A Short Historical Latin Grammar: Chapter V: Pronoun

Egŏ represents an I.-Eur. ĕgō (Gk. ἐγώ). This was the I.-Eur. form used for the 1 Pers. Sing. Pronoun when subject to the verb, while another stem was employed for the same Pronoun when considered as object, viz. mĕ-. This me- is the stem of the Latin Dat. mihi (often pronounced as one syllable, mī, like nīl from nihil, ch. ii. § 6), which was in older Latin mĕ-hei, and of the Abl. mē, older mēd (ch. ii. § 9). The use of different stems in the Nom. and in the other cases is one of the peculiar features of the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension, about which more information will be found below (§ 3). For the Accusative we find exactly the same form used in Latin as for the Abl., viz. mē, older mēd, so that the Abl. seems to have taken the place of the Acc. in Latin in much the same way as the Dat. ‘him’ took the place of the Acc. in English. For the Gen. the Gen. Sing. Neut. of the Possessive Pronoun is used, meī, e.g. amicus meī, lit. ‘a friend of mine;’ but in older Latin we find occasionally a Gen. formed with -ēs, the Gen. Sing. Suffix of Nouns (ch. iii. § 1), viz. mīs, as in this line of Ennius:

Ingens cura mīs cum concordibus aequiperare, ‘My earnest care to match with men like-hearted to me.’

We have thus:

Tū represents an I.-Eur. tū, seen in the Homeric form τύ-νη, while the ordinary Greek σύ, older τύ, represents an I.-Eur. tŭ. This is another feature of the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension, that forms with short and with long vowel are found side by side (cf. ch. ix. § 1). For the oblique cases the I.-Eur. stem was twĕ- and (when unemphatic) tĕ-. Lat. tibi was earlier *tĕ-bei. The b which appears here and in the Dat. of the Reflexive Pronoun, sibi, may be a relic of a Pronoun-stem bhĕ-, so that ti-bi would be originally a Compound; and the h of mi-hi has been similarly referred to the Pronoun-stem ghĕ-, the same as appears in the Demonstrative hic (§ 3). The other cases have the same formation as the 1 Pers. Sing. Pronoun; and like Gen. mīs beside meī, we have in the older literature a Gen. tīs beside tuī.

In the First Plural Pronoun the one I.-Eur. stem nĕ- (nŏ-) (Gk. νώ Dual, ἡμεῖς from I.-Eur. nĕs-me-, Engl. us from I.-Eur. nĕs), is used in Latin to the exclusion of the other stem wĕ- (wŏ-) (Engl. we). Nōs is perhaps properly Acc. and not Nom. Nō-bīs, older no-beis, adds to *nobei (cf. *te-bei, *se-bei) the plural suffix -s. For the Genitive, besides the Gen. Sing. Neut. of the Possessive, nostrī, e.g. amicus nostrī, lit. ‘a friend of ours,’ the Gen. Plur. was used, nostrum or nostrorum; and it came to be the rule that the latter form should be employed whenever the idea of plurality was strongly present. Thus we have omnium nostrum (in Plautus omnium nostrorum) ‘of all of us,’ pars nostrum (pars nostrorum) ‘a part of us,’ &c. Obsolete forms are (1) of the Dat. Abl. nīs, with -īs of Second Declension Nouns (ch. iii. § 6), (2) of the Acc. enos, in the Hymn of the Arval Brothers:

Enos, Lases, iuuate; Enos, Marmor, iuuato, ‘Nos, Lares, juvate; nos, Mars, juvato.’

Vōs shows the I.-Eur. 2 Plur. stem wĕ- (wŏ-), for the other I.-Eur. stem yu- (Gk. ὑ-μεῖς, Engl. you) was, like the I.-Eur. 1 Plur. stem wĕ- (wŏ-), discarded in Latin. Its declension is similar to that of nos.

The Reflexive Pronoun (I.-Eur. stem swĕ- and, when unaccented, sĕ-) is similarly declined; but we have no Old Lat. Gen. sīs, like mīs and tīs, and (a common feature of the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension) the same forms are used for the Singular and for the Plural.

