A Short Historical Latin Grammar: Chapter IV: Adjective

It is impossible to draw a hard and fast line between the Adjective and the Noun. Words like veterānus, veterān, tīro, recrūt, are as much Adjectives as Nouns, e.g. veterānus exercītus, tīro exercītus; and the declension of the Adjective was the same as that of the Noun, though it occasionally trended on the Pronoun Declension [1], e.g. tōtius, Gen. of tōtus, like illīus, Gen. of ille (ch. v. § 8).

A distinguishing feature of the Adjective is its distinction of the three Genders; thus veterānus, -a, -um is an Adjective, veterānus M. a Noun. To indicate these the Adjective Declension took advantage of the connexion of Ŏ‑stems with the masculine and neuter and of Ā‑stems with the feminine (ch. iii. § 2), e.g. I.-Eur. nĕwŏs M., nĕwā F., nĕwŏm N., Lat. novus, nova, novum. (On Nom. Sing. Masc. ‑er for ‑rus, see ch. iii. § 6).

Besides the vowel a the vowel i was associated with the feminine gender (cf. Lat. neptis beside nepos), and ŭ‑stem Adjectives, for example, formed their Fem. in this way, so that e.g. tenuīs is properly the feminine form. The ending ‑ia (e.g. Gk. φέρουσα for *φερουγα) may have been an old Latin formation of the feminine Pres. Part., but was early relegated to the function of forming Abstract Nouns, e.g. pollentia, abundantia (cf. repulsa, an Abstr. Noun, beside repulsus, -a, -um; textūra beside textūrus, -a, -um). In Latin the distinctions of gender in the Adjective have been greatly effaced [2]. tenuīs was used as Masc. as well as Fem., and all the ŭ‑stem Adjectives show the same treatment, e.g. brevis (Gk. βραχύς), pinguis (Gk. παχύς); ferēns, etc. became the Fem. form too, though an earlier stage of the language probably had ferentis, etc. (ch. ii. § 12); and, since final ‑nt became by a phonetic law of Latin ns (ch. x. § 17), ferēns is also the Latin representative of ferent Neut. (Gk. φέρων for φέροντ).

Similarly Neuters like duplēx (cf. the Neut. Noun allēx) became assimilated to the Masc. form duplēx. The distinction, however, is kept up in Ō‑stem Adjectives in Latin even better than in Greek, for the Greek usage of the Masc. form of Compound Ō‑stem Adjs. as a Fem., e.g. ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς [3], is unknown in Latin, and in RĪ‑stems the fashion came in of distinguishing the Masc. in ‑er from the Fem. in ‑ris, e.g. ācer M., ācris F. Ō‑stems lost their distinction between Masc. and Fem. only when they passed into Ī‑stems.

This was a course often taken by Latin Ō‑stem Adjectives. Thus O. Lat. inermus, -a, -um is class. Lat. inermis, -is, -e, and the word hīlārus, a word which the Romans borrowed from the Greek (Gk. ἱλαρός), just as we borrow terms of the finer nuances of feeling from the French (e.g. triste), soon became hīlāris.

[1] In German the 'Strong' Declension of the Adjective (where the Adj. is not preceded by the Def. Article) is a trace of the Pronoun Declension.

[2] Vetus M., F., N. was originally a noun (Gk. ϝέτος a year).

[3] Ῥοδοδάκτυλος was really a noun in apposition to Ἠώς, 'Dawn Rose-finger.' This is the origin of this curious Greek usage.

The I.-Eur. suffixes used to form the Comparative and Superlative of Adjectives were ‑yēs‑ (weak grade ‑is‑, ch. x. § 12), ‑isto‑ (e.g. Gk. ἥδιον Acc. for *ἥδισσα, Engl. sweeter, with r from s; Gk. ἥδιστος, Engl. sweetest), and to some extent also ‑tērō‑ (‑ĕrō‑) and ‑tēmō‑ (‑ĕmō‑) (Gk. ἥδιτερος). In Latin the suffix ‑yēs‑ (‑is‑) was used for the Comparative, e.g. suāvior from suāviōs with ending ‑yōs, the Ō‑grade of ‑yēs‑ (ch. x. § 12), but ‑tēmō‑ is found only in ‘Superlatives’ like intumus, ultimus, and ‑tērō‑ is used to form Adverbs, e.g. breviter (Gk. βραχύτερος) and local Adjectives, e.g. dexter (Gk. δεξιτερός has this suffix in the same function; see ch. xi. § 8), as we have ‑tēmō‑ in the local Adjectives fīnitimus, maritimus (ch. xi. § 7).

