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 19:16]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin6 [2016/01/27 18:03] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 290: Ligne 290:
          
          
-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.                                +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 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 vowel, not with h + consonantal u” (Sturtevant, 1912, p. 61); and i can be only a consonantal i, which means that ui is a diphthong. But in archaic Latin, huic is sometimes dissyllabic with a first syllable strangely long (e. g. Plaut, Amph. 702); and in postclassical Latin, it is very normally disyllabic with the first syllable short: hŭic, as cŭī. +**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: 
-           + 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 +Gen. //hu-ius//, in front of Gen. plur. //h-ōrum//, but sometimes //h-ōrum-c// 
-DAT. hu-i-c hu-i-c hu-i-c h-īs h-īs h-īs +Nom. plur. masc. //h-ī// and fem. //h-ae//, but neuter //h-ae-c//, which is thus different from the feminine plural //h-ae//. 
-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+ 
 +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 
 + 
 +    * Sturtevant, 1912, p. 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 vowel, not with //h// + consonantal //u//” ; and //i// can be only a consonantal //i//, which means that //ui// is a diphthong. But in archaic Latin, //huic// is sometimes dissyllabic with a first syllable strangely long (e. g. Plaut, //Amph.// 702); and in postclassical Latin, it is very normally disyllabic with the first syllable short: //hŭic//, as //cŭī//
 + 
 +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 h-i-ch-ae-ch-o-c+**The Determiners //iste// “thatyour” and //ille// “thathis”** are declined like //hic//, except for   nominatives, where they are even more similar to the first and second declension. All the plural nominatives, the neuter included, have casual segments of the first classe adjectives:
  
  
 +//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// 
  
-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 declension. All the plural nominatives, the neuter included, have casual segments of the first classe adjectives: 
-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: 
-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 
  
 +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”.
  
  
 +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 +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…keis 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-c, ist-ae-c, ist-u-c 
  
 +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + 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.
  
-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. 
-           + 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 //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// |
  
- +    
  
-                      Declension of ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud 
-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: 
  
-           + Plural +**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//.
-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+
  
  
 +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// |
  
  
-       Declension of determiner ips-e, -a, -um 
  
-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 +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.// 
-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”)+**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: 
- 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”.  +Declension of determiner //ips-e, -a, -um// : 
-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): +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + Plural^ ^ | 
-in utramque partem disserere (Cic., rep. 3,4“to debate in the both directions, the pros and cons” +^NOM. | //ips-e// | //ips-a// | //ips-um// | | //ips-ī// | //ips-ae// | //ips-a//| 
-neutra acies laeta ex ei certamine abiit (Liv. 1,2,2"not one of both parties came out of this meeting to advantage". +^GEN. | //ips-īus// | //ips-īus// | //ips-īus// | | //ips-ōrum // | //ips-ārum// | //ips-ōrum//| 
-Null-us, -a, -um “not any, no” is above all an indefinite determiner  +^DAT. | //ips-ī// | //ips-ī// | //ips-ī// | | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | 
- nullo modo, nullo pacto “in no way” (Cic., Verr. 2,40 +^ABL. | //ips-ō// | //ips-ā// | //ips-ō// | | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | //ips-īs// | 
-adolescens nullius consilli (Cic., Q. fr. 1,2,15“a young man of no importance”;+^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 ////
 + 
 + 
 +**//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”; 
 + 
 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.]]