, non sentire qui sim: but partly without any such reason, as in Cic., in Verr., V., 64, qui esset ignorabas? Pro Rosc. Am., 37, dubitare qui indicarit: in Verr., v., 59, interrogetur Flavius, quinam fuerit L. Herennius. Cicero, in Catil., ii., 3, video qui habeat Etruriam, is an incorrect reading, and in Pro Rosc. Am., 34, qui primus Ameriam nuntiat? the qui must probably be changed into quis. Thus much remains certain, that the rule respecting the use of quis and qui cannot be denied even in indirect questions.

[§ 135.] The indefinite pronoun aliquis, also, has originally two different forms: aliquis, neut. aliquid, which is used as a substantive, and aliqui, aliqua, aliquod. But aliqui is obsolete, although it occurs in some passages of Cicero., e. g., De Off., iii., 7, aliqui casus: Tuscul., v., 21, terror aliqui: Acad., iv., 26, anularius aliqui: De Re Publ., i., 44, aliqui dux: ibid., iii., 16, aliqui scrupus in animis haeret, and a few other passages which are less certain. In ordinary language aliquis alone is used, both as a substantive and as an adjective; but in the neuter the two forms aliquid and aliquod exist, and the differ ence between them must be observed. The femin. singular and the neut. plural are both aliqua, and the form aliquae is the femin. nom. plural.

[§ 136.] But there is also a shorter form of the indefi. nite pronoun without the characteristic prefix ali, and ex

actly like the interrogative pronoun, quis, quid, as a substantive, and qui, quae, quod, as an adjective. This form is used in good prose only after the conjunctions si, nisi, ne, num, and after relatives, such as quo, quanto, and quum. This rule is commonly expressed thus: the prefix ali in aliquis, and its derivatives aliquo, aliquando, and alicubi, is rejected when si, nisi, ne, num, quo, quanto, or quum precede; e. g., Consul videat, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat; quaeritur, num quod officium aliud alio majus sit; sometimes another word is inserted between; e. g., Cic., De Orat., ii., 41; si aurum cui commonstratum vellem: Pro Tull., § 17; si quis quem imprudens occiderit: Philip., i., 7; si cui quid ille promisisset. Some con sider the combination of this indefinite quis, or qui, with the conjunctions si, ne, num, and with the interrogative syllable en (ec), as peculiar and distinct words; as, siquis or siqui, numquis or numqui, although, properly speaking, ecquis or ecqui alone can be regarded as one word, for en by itself has no meaning. (See § 351.) For the particulars respecting the use of this abridged form, see Chap. LXXXIV., C. With regard to the declension of these compounds, it must be observed, 1, that in the nominative the forms quis and qui are perfectly equivalent, which is accounted for by what has been said about aliquis; hence we may say both si qui, ecqui, and si quis, ecquis; 2, that in the femin. singular and the neut. plural the form qua is used along with quae, likewise according to the analogy of aliquis. We may, therefore, say, siqua, nequa, numqua, ecqua, but also si quae, ne quae, num quae, ecquae.

Note. Which of the two is preferable is a disputed point. Priscian (v., p. 565 and 569) mentions only siqua, nequa, numqua, as compounds of aliqua. As the MSS. of prose writers vary, we must rely on the authority of the poets, who are decidedly in favour of the forms in a, with a few exceptions; such as si quae, the neut. plur. in Propert., i., 16, 45, and the femin. sing., according to Bentley's just emendation, in Terent., Heaut., Prol., 44, and Horat., Serm., ii., 6, 10. (Si quae tibi cura, in Ovid, Trist., i., 1, 115, must be changed into siqua est.) Respecting ecqua and ecquae, see my note on Cic., in Verr., iv., Îl.

[§ 137.] The compounds of qui and quis, viz., quidam, quispiam, quilibet, quivis, quisque, and unusquisque, are declined like the relative, but have a double form in the neuter singular, quiddam and quoddam, unum quidque and unumquodque, according as they are used as substantives or as adjectives. (See above, § 129.) Quisquam (with a few exceptions in Plautus) is used only as a sub

stantive, for ullus supplies its place as an adjective, and the regular form of the neuter, therefore, is quidquam (also written quicquam). It has neither feminine nor plural. Quicunque is declined like qui, quae, quod, and has only the form quodcunque for the neuter; quisquis, on the other hand, has only quidquid (also written quicquid), being generally used in these two forms only as a substantive. The other forms of this double relative are not so frequent as those formed by the suffix cunque.

Note.-In Cicero, Pro Rosc. Am., 34, and in Verr., v., 41, we find cutcuimodi instead of cujuscujusmodi, of what kind soever. See my note on the latter passage.

[§ 138.] Each of the two words of which unusquisque is composed is declined separately; as, gen. uniuscujusque, dat. unicuique, acc. unumquemque, &c.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

DECLENSION OF THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS AND OF PRONOMINALS.

[§ 139.] 1. THE possessive pronouns meus, mea, meum; tuus, tua, tuum; suus, sua, suum; noster, nostra, nostrum ; vester, vestra, vestrum, are declined entirely like adjectives of three terminations. Meus makes the vocative of the masculine gender mi; as, O mi pater! It is only in late writers that mi is used also for the feminine and neuter.

Note. The ablative singular of these pronouns, especially the forms suo, sua, frequently takes the suffix pte, which answers to our word "own" e. g., in Cicero, suapte manu, suopte pondere; in Plautus, meopte and tuopte ingenio; in Terence, nostrapte culpa, &c. All the cases of suus may, with the same sense, take the suffix met, which is usually followed by ipse; e. g., Liv., vi., 36, intra suamet ipsum moenia compulere: v., 38, terga caesa suomet ipsorum certamine impedientium fugam: xxvii., 28, Hannibal suamet ipse fraude captus abiit. The expression of Sallust, Jug., 85, meamet facta dicere, stands alone.

2. The possessive pronoun cujus, a, um, has, besides the nominative, only the accusative singular, cujum, cujam, cujum; cuja, the ablative singular feminine, and cujae, cujas, the nominative and accusative plural feminine; but all these forms occur only in early Latin and legal phraseology.

3. Nostras, vestras, and cujas (i. e., belonging to our, your nation, family, or party), are regularly declined after the third declension as adjectives of one termination: