Différences

Cette page vous donne les différences entre la révision choisie et la version actuelle de la page.

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin6 [2015/10/30 10:46]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin6 [2016/01/27 18:03] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 140: Ligne 140:
  
  
-The dative //cui//, realization of /kwu-i:/, is less clear: it is, as it seems, “a long monosyllable, spelt quoi until the time of Quintilianus” (cf. Ernout, 19533, p. 87), the //u// of which was probably vocalic, like the //u// of the dative //huic//, and therefore the //i// could be only a consonantal //i// [j] and form with the //u// a diphthong [uj]. But, if the classical scansion processes //quoi// as a long monosyllable, the old scansion was probably bisyllabic, a form //quoiei// (which quoī comes from) being very attested in C.I.L. (I2, 11 and 583). And the later scansion //cŭī// easily would be explained by the neutralization of the opposition of quantity before a vowel, if we assumed a phonematical sequence /ku:-i:/. But, how to explain this radical /ku:-/ from /kwu/? May be by analogy of [ku:jjus]?+The dative //cui//, realization of /kwu-i:/, is less clear: it is, as it seems, “a long monosyllable, spelt //quoi// until the time of Quintilianus” (cf. Ernout, 1953((Kuryłowiz, Jerzy, 1949, //Le problème du classement des cas//, in :Biuletyn Polskiego Towarystwa Jezykoznawczego, 9, 20-26-43.)), p. 87), the //u// of which was probably vocalic, like the //u// of the dative //huic//, and therefore the //i// could be only a consonantal //i// [j] and form with the //u// a diphthong [uj]. But, if the classical scansion processes //quoi// as a long monosyllable, the old scansion was probably bisyllabic, a form //quoiei// (which quoī comes from) being very attested in C.I.L. (I((  Bloomfield, Leonard, 19585, Language, London, George Allen & Unwin, 566 p. )), 11 and 583). And the later scansion //cŭī// easily would be explained by the neutralization of the opposition of quantity before a vowel, if we assumed a phonematical sequence /ku:-i:/. But, how to explain this radical /ku:-/ from /kwu/? May be by analogy of [ku:jjus]?
  
  
Ligne 146: Ligne 146:
  
  
-         + Plural +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural ^ ^ | 
-Nom. qu-ī qu-ae qu-od qu-ī qu-ae qu-ae +^Nom. | //qu-ī// | //qu-ae// | //qu-od// | | //qu-ī//| //qu-ae// | //qu-ae// | 
-Gen. cū-ius cū-ius cū-ius qu-ōrum qu-ārum qu-ōrum +^Gen. | //cū-ius// | //cū-ius// | //cū-ius// | | //qu-ōrum// | //qu-ārum// | //qu-ōrum// | 
-Dat. cu-ī cu-ī cu-ī qu-ibus qu-ibus qu-ibus +^Dat. | //cu-ī// | //cu-ī// | //cu-ī// | | //qu-ibus// | //qu-ibus// | //qu-ibus// | 
-Abl. qu-ō qu-ā qu-ō qu-ibus qu-ibus qu-ibus +^Abl. | //qu-ō// | //qu-ā// | //qu-ō// | | //qu-ibus// | //qu-ibus// | //qu-ibus// | 
-Acc. qu-em qu-am qu-od qu-ōs qu-ās qu-ae+^Acc. | //qu-em// | //qu-am// | //qu-od// | | //qu-ōs// | //qu-ās// | //qu-ae// |
                                                                                              
- Interrogative determiners qu-is (-ī), -ae, -id (-od) “who?, what?”, ecqu-is “Is there anyone who?”, numquis “there is none who, is there?” and the indefinite determiners qu-is “any one”, aliqu-is “some one”, quīdam “a certain (one)” (= /kwis-dam/), quisque “every one” follow the same pattern as the relative quī, with the exception of nominatives. Beside the singular masculine nominative qu-ī, there is a qu-is, and beside the neuter qu-od, there is a quid. But they are not some simple allomorphs: the form qu-od is used only as a determiner, and qu-id only as NP: +**Interrogative determiners** //qu-is (-ī), -ae, -id (-od)// “who?, what?”, //ecqu-is// “Is there anyone who?”, //numquis// “there is none who, is there?” and the indefinite determiners //qu-is// “any one”, //aliqu-is// “some one”, //quīdam// “a certain (one)” (= /kwis-dam/), //quisque// “every one” follow the same pattern as the relative //quī//, with the exception of nominatives. Beside the singular masculine nominative //qu-ī//, there is a //qu-is//, and beside the neuter //qu-od//, there is a //quid//. But they are not some simple allomorphs: the form //qu-od// is used only as a determiner, and //qu-id// only as NP: 
-Qu-id uīd-is-tī? “What did you see?”, Qu-od templ-um uīd-is-tī? “What temple did you see?” + 
 + 
 +    * //Qu-id uīd-is-tī?// “What did you see?”, //Qu-od templ-um uīd-is-tī?// “What temple did you see?” 
 + 
 + 
 Therefore grammars teach that in the singular nominative, the interrogative quis questions about identity, the interrogative qui, about quality: Therefore grammars teach that in the singular nominative, the interrogative quis questions about identity, the interrogative qui, about quality:
-Qu-is es? “who are you?”, Qu-ī homō es? “What kind of man are you?” 
-The interrogative used as NP quis “who?”, qu-id “what?” is declined in the singular as follows: 
- masc./fem. neuter 
-Nom. qu-is qu-id 
-Gen. cū-ius cū-ius 
-Dat. cu-ī cu-ī 
-Abl. qu-ō qu-ō 
-Acc. qu-em qu-id 
  
-The masculine and feminine forms are identical. But in the plural, all the forms are the same as that of the relative; it has therefore a masculine, feminine and neuter declension: qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-ae. 
-The interrogative determiner qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-od “what kind of? what? which?” is declined throughout like the relative. 
-Indefinite constituents are morphologically related to interrogatives, and therefore to relatives; they are used to indicate that some person or thing is meant, but without designating which one. The indefinite NP qu-is “any one” is declined exactly like the corresponding interrogative, and therefore qu-is, qu-id in singular, and qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-ae in plural. But the indefinite determiner has also a feminine declension like the corresponding interrogative, except that qu-a is commonly used instead of quae, but not in feminine plural nominative; thus qu-ī, qu-a, qu-od in singular, but qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-a in plural.  
- It is often in the nominatives that the other indefinites are different. Thus, the indefinite NP aliquis “some one” and determiner aliqu-ī “some” is declined like the indefinite qu-is and qu-ī; and like this indefinite it commonly uses aliqu-a instead of aliqu-ae except in the nominative plural feminine; but unlike this, it has a full feminine declension in singular as in plural: 
-   masculine feminine        neuter                  + Plural 
-Nom. aliqu-is (aliquī) aliqu-a aliqu-id (aliqu-od) aliqu-ī aliqu-ae aliqu-a 
-Gen. alicū-ius alicū-ius alicū-ius aliqu-ōrum aliqu-ārum aliqu-ōrum 
-Dat. alicu-ī alicu-ī alicu-ī aliqu-ibus aliqu-ibus aliqu-ibus 
-Abl. aliqu-ō aliqu-ā aliqu-ō aliqu-ibus aliqu-ibus aliqu-ibus 
-Acc. aliqu-em aliqu-am aliqu-id (aliqu-od) aliqu-ōs aliqu-ās aliqu-a 
  
-                             Declension of aliquis (aliquī), aliqua, aliquid (aliquod) +    * //Qu-is es? “who are you?”, Qu-ī homō es?// “What kind of man are you?” 
-d. Compounds of quis and qui + 
-There are in Latin some compounds of quis, which are either some interrogatives or some indefinites or even some relatives. + 
- 1° compound by reduplication, qu-is-qu-is, qu-id-qu-id, both parts of which are declined. Only the singular masculine and neuter nominatives and the singular ablative are in regular use. But some other forms as the accusative quemquem, the ablative quiqui, and the nominative feminine quisquis  are almost confined to actors. Cuicui also occurs as a genitive only in the phrase cuicui modi “of whatever kind”. This determiner can be either an indefinite relative as in  +The interrogative used as NP //quis// “who?”, //qu-id// “what?” is declined in the singular as follows: 
-Ago etiam gratias, quoquo animo facis quoquo modo (Cic.Phil. 2,33) “I thank you, which ever intentions you have”+ 
 + 
 +^ ^ masc./fem. ^ neuter | 
 +^Nom. | //qu-is// | //qu-id// | 
 +^Gen. | //cū-ius// | //cū-ius// | 
 +^Dat. | //cu-ī// | //cu-ī// | 
 +^Abl. | //qu-ō// | //qu-ō// | 
 +^Acc. | //qu-em// | //qu-id// | 
 + 
 + 
 +The masculine and feminine forms are identical. But in the plural, all the forms are the same as that of the relative; it has therefore a masculine, feminine and neuter declension: //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-ae//. 
 + 
 + 
 +The interrogative determiner //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-od// “what kind of? what? which?” is declined throughout like the relative. 
 + 
 + 
 +Indefinite constituents are morphologically related to interrogatives, and therefore to relatives; they are used to indicate that some person or thing is meant, but without designating which one. The indefinite NP //qu-is// “any one” is declined exactly like the corresponding interrogative, and therefore //qu-is, qu-id// in singular, and //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-ae// in plural. But the indefinite determiner has also a feminine declension like the corresponding interrogative, except that //qu-a// is commonly used instead of //quae//, but not in feminine plural nominative; thus //qu-ī, qu-a, qu-od// in singular, but //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-a// in plural.  
 + 
 + 
 + It is often in the nominatives that the other indefinites are different. Thus, the indefinite NP //aliquis// “some one” and determiner //aliqu-ī// “some” is declined like the indefinite //qu-is// and //qu-ī//; and like this indefinite it commonly uses //aliqu-a// instead of //aliqu-ae// except in the nominative plural feminine; but unlike this, it has a full feminine declension in singular as in plural: 
 + 
 + 
 +Declension of //aliquis (aliquī), aliqua, aliquid (aliquod)//: 
 + 
 +^ ^ masculine ^ feminine ^ neuter ^ ^ + Plural ^ ^ | 
 +^Nom. | //aliqu-is (aliquī)// | //aliqu-a// | //aliqu-id (aliqu-od)//| | //aliqu-ī// | //aliqu-ae// | //aliqu-a// | 
 +^Gen. | //alicū-ius// | //alicū-ius// | //alicū-ius// | | //aliqu-ōrum// | //aliqu-ārum// |//aliqu-ōrum// | 
 +^Dat. | //alicu-ī//| //alicu-ī// | //alicu-ī// | | //aliqu-ibus// | //aliqu-ibus// | //aliqu-ibus// | 
 +^Abl. | //aliqu-ō// | //aliqu-ā// | //aliqu-ō// | | //aliqu-ibus// | //aliqu-ibus// | //aliqu-ibus// | 
 +^Acc. | //aliqu-em// | //aliqu-am// | //aliqu-id (aliqu-od)// | | //aliqu-ōs// | //aliqu-ās// | //aliqu-a// | 
 + 
 +  
 + 
 + 
 +     
 +    
 +  
 +                          
 +    * **6.Compounds of //quis// and //qui//** 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +There are in Latin some compounds of //quis//, which are either some interrogatives or some indefinites or even some relatives. 
 + 
 + 
 +1) compound by reduplication, //qu-is-qu-is, qu-id-qu-id,// both parts of which are declined. Only the singular masculine and neuter nominatives and the singular ablative are in regular use. But some other forms as the accusative //quemquem//, the ablative //quiqui//, and the nominative feminine //quisquis//((Plaut., //Cist.// 610 : //Conteris \\ tu tua me oratione mulier, quisquis es//:  “you bore me stiff with your words, woman, whoever you are”.)) are almost confined to actors. //Cuicui// also occurs as a genitive only in the phrase //cuicui modi//, “of whatever kind”. This determiner can be either an indefinite relative as in 
 + 
 +  
 +    * Cic., //Phil.// 2,33 : //Ago etiam gratias, quoquo animo facis quoquo modo// “I thank you, which ever intentions you have” 
 + 
 or a simply indefinite determiner: or a simply indefinite determiner:
- quoquo modo (Cic., epist. 9,16,1) “in any way”. 
- 2° determiner + particule: 
-Qu-is-nam, quae-nam, quid-nam “who, tell me? What, tell me?” is an interrogarive, only the masculine nominative of which is used as a determiner: 
-Aut quisnam ignarum nostris deus adpulit oris? (Verg., Aen.  3,338) “or which god did push you unwittingly to our shores?”  
-Qu-is-piam, qu-ae-piam, qu-ip-piam (qu-id-piam) “someone, something” is an indefinite. 
-Qu-ī-cumque, qu-ae-cumque, qu-od-cumque “whoever, whatever”, is an indefinite relative, which is always declined like the relative qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-od, and therefore does’nt have never the form in -id-cumque. 
-Qu-ī-dam, qu-ae-dam, qu-od-dam (qu-id-dam) “a certain (one)”, the first part of which is declined like the relative qu-ī, with the neutralization of the nasal phonems before an apicodental consonant (hence qu-en-dam, qu-an-dam, qu-ōrun-dam and qu-ārun-dan). It is an undefinite determiner, which can function as NP, and has then the form neuter quiddam: 
- Sed Caesar de isto ipso quiddam uelle dicere uidebatur (Cic., de or. 2,295) “But Caesar seemed to have to say a certain thing about this subject”. 
-or masculine quīdam = /kwisdam/, with the lengthening of /i/ which is the realization of /s/ before a voiced consonant: 
-in itinere quidam proficiscentem ad mercatum quendam et secum aliquantum nummorum ferentem est comitatus (Cic. inv. 2,14) “ a certain traveller walked with a commercial traveller who had with himself a considerable sum of money”. 
-Qu-is-que, qu-ae-que, qu-od-que (qu-id-que) « each, every one » is declined like the interrogative, therefore in theory as NP qu-is-que, qu-id-que, and as a determiner qu-ī-que, qu-ae-que, qu-od-que. But like in English each, qu-is-que function as a determiner as well as a NP: 
-Quisque locus (Cato, agr. 34,1) "each place", quisque miles (Caes., Gal. 5,31,4) “every soldier”, suam quisque homo rem meminit (Plaut., Merc. 111) “every man thinks about his business” 
-quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat (Cic., Tusc. 1,41) "let every man do the trade he knows". 
-ūn-us-qu-is-que, ūn-a-qu-ae-que, ūn-um-qu-od-que (ūn-um-qu-id-que) "every single one" is a combination of qu-is-que with the numeral un-us, both parts of which are declined (genitive ūn-ius-cū-ius-que, dative ūn-ī-cu-ī-que, etc.), and can be separated by other words, which is called a tmesis: 
- nē in ūn-ō quidem qu-ō-que (Cic., Lael. 92) "not even in a single one".  
- 3° Determiner + verbal form 
-Qu-ī-uīs, qu-ae-uīs, qu-od-uis (qui-d-uīs) “whatever person (thing) you please, anyone (no matter who), anything (no matter what)”, with the verb uis, second person of uolo “to want”. 
-Qu-ī-libet, qu-ae-libet, qu-od-libet (qu-id-libet) “any you please”, with the impersonal intransitive verb libet “it is pleasing or agreeable”. 
-Like the other determiners, these morphems can function as a NP. They show then the neuter form in qu-id-; the masculine form qu-ī-uīs or qu-ī-libet apparently doesn’t change, but the ī is the phonetical realization of /is/ + voiced consonant.    
-  
- e. The demonstrative Determiners hic, iste, ille  
-These three demonstrative morphemes form a full system of enunciative reference, hic refering to what concerns the speaker, iste to what concerns the listener, ille to what concerns the person who is neither the speaker nor the listener.                                
-The determiner h-i-c “this, my” has a discontinuous morph /h… k/, which appears with all singular casual segments, excepting the Genitive, but stops being discontinuous with all plural casual segments, excepting the Genitive and the Nominative and Accusative neuter of the  plural; nevertherless with the Genitive plural, the discontinuous morph can appear: 
-Gen. hu-ius, in front of Gen. plur. h-ōrum, but sometimes h-ōrum-c 
-Nom. plur. masc. h-ī and fem. h-ae, but neuter h-ae-c, which is thus different from the feminine plural h-ae. 
-As for casual segments, this determiner uses any segments of the second declension instead of the segments which the relative takes in the third declension; hence the accusative masculine singular h-un-c (i. e. /h-um-k/, the nasal /m/ having a velar realization [ŋ], spelt n, before the velar /k/), in front of the relative qu-em, and the plural datives and ablatives h-is in front of qu-ibus. 
-The nominative shows some specific characteristics. Besides the irregular discontinuous morph of the plural neuter nominative h-ae-c, the masculine singular nominative in i short is specific and obscure (may be in order to oppose to plural nominative h-ī) 
- h-i-c “this” in front of qu-ī “who”; 
-but the neuter singular nominative could correspond to the neuter relative qu-od and be the phonetic realization of /h-od-k/, with an assimilation of the point of articulation and the voicing of /d/ by /k/, and the simplification of the geminate /kk/ in word ending. 
  
-The singular genitive and the dative combine the segments specific to the pronominal declension with an allomorph in u of the demonstrative, which is parallel to that of the relative; they correspond therefore to phonematical sequences /hu-iius/ and /hu-ī-k/. The genitive is therefore realized [hujjus], the first syllable being long by position. + 
-The dative huic is “generally monosyllabic”, like cui. Since “before huica final vowel is elided (eg. Verg., Aen5,849)and short final syllable ending in a consonant remains short (eg.  Verg., Aen. 3,28), huic must therefore begin with an aspirated vowelnot with h + consonantal u” (Sturtevant1912p. 61); and i can be only consonantal iwhich means that ui is a diphthong. But in archaic Latinhuic is sometimes dissyllabic with first syllable strangely long (egPlautAmph702); and in postclassical Latinit is very normally disyllabic with the first syllable shorthŭicas cŭī+    * Cic., //epist.// 9,16,1 : //quoquo modo//, \\ “in any way”. 
-           + Plural + 
-NOM. h-i-c h-ae-c h-o-c h-ī h-ae h-ae-+ 
-GEN. hū-ius hū-ius hū-ius h-ōrum (h-ōrun-c) h-ārum h-ōrum + 
-DAT. hu-i-c hu-i-c hu-i-c h-īs h-īs h-īs +2) determiner + particule: 
-ABL. h-ō-c h-ā-c h-ō-c h-īs h-īs h-īs + 
-ACC. h-un¬-c h-an-c h-o-c h-ōs h-ās h-ae-c+ 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-is-nam**, quae-nam, quid-nam//, “who, tell me? What, tell me?” is an interrogarive, only the masculine nominative of which is used as a determiner: 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Verg., //Aen.//  3,338: //Aut quisnam ignarum nostris deus adpulit oris?// \\  “or which god did push you unwittingly to our shores?”  
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-is-piam**, qu-ae-piam, qu-ip-piam (qu-id-piam)// ,  “someone, something” is an indefinite. 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-ī-cumque**, qu-ae-cumque, qu-od-cumque// , “whoever, whatever”, is an indefinite relative, which is always declined like the relative //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-od//, and therefore does’nt have never the form in //-id-cumque//. 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-ī-dam**, qu-ae-dam, qu-od-dam (qu-id-dam)//,  “a certain (one)”, the first part of which is declined like the relative //qu-ī//with the neutralization of the nasal phonems before an apicodental consonant (hence //qu-en-dam, qu-an-dam, qu-ōrun-dam// and //qu-ārun-dam//)It is an undefinite determiner, which can function as NP, and has then the form neuter //quiddam//: 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //de or.// 2,295 : //Sed Caesar de isto ipso quiddam uelle dicere uidebatur//\\   “But Caesar seemed to have to say certain thing about this subject”. 
 + 
 + 
 +or masculine //quīdam// = /kwisdam/, with the lengthening of /i/ which is the realization of /s/ before voiced consonant
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cicinv2,14 : //in itinere quidam proficiscentem ad mercatum quendam et secum aliquantum nummorum ferentem est comitatus//,  “ a certain traveller walked with a commercial traveller who had with himself a considerable sum of money”. 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-is-que**qu-ae-quequ-od-que (qu-id-que)//« eachevery one » is declined like the interrogativetherefore in theory as NP //qu-is-que, qu-id-que//, and as determiner //qu-ī-quequ-ae-que, qu-od-que//. But like in English each//qu-is-que// function as determiner as well as a NP: 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cato, //agr.// 34,1 : //Quisque locus// \\ "each place", 
 +      
 +    * Caes., //Gal.// 5,31,4 //quisque miles// \\ “every soldier” 
 +     
 +    * Plaut., //Merc.// 111 : //suam quisque homo rem meminit// \\ “every man thinks about his business” 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Tusc.// 1,41: //quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat// \\ "let every man do the trade he knows". 
 + 
 + 
 +//**ūn-us-qu-is-que**, ūn-a-qu-ae-que, ūn-um-qu-od-que (ūn-um-qu-id-que)//, "every single one" is a combination of //qu-is-que// with the numeral //un-us//, both parts of which are declined (genitive //ūn-ius--ius-que//, dative //ūn-ī-cu-ī-que//, etc.), and can be separated by other words, which is called a tmesis: 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Lael.// 92 : //nē in ūn-ō quidem qu-ō-que//, \\  "not even in a single one".  
 + 
 + 
 +3) Determiner + verbal form 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-ī-uīs**, qu-ae-uīs, qu-od-uis (qui-d-uīs)//, “whatever person (thing) you please, anyone (no matter who), anything (no matter what)”, with the verb //uis//, second person of //uolo// “to want”. 
 + 
 + 
 +//**Qu-ī-libet**, qu-ae-libet, qu-od-libet (qu-id-libet)// “any you please”, with the impersonal intransitive verb //libet// “it is pleasing or agreeable”. 
 + 
 + 
 +Like the other determiners, these morphems can function as a NP. They show then the neuter form in //qu-id-//; the masculine form //qu-ī-uīs// or //qu-ī-libet// apparently doesn’t change, but the ī is the phonetical realization of /is/ + voiced consonant. 
    
  
  
- Declension of h-i-ch-ae-ch-o-c+    * **6.5. The demonstrative Determiners //hic, iste, ille//**   
 +    
 +     
 +     
 +These three demonstrative morphemes form a full system of enunciative reference, //hic// refering to what concerns the speaker//iste// to what concerns the listener//ille// to what concerns the person who is neither the speaker nor the listener. 
  
 +                              
 +**The determiner //h-i-c// “this, my”** has a discontinuous morph /h… k/, which appears with all singular casual segments, excepting the Genitive, but stops being discontinuous with all plural casual segments, excepting the Genitive and the Nominative and Accusative neuter of the  plural; nevertherless with the Genitive plural, the discontinuous morph can appear:
  
  
-The Determiners iste “that, your” and ille “that, his” are declined like hic, except for   nominatives, where they are even more similar to the first and second declensionAll the plural nominativesthe neuter included, have casual segments of the first classe adjectives: +Gen//hu-ius//in front of Gen. plur. //h-ōrum//, but sometimes //h-ōrum-c// 
-ist-ī, ist-ae, ist-a like bōn-ī, bōn-ae, bōn-a, and unlike qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-ae or h-īh-ae, h-ae-c  +Nom. plur. masc. //h-ī// and fem. //h-ae//, but neuter //h-ae-c//, which is thus different from the feminine plural //h-ae//.
-In the singular, the feminine nominative is in accordance with the first declension; but the masculine nominative has the casual segment -ĭ of h-i-c, because [ist-e] is the phonetical realization of /ist-iby neutralization of the opposition /i/ein word ending; and we will note that this allomorph of Nominative is confirmed by the fact that the /iphonetically appears again, as soon as it is not in word final: e. g. with the enclitic particle -ce added, the nominative iste becomes istic: +
-Vide ut istic tibi sit acutus, Cario, culter probe (Plaut., Mil. 1393) “See if your knife is well sharpened, Cario”. +
-Finally, the neuter singular nominative is the one special feature with its segment -ud, which we find, of course, in the accusative. But that is not so suprising; istud can be the phonetical realization of /ist-od/, if we assume the neutralization of the opposition /o~ /u/ in final syllable closed by an apicodental consonant . But if the neuter ist-ud corresponds thus to qu¬od and h-o-c (realization of /h-od-k/, why does the o of qu-od remain? Because it is after a labiovelar consonant, which needs a differentiation and excludes all development of an u, which would turn it into a simply velar (cf. quis and cuius cui, or loquor and locutus).  +
-In the singular genitive, the used casual segment is that which begins with a long vowel, since the demonstrative morpheme is ended by a consonant: so /ist-i:ius/, which is realized [isti:jus], and spelt istius, with a second i which will be scanned as a long syllable, therefore istīus. +
-           + Plural +
-NOM. ist-e ist-a ist-ud ist-ī ist-ae ist-a +
-GEN. ist-īus ist-īus ist-īus ist-ōrum ist-ārum ist-ōrum +
-DAT. ist-ī ist-ī ist-ī ist-īs ist-īs ist-īs +
-ABL. ist-ō ist-ā ist-ō ist-īs ist-īs ist-īs +
-ACC. ist-um ist-am ist-ud ist-ōs ist-ās ist-a+
  
  
 +As for casual segments, this determiner uses any segments of the second declension instead of the segments which the relative takes in the third declension; hence the accusative masculine singular //h-un-c// (i. e. /h-um-k/, the nasal /m/ having a velar realization [ŋ], spelt n, before the velar /k/), in front of the relative //qu-em//, and the plural datives and ablatives //h-is// in front of //qu-ibus//.
  
  
 +The nominative shows some specific characteristics. Besides the irregular discontinuous morph of the plural neuter nominative //h-ae-c//, the masculine singular nominative in //i// short is specific and obscure (may be in order to oppose to plural nominative //h-ī//)
  
  
 +    * //h-i-c// “this” in front of //qu-ī// “who”;
  
-               Declension of ist-e, ist-a, ist-ud 
-This morpheme iste has a variation with the demonstrative enclitic particle -c(e), which  is declined throughout like h-i-c, h-ae-c, h-o-c, i. e. with  a singular feminine nominative and a plural neuter nominative ist-ae-c like h-ae-c, but unlike ista. This allomorph /ist…ke/ is reduced to /ist…k/, only when the phonem /k/ is possible in word final, i. e. after vowel or nasal consonant.   
-           + Plural 
-NOM. ist-i-c ist-ae-c ist-u-c (ist-o-c) ist-ī-c ist-ae-c ist-ae-c 
-GEN. ist-īus-ce ist-īus-ce ist-īus-ce ist-ōrun-c ist-ārun-c ist-ōrun-c 
-DAT. ist-ī-c ist-ī-c ist-ī-c ist-īs-ce ist-īs-ce ist-īs-ce 
-ABL. ist-ō-c ist-ā-c ist-ō-c ist-īs-ce ist-īs-ce ist-īs-ce 
-ACC. ist-un-c ist-an-c ist-u-c (ist-o-c) ist-ōs-ce ist-ās-ce ist-ae-c 
  
-    Declension of ist-i-cist-ae-cist-u-c+but the neuter singular nominative could correspond to the neuter relative //qu-od// and be the phonetic realization of /h-od-k/with an assimilation of the point of articulation and the voicing of /d/ by /k/and the simplification of the geminate /kk/ in word ending.
  
  
 +The singular genitive and the dative combine the segments specific to the pronominal declension with an allomorph in //u// of the demonstrative, which is parallel to that of the relative; they correspond therefore to phonematical sequences /hu-iius/ and /hu-ī-k/. The genitive is therefore realized [hujjus], the first syllable being long by position.
  
  
 +The dative //huic// is “generally monosyllabic”, like //cui//. Since
  
-The determiner ill-eill-aill-ud “thathis” is declined exactly like ist-e, ist-aist-ud; outside the singular masculine and neuter nominatives and the singular genitives and dativesits caual segments belong to the first and second declension; and ille is the realization of /ill-ilike ist-eill-udthe realization of /ill-od/, like istud. +    * Sturtevant1912p. 61: “before //huic//a final vowel is elided (e. g. Verg.//Aen.// 5,849), and a short final syllable ending in a consonant remains short (e. g.  Verg., //Aen.// 3,28), //huic// must therefore begin with an aspirated vowelnot with //h// consonantal //u//” ; and //i// can be only consonantal //i//, which means that //ui// is diphthongBut in archaic Latin, //huic// is sometimes dissyllabic with a first syllable strangely long (egPlaut, //Amph.// 702); and in postclassical Latin, it is very normally disyllabic with the first syllable short: //hŭic//, as //cŭī//.
-           Plural +
-NOM. ill-e ill-a ill-ud ill-ī ill-ae ill-a +
-GEN. ill-īus ill-īus ill-īus ill-ōrum ill-ārum ill-ōrum +
-DAT. ill-ī ill-ī ill-ī ill-īs ill-īs ill-īs +
-ABL. ill-ō ill-ā ill-ō ill-īs ill-īs ill-īs +
-ACC. ill-um ill-am ill-ud ill-ōs ill-ās ill-a+
  
 +Declension of //h-i-c, h-ae-c, h-o-c//
  
  
- +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^+ Plural^ ^ | 
 +^NOM. | //h-i-c// | //h-ae-c// | //h-o-c// | | //h-ī// | //h-ae// | //h-ae-c// | 
 +^GEN. | //hū-ius// | //hū-ius// | //hū-ius// | | //h-ōrum (h-ōrun-c)// | //h-ārum// | //h-ōrum//| 
 +^DAT. | //hu-i-c// | //hu-i-c// | //hu-i-c// | | //h-īs// | //h-īs// | //h-īs// | 
 +^ABL. | //h-ō-c// | //h-ā-c// | //h-ō-c// | | //h-īs// | //h-īs// | //h-īs// | 
 +^ACC. | //h-un-c// | //h-an-c// | //h-o-c// | | //h-ōs// | //h-ās// | //h-ae-c// | 
 + 
  
-  
  
-                      Declension of ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud +**The Determiners //iste// “thatyour” and //ille// “thathis”** are declined like //hic//except for   nominativeswhere they are even more similar to the first and second declension. All the plural nominatives, the neuter includedhave casual segments of the first classe adjectives:
-For ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud has, like iste, a variation with the demonstrative enclitic particule      -c(e): nom. sing. ill-i-c, ill-ae-c, ill-u-c (ill-o-c), etc. nom. plur. ill-ī-c (ill-isce : Plaut., Most. 510 and 935)ill-ae-cill-ae-cetc.  +
-The determiner ips-e, ips-a, ips-um “self, himself”, outside the singular masculine nominative in -e and the genitive in -īus and dative in -ī of the declension pronominalonly uses casual segments of the first and second declension:+
  
-           + Plural 
-NOM. ips-e ips-a ips-um ips-ī ips-ae ips-a 
-GEN. ips-īus ips-īus ips-īus ips-ōrum ips-ārum ips-ōrum 
-DAT. ips-ī ips-ī ips-ī ips-īs ips-īs ips-īs 
-ABL. ips-ō ips-ā ips-ō ips-īs ips-īs ips-īs 
-ACC. ips-um ips-am ips-um ips-ōs ips-ās ips-a 
  