Meus is I.-Eur. mĕyos (ch. x. § 13; ch. xi. § 3), tuus, older *touos, I.-Eur. tĕwos (ch. x. § 4; ch. ii. § 15), suus, older souos, I.-Eur. sĕwos. From the Relative and Interrogative Pronoun was formed after the same type cujus, older *quoiios, a form which was avoided by purists under the idea that it was nothing but the Gen. Sg. cujus used by vulgar error as an Adjective, cujus, -a, -um. Virgil however stamped the form with his approval in the line (Ecl. iii. 1):

Dic mihi, Damoeta, cujum pecus? An Meliboei?

a line which his critics parodied:

Dic mihi, Damoeta, ‘cujum pecus’ anne Latinum? ‘Tell me, Damoetas, is “cujum pecus” good Latin?’

Beside I.-Eur. sĕwos (Gk. ἑός) there was another I.-Eur. form swos (Gk. ὅς for *σϝός), which appears in O. Lat. forms like sas, sis, as in a line of Ennius (imitated by Lucretius iii. 1025):

Postquam lumina sis oculis bonus Ancu’ reliquit.

These must not be confused on the one hand with O. Lat. sas, sos for eas, eos (§ 3), nor on the other with the monosyllabic pronunciation of suas, suis, &c., as in this line of Lucretius (v. 420):

Ordine se suo quaeque sagaci mente locarunt.

In this line the u of suo was pronounced like Lat. v (our w), and similarly the e of meo, meos, &c., was pronounced like Lat. j (our y) in such a line as that of the old Scipio epitaph:

Virtutes generis mieis moribus accumulaui, ‘I made my character crown the merits of our race.’

For the Possessive of the Plural Pronouns the suffix used was -tĕrŏ- (Gk. ἡμέ-τερος); so 1 Pl. nōs-ter, 2 Pl. ves-ter, older vōs-ter (ch. x. § 8).

These Possessives are really Adjectives, not Pronouns, and properly belong to chapter iv. They have the ordinary Adjective declension, the only point that calls for mention being the Voc. Sing. Masc. of meus, which is mī, a contraction of *miĕ.[1] On the use of their Gen. Neut. as Gen. of the Personal Pronouns see the last paragraph.

[1]: Plautus uses meus with a Second Decl. Noun whose Nom. is used for a Vocative, e.g. Asin. 664: da, meus ocellus, mea rosa, mi anime, mea voluptas.

Both the Possessive Adjectives and the Personal Pronouns are often strengthened by the addition of the Particles -mĕt, -ptĕ (on which see § 3), e.g. ego-met, tibi-met, sibi-met, nos-met, vos-met, mea-met, suis-met, mihi-pte, med-pte, suo-pte. Tū often adds the Particle -tĕ, and becomes tū-tĕ- (cf. tu-ti-met, ch. ii. § 13), a form not to be confounded with Acc. tē-tē; for this Acc. form is merely the Acc. tē doubled for the sake of emphasis (cf. sē-sē).

There was a great variety of Demonstrative Pronoun-stems in I.-Eur., some of which appear in some languages as Adverbs, Conjunctions and Particles only, but as Pronouns in others. Thus the stem kĕ- (kŏ-) appears in Latin in the Adverb ce- of cē-do, ‘give here,’ and in the Particle -ce of hujus-ce, illis-ce, &c., but in English it supplies the ordinary Third Sing. Pronoun ‘he’; and on the other hand the stem ghĕ- (ghŏ-) of Lat. hi-c (O. Lat. hĕ-c), ho-c appears as a Particle in Greek οὐ-χί, ναι-χί. Latin Conjunctions like nam, nem-pe, e-nim, dum are all descendants of I.-Eur. Pronoun-stems which in other I.-Eur. languages appear as actual Pronouns; and so are Latin Particles like -pĕ of nem-pe, quippe, -dem of ejus-dem, ibi-dem, -tem of au-tem, i-tem, &c., as well as the Pronominal Particles mentioned in the preceding paragraph -pte, -met, and the like.

The stems used in Latin for Demonstrative Pronouns are:

(1) I.-Eur. sĕ- (sŏ-), which seems to have been originally confined to Nom. Sg. Masc. and Fem., a stem tĕ- (tŏ-) being used elsewhere (Gk. ὁ and ὅς, for *σο, *σος, Masc., ἡ, for *σā, Fem., τό, for *τοδ, Neut., τόν Acc. Sg. Masc., &c.). This stem is found independently in the Old Latin Demonstrative sam ‘eam,’ sos ‘eos,’ sum ‘eum,’ as in this line of Ennius:

Constitit inde loci propter sos dia dearum. ‘Then (inde loci) the heavenly goddess took her stand beside them.’

But in classical Latin it appears in independent form only as an Adverb or Conjunction, tum, tam, &c.; while in Pronouns it is always a pendant to some other stem, e.g. ille for *ol-se, where it is a pendant to the stem ol- (see below), is-te, &c.

(2) I.-Eur. ghĕ- (ghŏ-) supplies Lat. hic Masc., from O. Lat. hĕ-c,[^2] haec Fem., for hai-c, hoc Neut., for *hod-c, all augmented by the Particle -ce.

[^2]: This form is found on a Scipio epitaph: Hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe, ‘hic cepit Corsicam Aleriamque urbem.’

The scansion of hic as a long syllable, e.g. Virg.

Manibusque meis Mezentius hic est,

represents a pronunciation ‘hicc,’ which followed the lead of ‘hocc’ (cf. hocci-ne) for *hod-c. Hicc and hocc would be the pronunciation before vowels, hic and hoc before consonants (cf. ch. ii. § 9 on these doublets). But hic with a long i was an Adverb, ‘here,’ and hoc with long o was the Ablative. The unaccented use of the Demonstrative (ch. ii. § 11) led to the change of O. Lat. hĕc to class. Lat. hic (ch. ii. § 14), and similarly of the Neut. hoc (hocc) to huc (hucc), though the last form came to be reserved for the Adverbial sense of ‘to this place,’ ‘hither,’ e.g. huc venio, in Plautus hoc venio (ch. ix. § 5). The i of hai-c is a peculiarity of the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension (cf. quae, O. Lat. quai, Fem. Sg. of the Pron. stem qᵘo-, § 6).

(3) I.-Eur. ŏl- (Lat. ŭl-tra, ŭl-timus; see ch. viii. § 41), a grade of the root ăl- of Lat. al-ius, Gk. ἄλλος, appears with the I.-Eur. stem sĕ- (sŏ-) appended in Lat. ille from *ol-se. (On the change of ls to ll, as in velle for *vel-se, see ch. x. § 19.) The Neuter we should expect to be *ultud from *ol-tod; but this form was adapted to the pattern of the Masc. and Fem. and became ollud, class. illud. The change of o to i must be referred to the unaccented use of this Pronoun, which culminated in its reduction to a mere Definite Article in late Latin (ch. ii. § 11). Ille, older olle, seems to stand for an original ŏl-sŏ, with weakening of final ŏ to ĕ (ch. ii. § 14), sŏ being one form of the Nom. Sing. Masc. in I.-Eur. (Gk. ὁ for *σο). The other form sŏs (Gk. ὅς for *σος, ‘he’) appears in O. Lat. ollus for ŏl-sŏs, but illus was discarded in the classical language (cf. below on ipse and ipsus).

(4) From I.-Eur. ĭ- (ei-) and ĕyŏ- (Engl. it) comes the Latin ‘Anaphoric’ Pronoun (i.e. the pronoun which refers to something previously mentioned) ĭs Masc., ĕa Fem., from ĕyā (ch. x. § 13), ĭd Neut. Augmented by a combination of the Particle -pĕ with the Pronoun-stem sĕ- (sŏ-), a combination which expresses ‘self,’ it forms the Latin Pronoun of Identity, ipse M. for ĭ-p(ĕ)-sŏ, ipsa F., ipsum N.[^3] In class. Latin the first part of this combination remains undeclined in its bare stem-form i-psa, i-psum, &c., but in the earlier literature we have declension of the first part with or without declension of the second, e.g. ea-pse (and ea-psa?), eum-pse (and eum-psum?). Augmented by the Particle -dem it expresses ‘the same,’ īdem, older ĭs-dem, Masc. (ch. x. § 19), ea-dem Fem., ĭdem (not id-dem) Neut.

[^3]: We should expect *iptud. Like O. Lat. ollus beside olle (class. ille) is O. Lat. ipsus beside ipse. Plautus seems to use the form ipsus where special emphasis is intended.

The Declension of these stems followed the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension, which, as we have seen, was very different from the Noun or Adj. Declension, though it became more and more assimilated to this in course of time, and in Greek had come to be almost identical. It is this Greek assimilation of the Pronoun- to the Noun-Declension which makes the Greek Pronouns easier to learn than the Latin. The Nom. Acc. Sg. Neut. was formed, not like O-stem Nouns in -m, e.g. donum, but in -d, e.g. is-tud (I.-Eur. tŏd, Gk. τό for *τοδ), illud; the Nom. Sing. Fem. (with which went the Nom. Acc. Plur. Neut.; see ch. iii. § 2) ended in -ai, e.g. O. Lat. hai-ce, class. haec; while for the Nom. Sing. Masc. the bare stem was used, e.g. Lat. hic, for ghĕ- with Particle -ce, ille (O. Lat. olle) for ŏl-sŏ (Gk. ὁ for *σο). But the Noun-endings were used side by side with these from a very early time, e.g. I.-Eur. sŏs M. (Gk. ὅς ‘he’ for *σος), sā F. (Gk. ἡ for *σā), and so we find in Latin illa, for ol-sā, beside O. Lat. illaec, for ol-sai with Particle -ce, and along with O. Lat. olle we have O. Lat. ollus, for ol-sŏs. (Cf. O. Lat. ipsus beside ipse, class. ista beside O. Lat. istaec, ip-sum Neut., &c.) The suffix -oi, -ei (the Loc. Sing. suffix of Noun O-stems, ch. iii. § 6) was in the I.-Eur. Pronoun Declension used in a case which seems to have acted not only as a Locative but also as a Dative and as a Genitive. Thus Greek μοι, which we call a Dative, has the function of a Genitive in such a phrase as μητέρι μοι ‘to my mother.’ In Latin illī, older ol-lei from ol-soi or ol-sei (ch. ii. § 14), was both Dative ‘to him’ and Locative ‘in that place,’ ‘there,’ and though by the classical period it had been found convenient to distinguish the two uses by restricting illī to the Dat. sense, and the form with the Particle -ce, illīc, to the Loc., this distinction is unknown to Plautus, who uses illī and illic equally as Dat. and as Loc. The Genitive received a distinguishing mark in Latin by the addition of the Noun Gen. Sing. suffix -ŏs (ch. iii. § 1) to this Dat.-Loc.-Gen. form, hujus (pronounced hūyyus, ch. ii. § 3), older *hoios, from *hoi with an appended -os; so ejus (pronounced ĕyyus) from ei, illius[^4] from illi, &c. In the rapid utterance of ordinary speech these new Genitives assumed, when unaccented (ch. ii. § 11), the pronunciation illīs, istīs, ipsīs, huīs, eīs. Thus we have illī(u)s modi (four syllables) Ter. Ad. 441, or in one word illīmodi (cf. cuimodi), with s dropped before m as in primus for *prismos (ch. x. § 19). The Nom. Plur. Masc. suffix of O-stem pronouns, viz. -oi, was in Latin (as in Greek) borrowed by O-stem Nouns (see ch. iii. § 6).

[^4]: Originally illīus, then through the Latin shortening of a long vowel before another vowel, illius. Alterīus is found in dramatic verse as well as alterius, though the long penult could not appear in dactylic poetry.

Singular

Plural

This Particle, as we have seen, belongs to the stem kĕ-, kŏ- (Gk. ἐκεῖ, a Locative Adverb, Lat. citer, cē-do, Engl. he, him). It is employed as an enclitic Particle in other languages of the I.-Eur. family beside Latin; for example, the gh of our ‘though’ is nothing but this appended -kĕ. It conveyed the sense of ‘here,’ so that hosce beside hos in Latin is much like ‘these here’ beside ‘these’ in English, and the addition of the particle would not make any perceptible difference in the sense. In the earlier authors we find -ce added or withheld at will; illī and illīc (ch. ii. § 14), illum and illunc, illud and illuc, &c., stand side by side in the pages of Plautus and Terence, as tum and tunc in classical Latin. But by Cicero’s time the forms with -ce have been made use of to distinguish synonyms. To Plautus illī and illīc were synonyms in the senses ‘to him’ or ‘in that place.’ The classical writers reserve illī for the first, illīc for the second sense. Similarly illud ‘that thing’ was distinguished from illuc ‘to that place,’ hae ‘these women’ from haec ‘these things’.[^5] The particle clung closest, as was natural, to the Demonstrative hic ‘this,’ of which only the ce-forms are found in the Nom. Sing. Masc. hic (never hĕ), Fem. haec (never hae or ha), Neut. hoc (never hod), Dat. Sing. huic, Acc. Sing. Masc. hunc (never hum), hanc (never ham), and so on. The tendency of Latin pronunciation to syncope of final -ĕ (ch. ii. § 12) reduced -ce to -c, but the full form of the Particle is seen, for example, when the Interrogative -ne is added, hici-ne, hocci-ne (on the change of -ĕ to -ĭ- see ch. ii. § 14 n.).

[^5]: Virgil has the old form in Georg. iii. 305: Haec quoque non cura nobis leviore tuendae.

A Nom. Plur. Masc. his, older heis (hisce, heisce) is found on inscriptions and in Plautus and even, according to the Grammarians, in Virgil, Ecl. iii. 102:

His certe, neque amor causa est, vix ossibus haerent.

A Dat.-Abl. hibus occurs in Plautus Curc. 506: parissumi estis hibus, like ibus, from is, in Plaut. Mil. 74 ibus dinumerem stipendium.

The old form ollus was still used in Cicero’s time in the announcement of a public funeral: ollus leto datus est, Quirites; and when the herald made his proclamation at the elections he used the phrase olla centuria and not ‘illa centuria,’ just as we keep up the old Norman French ‘oyez, oyez’ in Royal Proclamations. Virgil and the later Epic poets are fond of the forms olli, ollis, e.g. Virg. A. i. 254:

Olli subridens hominum sator atque deorum,

a line in which some of the Latin commentators understood olli as an Adverb with the sense of ‘at that time,’ ‘then.’ Ōlim, an Adverb derived from a by-stem ŏl-, had originally this meaning, ‘at that time,’ e.g. Plaut. Truc. 65 olim quom caletur maxime ‘at the hottest time of the year.’

An early Acc. Sg. Masc. of is, viz. im or em, is preserved in that clause of the Twelve Tables which gives directions how to subpoena a witness; si in ius uocat, ni it, antestamino; igitur em capito, ‘If A summon B and B refuses to go, A must first take a bystander to witness, then lay hands on B.’

