ea, id. In the accusative, eundem and eandem are prefer able 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 enbus 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 is, 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 cannot be determined, on account of the fluctuation of the MSS. In most passages, however, only one i is written. In what manner i and iis 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:

Nom. Qui, quae, quod, who | Nom. qui, quae, quae, who

or which.

Gen. cujus (quojus, obsol.), Gen.

of whom.

or which.

quorum, quarum, quo

rum.

quibus.

quos, quas, quae.

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 quacum, is found in Virgil, Aen., xi., 822. Otherwise the form qui, for quo, oc curs 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 conve nit? 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, an 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 nce 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, ana 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 conjunctious si, ne, num, and with the interrogative syllable en (cc), 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 substan tives 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 curcuimodi 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 ; iuus, 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 phra seology.

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

genitive nostrātis, dative nostrāti, &c., plural nostrates, and neuter nostratia; e. g., verba nostratia, in Cic., Ad Fam., ii., 11.

[§ 140.] 4. The peculiar declension of the pronominal adjectives uter, utra, utrum; alter, altera, alterum; alius (neut. aliud), ullus, and nullus, has already been explained in § 49.

Nom. uter,

Note. In early Latin there occur several instances of the regular formation of the genit. i, ae, and of the dative o, ae, and some are met with even in the best writers. Cic., De Div., ii., 13, aliae pecudis; De Nat. Deor., ii., 26, altero fratri: Nepos, Eum., 1, alterae alae: Caes.. Bell. Gall.,. v., 27, alterae legioni: Cic., Pro Rosc. Com., 16, nulli consilii: Caes., Bell. Gall., vi., 13, nullo consilio: Propert., i., 20, 25, nullae curae: ibid., iii., 9, 57, toto orbi. According to Priscian, the regular form of neuter was even more common than the other, and in a grammatical sense we find, for in⚫ stance, generis neutri; but neutrius is nevertheless preferable.

The compound alteruter is either declined in both words, genitive alteriusutrius, accusative alterumutrum, or only in the latter; as, alterutri, alterutrum. The former method seems to have been customary chiefly in the genitive, as we now generally read in Cicero, for the other cases easily admitted of an elision. The other compounds with uter, viz., uterque, uterlibet, utervis, and utercunque, are declined entirely like uter, the suffixes being added to the cases without any change. The words unus, solus and totus are declined like ullus.

[§ 141.] Note 1.-Alter signifies the other, that is, one of two; alius, another, that is, one of many. But it must be observed that where we use another to express general relations, the Latins use alter; e. g., detrahere alteri sui commodi causa contra naturam est, because, in reality, only two persons are here considered as in relation to each other.

Note 2.-Uterque signifies both, that is, each of two, or one as well as the other, and is therefore plural in its meaning. The real plural utrique is used only when each of two parties consists of several individuals; e. g., Macedones—Tyrii, uni—alteri, and both together, utrique. But even good prose writers now and then use the plural utrique in speaking of only two persons or things; as, Nepos, Timol., 2, utrique Dionysii: Curtius, vii., 19, utraeque acies: Liv., xlii., 54, utraque oppida: End xxx., 8, utraque cornua: but this is altogether opposed to the practice cf Cicero. (See my note on Cic., in Verr., iii., 60).