 +//ist-ī, ist-ae, ist-**a**// like //bōn-ī, bōn-ae, bōn-**a**//, and unlike //qu-ī, qu-ae, qu-**ae**// or //h-ī, h-ae, h-**ae**-c// 
  
  
 +In the singular, the feminine nominative is in accordance with the first declension; but the masculine nominative has the casual segment //-ĭ// of //h-i-c//, because [ist-e] is the phonetical realization of /ist-i/ by neutralization of the opposition /i/ ~ /e/ in word ending; and we will note that this allomorph of Nominative is confirmed by the fact that the /i/ phonetically appears again, as soon as it is not in word final: //e. g.// with the enclitic particle //-ce// added, the nominative //iste// becomes //istic//:
  
  
 +    * Plaut., //Mil.// 1393 : //Vide ut istic tibi sit acutus, Cario, culter probe// \\  “See if your knife is well sharpened, Cario”.
  
  
-       Declension of determiner ips-e, -a, -um+Finally, the neuter singular nominative is the one special feature with its segment //-ud//, which we find, of course, in the accusative. But that is not so suprising; //istud// can be the phonetical realization of /ist-od/, if we assume the neutralization of the opposition /o/ ~ /u/ in final syllable closed by an apicodental consonant((Cf. //tempus, por-is// « time », //caput, pit-is// “head”, or //iecur, iec(in)or-is//, "liver",))  . But if the neuter //ist-ud// corresponds thus to //qu-od// and //h-o-c// (realization of /h-od-k/, why does the //o// of //qu-od// remain? Because it is after a labiovelar consonant, which needs a differentiation and excludes all development of an //u//, which would turn it into a simply velar (cf. //quis// and //cuius//, //cui//, or //loquor// and //locutus//). 
 + 
 +  
 +In the singular genitive, the used casual segment is that which begins with a long vowel, since the demonstrative morpheme is ended by a consonant: so /ist-i:ius/, which is realized [isti:jus], and spelt //istius//, with a second //i// which will be scanned as a long syllable, therefore //istīus//. 
 + 
 +Declension of //ist-e, ist-a, ist-ud// : 
 + 
 + 
 +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural ^ ^ | 
 +^NOM. |//ist-e// | //ist-a// | //ist-ud// | | //ist-ī// | //ist-ae// |//ist-a// | 
 +^GEN. | //ist-īus// | //ist-īus// | //ist-īus// | | //ist-ōrum // | //ist-ārum// | //ist-ōrum//| 
 +^DAT. | //ist-ī// | //ist-ī//| //ist-ī// | | //ist-īs// | //ist-īs// | //ist-īs// | 
 +^ABL. | //ist-ō// | //ist-ā// | //ist-ō// | | //ist-īs// | //ist-īs// | //ist-īs// | 
 +^ACC. | //ist-um// | //ist-am// | //ist-ud// | | //ist-ōs// | //ist-ās// |//ist-a// | 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +This morpheme //iste// has a variation with the demonstrative enclitic particle //-c(e)//, which  is declined throughout like //h-i-c, h-ae-c, h-o-c//, //i. e.// with  a singular feminine nominative and a plural neuter nominative //ist-ae-c// like //h-ae-c//, but unlike //ista//. This allomorph /ist…ke/ is reduced to /ist…k/, only when the phonem /k/ is possible in word final, //i. e.// after vowel or nasal consonant. 
 + 
 + 
 +Declension of //ist-i-c, ist-ae-c, ist-u-c// : 
 + 
 + 
 +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural ^ ^ | 
 +^NOM. | //ist-i-c// | //ist-ae-c// | //ist-u-c (ist-o-c)// | | //ist-ī-c// | //ist-ae-c// | //ist-ae-c// | 
 +^GEN. | //ist-īus-ce// | //ist-īus-ce// | //ist-īus-ce// | | //ist-ōrun-c// | //ist-ārun-c// | // ist-ōrun-c// | 
 +^DAT. | //ist-ī-c// | //ist-ī-c// | //ist-ī-c// | | //ist-īs-ce// | //ist-īs-ce// | //ist-īs-ce// | 
 +^ABL.| //ist-ō-c// | //ist-ā-c// | //ist-ō-c// | | //ist-īs-ce// | //ist-īs-ce// | //ist-īs-ce// | 
 +^ACC. | //ist-un-c// | //ist-an-c// | //ist-u-c (ist-o-c)// | | //ist-ōs-ce// | //ist-ās-ce// |  //ist-ae-c// | 
 + 
 +     
 + 
 + 
 +**The determiner ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud “that, his”** is declined exactly like //ist-e, ist-a, ist-ud//; outside the singular masculine and neuter nominatives and the singular genitives and datives, its caual segments belong to the first and second declension; and //ille// is the realization of /ill-i/ like //ist-e//, //ill-ud//, the realization of /ill-od/, like //istud//. 
 + 
 + 
 +Declension of //ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud// : 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural ^ ^ | 
 +^NOM. | //ill-e// | //ill-a// | //ill-ud// | | //ill-ī// | //ill-ae// | //ill-a// | 
 +^GEN. | //ill-īus// | //ill-īus// | //ill-īus// | | //ill-ōrum// | //ill-ārum// | //ill-ōrum// | 
 +^DAT. | //ill-ī// | //ill-ī// | //ill-ī// | | //ill-īs// | //ill-īs// | //ill-īs// | 
 +^ABL. | //ill-ō// | //ill-ā// | //ill-ō// | | //ill-īs// | //ill-īs// | //ill-īs// | 
 +^ACC. | //ill-um// | //ill-am// | //ill-ud// | | //ill-ōs// | //ill-ās// | //ill-a// | 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +For //ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud// has, like //iste//, a variation with the demonstrative enclitic particule //-c(e)//: nom. sing. //ill-i-c, ill-ae-c, ill-u-c (ill-o-c)//, //etc.// nom. plur. //ill-ī-c// (//ill-isce// : Plaut., //Most.// 510 and 935), //ill-ae-c, ill-ae-c//, //etc.// 
 + 
 +  
 +**The determiner //ips-e, ips-a, ips-um// “self, himself”**, outside the singular masculine nominative in //-e// and the genitive in //-īus// and dative in //-ī// of the declension pronominal, only uses casual segments of the first and second declension: 
 + 
 +Declension of determiner //ips-e, -a, -um// : 
 + 
 + 
 +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural^ ^ | 