But ‑mō‑ and ‑ēmō‑ appear as Superlative suffixes in summus for sup‑mus (ch. x. § 16), infimus and īmus, and (appended to the Comparative suffix ‑is‑) in maximus for magisimus (ch. ii. § 12), sacerrimus for sac‑crisimus (ch. ii. § 12), facillimus for facilisimus (ch. x. § 19). Neither the origin of the usual Superlative ending ‑issimus nor the date of its introduction are clear, e.g. purissimus, Old Lat. purimus.

The irregular Comparison of simple Adjectives like ‘good,’ ‘bad’ is a relic of a very early time when different roots were used to express a Positive, a Comparative, and a Superlative (Gk. ἀγαθός, ἀμείνων; Engl. good, better), e.g. Lat. bonus (older duonus [1]), melior, optimus (older optumus from the root of opto, opes, etc.). The coexistence of such forms as benevolus and benevolens produced a type of Comparison like magnificus, magnificentiōr, magnificentissimus; while frūgi, which was a Dative Case of a noun, ‘for fruit,’ 'fit for bearing good fruit’ (cf. Plaut. tamen erō frūgi bonae), had recourse for its Comparative and Superlative to the Adj. frūgālis. The retention of v in the Positive, with its suppression (ch. ii. § 12) in the other Degrees, causes the anomaly in the Comparison of dīves (but cf. Ter. Adelph. 770 dis quidem esses, Demea), dītior, dītissimus; iuvēnis, iūnior. Plus, plūrimus, older plōis, plōisomos, come from plō‑, a grade (ch. x. § 11) of plē‑ (ch. vi. § 3), which is a development of the root pel‑, ‘to fill’ (Gk. πλήρης, pléōn from πλη‑yον, πλήριστος from πληριστος, Lat. plē‑nus, plērique). Maior comes from mahior from a root magh‑, while magis, maximus show another form of the root, viz. mag‑. Nequior and nequissimus are curious coinages for the Comp. and Superl. of the indeclinable Adj. nē‑quam, lit. ‘a no‑how’ (cf. O. Lat. nequālia, nuisances, drawbacks). Ocior (Gk. ὠκίων), lacks a Positive in Latin, though it has one in Greek, ὠκύς. Potis, the Positive of potior, ‘desirable’, has the sense of ‘able,’ e.g. potis sum (class. possum, ch. vi. § 23), and is in Greek the Noun πόσις, a master, lord.

[1] Thus on a Scipio epitaph: Honc oino ploirume cosentiont Romai
Duonoro optumo fuise uiro,
hunc unum plurimi consentiunt Eomae bonorum optimum fuisse
virum

Of the Latin Cardinal Numbers 1–3 are inflected: ūnus, -a, -um; duō (a Dual form, ch. iii. § 1), ‑ae, -ō; trēs, -ēs, -ia (Plur. of an I‑stem, tri‑); not 4, as Gk. τέσσαρες, ‑ες, ‑α. The Numeral Adverbs from 5 upwards end in ‑iēns or ‑iēs, the I.-Eur. ending ‑yēnt (ch. x. § 17). For the fraction ‘half’ we have sēmi‑ (I.-Eur. sēmi‑, Gk. ἡμι‑, O. Engl. sām‑, whence our ‘sand‑blind’), while as an Adjective dīmidius (from dis and medius) was used. ‘One and a half’ is sēsequī‑, for sēmisque, with the same syncope as is seen in sestertius, ‘two and a half,’ for sēmis‑tertius (cf. Germ. dritthalb).

[1] Plautus has the Abl. mille. So in Old Latin ducentum, trecentum, etc. are used as Nouns with the Gen. of the thing specified, e.g. argenti sescentum, Lucilius.

Distributive Numerals have the suffix ‑no‑, e.g. bī‑ni, ter‑ni and trī‑ni, but the Distributive of ūnus is formed differently, singulī (from the root sem‑, ‘one,’ whence semel). Multiplicative Numerals have ‑plex, from the root plek‑, ‘to fold’ (Lat. im‑plico, Gk. πλέκ‑τω), e.g. simplex, and Proportional ‑plus (from the root pel‑, ‘to fill’), e.g. simplus. (On quōtus, see ch. V. §8.)