The I.-Eur. Relative-stem yo- (Gk. ὅς for *yos) does not supply the Latin Relative, which shows the stem qᵘo-, a stem originally proper (with qᵘi-, qᵘu-) to the Interrogative and Indefinite Pronouns (Gk. τίς; and τις, που; and ποῦ, Engl. who?) but used also as a Relative (Engl. who). I.-Eur. qᵘo-, qᵘi-, qᵘu- appear in the Latin qui?, quis?, si-quis, ali-cui, &c. We may roughly distinguish quī- (stem qᵘo-) as the Relative, quis (stem qᵘi-) as the Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun, though the stems frequently overlap; e.g. in the Latin of Cato and the earliest inscriptions ques is the Nom. Pl. of the Indefinite, quī (quei) of the Relative;[^6] but in class. Lat. both are quī. In the Dramatists quis is the Fem. of the Interrog., quae of the Relative, but qui, the I-stem Abl., which probably was originally confined to the Interrog.-Indef. use, is also Relative, e.g. Ter. Ad. 477 psaltriam parauit, quicum uiuat, and queis, also written quīs (ch. x. § 11), which was originally Rel. only, is also Interrog.-Indef. The I-declension Neuter Pl. quia survives only as a Conjunction (ch. ix. § 12). In the Italic languages (as in Celtic and elsewhere) a curious declension of the Relative (and Interrogative) was in vogue, a case-form of the Relative-stem being prefixed to a Demonstrative, like modern Greek ποῦ τόν for ὅν in such a sentence as αὐτός εἶνε ὁ ἄνδρας ποῦ τόν εἶδα, ‘that is the man whom I saw.’ The old spelling of the Dat. Sg. of qui, viz. quoiei, shows it to be a compound of this kind, having for its second element the Dat. Sg. of is (O. Lat. eiei), so that quoiei represents quo-eiei; and Gen. Sg. quoiios, then quoius (class. cujus) will consequently represent quo-eius. Whether this method of declension was used in other instances in Latin does not appear. Another feature of the Italic Relative is its tendency to append the Pronominal Particle ī (of Gk. οὗτος-ί, &c.); and this is utilized in Latin as the discriminating mark of the Nom. Sg. Masc. of the Relative, quī (O. Lat. quoi) from quo-ī. On the Possessive cujus, -a, -um, older quoius, -a, -um, with stem qᵘo-yo- formed by means of the Adjective-suffix yo- (ch. xi. § 3) from the stem qᵘo-, see above (§ 2).

[^6]: Cato began his Origines with the words: siques homines sunt, quos delectat populi Romani gesta discribere; and on the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, an inscr. of Plautus’ time, we have: sei ques esent, quei sibei deicerent necesus ese Bacanal habere, ‘si qui essent, qui sibi dicerent necesse esse Bacchanal habere.’

Singular

Plural

[7]: The distinction of qui Adj. (e.g. qui homo venit?) and quis Pron. (e.g. quis venit?) is later than Plautus.

The derivatives are: ali-quis, a compound of the stem ali-, some (connected with alio-, other), and the Indef. Pron.; ec-quis, which prefixes *ece (connected with ecce) to quis; quis-nam, which appends the Interrogative Particle nam (ch. ix. § 6) to the Interrog., as qui-dam (for *quis-dam, like idem for is-dem) appends a similar Particle from the Pronoun-stem do- (§ 3) to the Indefinite; qui-vīs adds vīs, you wish, and qui-libet adds lubet (libet), it pleases; on the appendage -cumque of quicumque, see ch. ix. § 2; quisque, each, has in Old Latin the sense of quicumque, [8] e.g. Plaut. Capt. 798 quemque offendero ‘whomever I come across’; quis-quam, any, lit. ‘anyhow,’ was used especially in negative sentences, its I-stem Abl. being employed as an Adv. in nē-quīquam, in vain, lit. ‘not anyhow’; quis-piam is a Compound of *quispe (the I-stem Abl. of which is the Adverb quippe, for quipe) with jam, as nunciam of nunc with jam.

[8]: So had the simple Indefinite quis, e.g. in an old plebiscitum: eum quis uolet magistratus multare, dum minore parti familias taxsat, liceto, ‘what magistrate soever desires to fine him, may do so up to less than half of his belongings.’

These are:

(1) alius from I.-Eur. ălyo- (Gk. ἄλλο) with by-forms [9] alis in Nom. Sg. Masc. and alid in Nom. Sg. Neut. (cf. Cornelis for Cornelius, ch. iii. § 6). The derivative Adj. alienus is for ali-ēno- (by Dissimilation) with the suffix -ēno- (ch. xi. § 5).

[9]: E.g. Catullus lxvi. 28: quod non fortior ausit alis. Lucretius i. 263: quando alid ex alio reficit natura.

(2) alter is formed from the root al-, seen in ălyo-, by the addition of the suffix -tero- (ch. xi. § 8), while other I.-Eur. languages show a similar formation from the root an- (Germ. an-der, Engl. o-ther, from ‘on-ther’). It is often used (like O. Engl. ōder) as an Ordinal Numeral, ‘second.’ A stem altro- appears in altrin-secus, altro-vorsus (Plaut., later altrorsus).