 +^NOM. | //ips-e// | //ips-a// | //ips-um// | | //ips-ī// | //ips-ae// | //ips-a//| 
 +^GEN. | //ips-īus// | //ips-īus// | //ips-īus// | | //ips-ōrum // | //ips-ārum// | //ips-ōrum//| 
 +^DAT. | //ips-ī// | //ips-ī// | //ips-ī// | | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | 
 +^ABL. | //ips-ō// | //ips-ā// | //ips-ō// | | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | 
 +^ACC. | //ips-um// | //ips-am// | //ips-um// | | //ips-ōs// | //ips-ās// | //ips-a// | 
 + 
 +        
 + 
 +Originally, //-pse// is an invariable particle combined with the determiner //is//, hence in archaic authors //eapse//  
 + 
 +    * Plaut., //Mil.// 141: //nemo nisi eapse// \\  “nobody else but herself”),  
 +     
 +    * Plaut., //Mil.// 1069: //eampse//,  
 +      
 +    * Plaut., //Curc.// 538: //eōpse// : //sed eopse illo//((Plaut., //Curc.// 537-538: //Non edepol nunc ego te mediocre macto infortunio,// \\ //Sed eopse illo quo mactare sloe quoi nil debeo// \\ “It is not the ordinary beating which I am going to apply to  you, but the beating itself as I apply to those to whom I owe nothing”.)) ,  
 +  
 +//eumpse//((Cic., //Cato// 25 : //Sentire ea aetate eumpse esse odiosum alteri// \\ “to sense that being old, we are then tiresome for the others” \\ (it is a quotation of Caecilius Statius).))  //etc.// and even in: 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Liv. 40,52,6 : //inspectante eopse Antiocho// \\ “in the presence of Antiochus himself”.  
 +      
 +But, the particle was first declined on the model of //ist-e, ist-a// or even //bon-us, bon-a//. Plautus frequently uses //ips-us// (Plaut., //Mil.// 1389  and 1060; //Merc.// 56, 481, 598, and 759; etc.). 
 +  
 + 
 +    * **6.6. Other indefinite or interrogative determiners** 
 + 
 + 
 +There are in Latin other indefinite determiners than the compunds of //qu-is//. They have all the genitive in //-ius//, and the dative in //-ī//. 
 + 
 + 
 +**//Ali-us, ali-a, ali-ud// “other, another”**, is the only one having a nominative or accusative neuter in //-ud//, like the demonstratives //ill-ud// and //ist-ud//. Its genitive //al-īus// (Gell. 17,5,14) is rare, and commonly replaced by //alter-īus//, and the dative //ali-ī// is often contracted in //al-ī//. In the spoken language, these forms of the pronominal declension are even replaced by forms of the first or second declension: genitive masc. and neut. //ali-ī// :   
 + 
 +    * Varr., //L.L.// 9,67: //alii generis uinum//, \\ "wine of another quality”  
 + 
 + 
 +and fem. //ali-ae//:   
 + 
 +    * Cic., //div.// 2,30: //aliae pecudis iecur//, \\ “the liver of any animal”;  
 +      
 +    * Lucr. 3,918, 
 +    
 +     
 +dative masc. //ali-ō//:   
 + 
 +    * Rhet. //Her.// 2,19: //alio iudici//, \\ “to any judge",  
 + 
 + 
 +and fem. //ali-ae//  
 + 
 +    * Plaut., //Mil.// 802: //rei nulli aliae//, \\ “for nobody else”.  
 + 
 + 
 +**//Alter, alter-a, alter-um// “one or other (of two), the other, the second”**, genitive //alter-īus// and dative //alter-ī// for the three genders; but there is an informal form for the dative fem. //alter-ae// (Plaut., //Rud.// 750; Ter., //Phorm.// 928; and even  
 + 
 +    * Caes., //Gal.// 5,27,5: //ne qua legio alterae legioni subsidio uenire posset//, \\  “ so that no legion cannot give another legion assistance”. 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Caes., //Gal.// 5,18,2 : //ad alteram fluminis ripam//, \\  “on the other bank of the river” 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Verr.// 2,75: //dicit unus et alter breuiter//, \\  “a witness briefly speaks, then a second”.  
 + 
 +Like //alter//, the other determiners in //-ter// imply that what is designated is one of two. Thus, the interrogative //uter, utr-a, utr-um// “which… of the two?”, “which person… of the two?” (gen. //utr-īus//, dat. //utr-ī//) 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Liv. 10,14,2: //uter ad utrum bellum dux idoneus magis esset// \\  “which general was the best of two and for which of the two wars”, 
 + 
 + 
 +and the two indefinites //uterque, utr-a-que, utr-um-que// “each of two”, or “both” (gen. //utr-īus-que, dat. utr-ī-que//), and //neuter, neutr-a, neutr-um// “not one nor the other, neither” (gen. //neutr-īus//, dat. //neutr-ī//): 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., rep. 3,4 : //in utramque partem disserere// \\ “to debate in the both directions, the pros and cons” 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Liv. 1,2,2 : //neutra acies laeta ex ei certamine abiit// \\  "not one of both parties came out of this meeting to advantage". 
 + 
 + 
 +//Null-us, -a, -um// “not any, no” is above all an indefinite determiner  
 +  
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Verr.// 2,40: // nullo modo, nullo pacto// \\ “in no way” 
 +  
 +   
 +    * Cic., //Q. fr.// 1,2,15: //adolescens nullius consilli// \\ “a young man of no importance”;
  
-Originally, -pse is an invariable particle combined with the determiner is, hence in archaic authors eapse (Plaut., Mil. 141: nemo nisi eapse “nobody else but herself”), eampse (Plaut., Mil. 1069), eōpse (Plaut., Curc. 538: sed eopse illo ), eumpse  etc.  and even in Liv. 40,52,6 : inspectante eopse Antiocho “in the presence of Antiochus himself”. But, the particle was first declined on the model of ist-e, ist-a or even bon-us, bon-a. Plautus frequently uses ips-us (Plaut., Mil. 1389  and 1060; Merc. 56, 481, 598, and 759; etc.).  
  
- f. Other indefinite or interrogative determiners 
-There are in Latin other indefinite determiners than the compunds of qu-is. They have all the genitive in -ius, and the dative in -ī. 
-Ali-us, ali-a, ali-ud “other, another”, is the only one having a nominative or accusative neuter in -ud, like the demonstratives ill-ud and ist-ud. Its genitive al-īus (Gell. 17,5,14) is rare, and commonly replaced by alter-īus, and the dative ali-ī is often contracted in al-ī. In the spoken language, these forms of the pronominal declension are even replaced by forms of the first or second declension: genitive masc. and neut. ali-ī (Varr., L.L. 9,67: alii generis uinum "wine of another quality”) and fem. ali-ae (Cic., div. 2,30: aliae pecudis iecur “the liver of any animal”; Lucr. 3,918), dative masc. ali-ō (Rhet. Her. 2,19: alio iudici “to any judge"), and fem. ali-ae (Plaut., Mil. 802: rei nulli aliae “for nobody else”).  
-Alter, alter-a, alter-um “one or other (of two), the other, the second”, genitive alter-īus and dative alter-ī for the three genders; but there is an informal form for the dative fem. alter-ae (Plaut., Rud. 750; Ter., Phorm. 928; and even Caes., Gal. 5,27,5: ne qua legio alterae legioni subsidio uenire posset “ so that no legion cannot give another legion assistance”). 
- ad alteram fluminis ripam (Caes., Gal. 5,18,2) “on the other bank of the river” 
- dicit unus et alter breuiter (Cic., Verr. 2,75) “a witness briefly speaks, then a second”.  
-Like alter, the other determiners in -ter imply that what is designated is one of two. Thus, the interrogative uter, utr-a, utr-um “which… of the two?”, “which person… of the two?” (gen. utr-īus, dat. utr-ī) 
-uter ad utrum bellum dux idoneus magis esset (Liv. 10,14,2) “which general was the best of two and for which of the two wars”, 
-and the two indefinites uterque, utr-a-que, utr-um-que “each of two”, or “both” (gen. utr-īus-que, dat. utr-ī-que), and neuter, neutr-a, neutr-um “not one nor the other, neither” (gen. neutr-īus, dat. neutr-ī): 
-in utramque partem disserere (Cic., rep. 3,4) “to debate in the both directions, the pros and cons” 
-neutra acies laeta ex ei certamine abiit (Liv. 1,2,2) "not one of both parties came out of this meeting to advantage". 
-Null-us, -a, -um “not any, no” is above all an indefinite determiner  
- nullo modo, nullo pacto “in no way” (Cic., Verr. 2,40)  
-adolescens nullius consilli (Cic., Q. fr. 1,2,15) “a young man of no importance”; 
 but it can function also as a NP: but it can function also as a NP:
-ut nullo egeat (Cic., Lael. 30 “he doesn’t need anybody”;  + 
-quod ante id tempus accidit nulli (Caes., Gall. 2,35,3“which was not happened to anybody until then”; + 
-In that position, Latin will prefer to use the variants nēmō “nobody, no one”, and nihil “not anything, nothing”, the declension of which shows clearly the relationship with the determiners: +    * Cic., //Lael.// 30: //ut nullo egeat// \\  “he doesn’t need anybody”; 
-NOM. nēmō nihil +    
-GEN. null-īus null-īus re-ī +  
-DAT. nēmin-ī null-ī re-ī +    * Caes., //Gall.// 2,35,3: //quod ante id tempus accidit nulli// \\  “which was not happened to anybody until then”; 
-ABL. null-ō null-ā rē + 
-ACC. nēmin-em nihil + 
- Declension of nēmō and nihil +In that position, Latin will prefer to use the variants //nēmō// “nobody, no one”, and //nihil// “not anything, nothing”, the declension of which shows clearly the relationship with the determiners: 
-Incidentally, nēmō is often used as a simple determiner by Plautus:  + 
-Nemo homo umquam ita arbitratust (Plaut.Persa 211) “nobody ever thought  so”. + 
-Belong also to the class of determiners, tot-us, -a, -um “the whole of, all”, sol-us, -a, -um “alone, only one”, and unu-us, -a, -um “one, a single”, which have a Genitive in -īus, and a dative in -ī: +Declension of //nēmō// and //nihil//: 
-Hinc totum odium, hinc omnis offensio (Cic.Flach. 54) “hence all her antipathy , hence all her grudge” + 
- uniuersum totius urbis incendium (Cic., Syll. 19“the general fire of all the city".  + 
-In conclusion, we can add to the morphological specific feature of the declension which we call the pronominal declension, namely the genitive in -īus and the dative in -ī, the syntactical feature of concerning only some constituents which are some members of the determiners’ class, i. e. some immediate constituents of an exocentric NP.+^ ^ ^ |  
 +^NOM. | //nēmō// | //nihil// | 
 +^GEN. | //null-īus// | //null-īus re-ī// | 
 +^DAT. | //nēmin-ī// | //null-ī re-ī// | 
 +^ABL. | //null-ō// | //null-ā rē// | 
 +^ACC. | //nēmin-em// | //nihil// | 
 +  
 +Incidentally, //nēmō// is often used as a simple determiner by Plautus:  
 + 
 + 
 +    * Plaut., //Persa// 211: //Nemo homo umquam ita arbitratust//\\  “nobody ever thought  so”. 
 + 
 + 
 +Belong also to the class of determiners, //tot-us, -a, -um// “the whole of, all”, //sol-us, -a, -um// “alone, only one”, and //unu-us, -a, -um// “one, a single”, which have a Genitive in //-īus//, and a dative in ////
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Flach.// 54: //Hinc totum odium, hinc omnis offensio//\\  “hence all her antipathy , hence all her grudge” 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Cic., //Syll.// 19: //uniuersum totius urbis incendium//, \\  “the general fire of all the city".  
 + 
 + 
 +In conclusion, we can add to the morphological specific feature of the declension which we call the pronominal declension, namely the genitive in //-īus// and the dative in //-ī,// the syntactical feature of concerning only some constituents which are some members of the determiners’ class, //i. e.// some immediate constituents of an exocentric NP. 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +  
 + 
 +\\ 
 +[[:encyclopédie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:morphologie:The morphology_of_classical Latin|Retour au plan]] ou  
 +[[:dictionnaire: The morphology of classical latin7|Aller au § 7.]]