(3) ūllus is formed with the LO-suffix (ch. xi. § 9) from ūnus (see ch. iv. § 4), which also belongs to the Pronoun Declension, Gen. unīus, Dat. unī. The opposite of ullus is nūllus with the negative prefix nĕ- of n-usquam, n(e)-utiquam (ch. ix. § 17); and ullus was coined on the type of nūllus, *ne-ullus, ‘not a little one,’ ‘not even one,’ so that there was a time in Latin when nullus was in use but not ullus. Like nullus, but used properly of persons, while nullus was used normally of things, is nēmo from *nĕ-hĕmo. (On hemo, a by-form of homo, see ch. iii. § 8 n.) Nullus is scarcely used as a substantive till late Latin, but nullius and nullo take the place of neminis and nemine in class. Latin. As the Neuter of nullus, nĭhĭl (usually pronounced nīl) is employed, a compound of the negative nĕ- and hīlum. (On the scansion nihil, earlier nihil, see ch. iii. § 16.)

(4) sōlus is connected with the Adverb sē, sēd-, apart (e.g. sēd-itio, lit. ‘a going apart’), and is formed from sŏ-, a grade of sĕ- (see ch. x. § 12) with the suffix -lo (ch. xi. § 9).

(5) tōtus may be connected with the I.-Eur. teutā, ‘a community,’ whence the name Teuton, and be derived from the root teu-, ‘to swell,’ ‘be large’ (cf. Lat. tumeo).

(6) ŭter is one of those Latin Relative (Interrog.-Indef.) forms beginning with u- (cf. ubi, ut) which seem to come from the stem qᵘu- (§ 6). With the addition of -que, ever (cf. O. Lat. quisque, § 7), it becomes uterque and in Plautus we find a rare form sēd-utraque Nom. Sg. Fem., ‘each separately’ (Stich. 106). The opposite of uter is neuter (a trisyllable) with the negative prefix nĕ- of nĕqueo, &c. Alteruter is a compound of alter and uter, sometimes with both elements declined, sometimes with the second only (cf. § 3 on ipse).

All of these take the Pronominal Gen. and Dat. Sg. in -ius and -i, but only alius takes the Neut. Sg. (Nom.-Acc.) in -d, aliud (cf. Gk. ἄλλο for *ἄλλοδ). True to their Adjectival character however they admitted more readily than ille, iste and the other Demonstrative Pronouns, the Noun Declension forms in these cases, e.g. unae rei (Gen.), Cic.; tam nulli consili, Ter.; coloris ulli, Plaut.; alterae legioni, Caes. For the Gen. Sing. of alius the Romans discarded alīus, which was liable to confusion with the Nom., and used the Gen. Sing. of alter instead, alterīus. (On the scansion see § 3 n.)

There are other Adjectives called ‘Pronominal’ Adjectives, because they are derived from Pronoun-stems. These like the Possessives (§ 2) belong to the Adjective Declension. From the stem to-, te- comes Lat. tālis (I.-Eur. tāli-; cf. Gk. τηλί-κος), tan-tus, tŏt, older tŏtĭ-, preserved in toti-dem (I.-Eur. tŏti-; cf. Gk. τόσ(σ)ος for *τοτιος), and (with O-suffix, ch. xi. § 2) tōtus (e.g. Manilius iii. 430: detrahitur summae tota pars, quota demitur). From the Relative (Interrog.-Indef.) stem comes Lat. quālis (Gk. πηλί-κος), quantus, quŏt, older quŏtĭ- (I.-Eur. qᵘŏti-; cf. Gk. πόσ(σ)ος from *ποτιος), and (with O-suffix) quŏtus (e.g. Horace Epp. i. 5. 30: tu quotus esse velis, rescribe, ‘write back how many other guests you wish to meet you,’ lit. ‘which number in the series you wish to be’). Cottīdie may come from *quŏtītĭus, a by-form, and stand for quot(i)ti-die, with Syncope of i. (On cē-teri, see ch. ix. § 4, and on ambō, a Dual like the Numeral duō, ch. iii. § 1.)