EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

HIC ILLE ISTE are sometimes used as third person pronouns for
he, she, it.

In the following sentence TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

you can replace 'EGO' with HIC

however HIC is not third person. Shouldnt the correct
usage be

TRISTIS PATER SUM SUUS

that doesnt seem right

Thanks.

[spiphany]

I'm afraid I don't follow you.

'Suus' is a possessive adjective and cannot be used as a pronoun.

You can use hic to replace a NOUN. You can also use it instead of is/ea/id. You can't use it as a replacement for "I", however. The sentence you gave would be like saying "That man am a father" -- doesn't make sense at all. You can say "Ille est pater", but meaning is different, the sentence no longer indicates that the SPEAKER is the father.

Okay, so why can you use hic or ille to mean "him"? Well, if you think about it, "that one" is roughly equivalent in meaning to "him". You're pointing out someone in general, but not specifying exactly who it is (you're not saying "Julius Caesar" or "the man in the tie-dyed toga," but simply "that guy over there").

[adrianus]

You can't use it as a replacement for "I", however. The sentence you gave would be like saying "That man am a father" -- doesn't make sense at all in Latin. You can say "Ille est pater", but meaning is different, the sentence no longer indicates that the SPEAKER is the father.

I'm not so sure, spiphany, that it makes no sense at all. Id latinè nihilum significare, spiphany, minus certus sum. "Hic tristis pater sum" means to me "I am a sad father such as this [man]" and "Ille sum pater" means "I am such a father as he [that man]". Maybe I'm just mistaken. Fortassè modò erro.

Tristis pater sum ego = I [secondary emphasis] am a sad [primary emphasis] father
Tristis pater sum hic = I am a sad [emphasized] father, such as this [afterthought] but a dubious construction (because of word order), I think. At formula mala est (ob verborum ordinem), ut opinor.
Tristis pater sum suus = I am a sad father of his own(!?)—a grammatically mistaken and dubious construction, I reckon. Soloecismus est et formae dubiae, ut habeo.

Just as you say, spiphany, in these sentences, "ego", "suus" and "hic" are not substitutes for each other. They have completely different senses (some weird, if not just wrong).

Ut dicis, spiphany, his in sententiis, "ego", "suus", "hic" inter se invicem substitui non possunt, nisi sensum gravissimè mutuari efficatur (modo monstruoso aut planè erroneo).

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

HIC ILLE ISTE are sometimes used as third person pronouns for
he, she, it.

In the following sentence TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

you can replace 'EGO' with HIC

which would be TRISTIS PATER SUM HIC

Is HIC or EGO in this case considered to be 3rd person?

thanks.

[adrianus]

"Hic" refers to the third person (he) /tertiam personam spectat
"Ego" refers to the first person (I) /primam personam respicit

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

HIC ILLE ISTE are sometimes used as third person pronouns for
he, she, it.

In the following sentence TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

you can replace 'EGO' with HIC

So if it is neccessary to use HIC or ILLE or ISTE to replace a third person pronoun
than

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

then changing it to

TRISTIS PATER SUM HIC

is not an example of this rule be used since EGO is first person

doesnt EGO have to be 3rd person to have HIC replace it

Thanks.

[adrianus]

then changing it to

TRISTIS PATER SUM HIC

is not an example of this rule be used since EGO is first person

doesnt EGO have to be 3rd person to have HIC replace it

You're right. Changing EGO to HIC isn't sensible.
Probè dicis. EGO in HIC mutare sanum non est.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

You're right. Changing EGO to HIC isn't sensible.
Probè dicis. EGO in HIC mutare sanum non est.

maybe my sentence is fundamentally wrong for application of the rule.
we are supposed to be replacing a third person pronoun with HIC

can you give me an example of this with a different sentence?

thanks

[adrianus]

we are supposed to be replacing a third person pronoun with HIC

can you give me an example of this with a different sentence?

Hic (with a short i) is a masculine third person pronoun in the nominative, so...
Hic (per i litteram brevem) est pronomen tertiae personae masculini generis nominativo casu, ergo...

Ille venit. >> Hic venit. or/vel
Ille vir venit >> Hic vir venit. or/vel
Is eam vidit. >> Hic eam vidit.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Ille venit. >> Hic venit. or/vel
Ille vir venit >> Hic vir venit. or/vel
Is eam vidit. >> Hic eam vidit.

I suppose this follows the pattern and is correct:

ILLE SUM EGO

is the same as (a substitution):

ILLE SUM HIC

thanks.

[adrianus]

I suppose this follows the pattern and is correct:

ILLE SUM EGO

is the same as (a substitution):

ILLE SUM HIC

Not so. Minimé.
ILLE SUM EGO (I am he/I am that one) >> HIC SUM EGO (I am this man/I am this one)

A pronoun standing for the third person (he/she/it) replaces another third-person pronoun. (EGO is first-person)
Pronomen quod locum personae tertiae supplet aliud pronomen personae tertiae supplet. (EGO primae personae est.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

A pronoun standing for the third person (he/she/it) replaces another third-person pronoun. (EGO is first-person)

is there any chance that NOS and VOS are third person pronouns?

thanks.

[spiphany]

Okay, maybe this will make sense if you understand what we mean when we say a pronoun is first person, second person or third person.
Imagine a conversation:
FIRST person refers to the speaker or speakers ("I")
SECOND person refers to the person(s) being addressed (without the presence of you, the audience, anything I say would be a monologue -- you, the second person, make it a conversation)
THIRD person is neither the speaker nor the addressee -- it is someone not present or not participating in the conversation)

Now, based on the meaning of 'vos' and 'nos', what person do you think each of them is?
Think about what you say in English -- would you replace "I" (or "we" or "you") with "that one"?

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

HIC ILLE ISTE are sometimes used as third person pronouns for
he, she, it.

granted - HIC ILLE and ISTE are used as third person pronouns to replace other words.
these other words when in the third person are not 'i' (who is speaking) or 'you' (who
is being spoken to) but rather object in the sentence such as 'it'

this would lead me to believe that HIC would be used to replace the word 'this' (third person) but the
rules in the book explicitly state the following: 'HIC is used as third person pronoun for
he, she, it'.

if this is stated as follows then it leads us to believe that 'HIC' can replace 'he' which is not
a thid person pronoun now is it?

He is talking

that is not third person

It says HIC ILLE ISTE can replace 'he' which is a third person pronoun. but 'he' is not
third person it is second

unless the point of this is that 'he is giving her the table' and that 'he' is first and 'she' is second
and 'table' is third person - but i dont think you can replace 'table' with 'HIC'

what have i got wrong?

thanks.

[adrianus]

Salve canorcaerulecarotâclavoque.

what have i got wrong?

if this is stated as follows then it leads us to believe that 'HIC' can replace 'he' which is not
a thid person pronoun now is it?

You are wrong. It is.
Falsò dicis. Est certè pronomen personae tertiae.

He is talking

that is not third person

Again, not so. "He" in "He is talking" is a third person pronoun in English.
Iterum erras. "He" anglicè tertiae personae pronomen est.

It says HIC ILLE ISTE can replace 'he' which is a third person pronoun. but 'he' is not
third person it is second

Not at all. "He" is a third-person pronoun. "You" is second-person.
Minimè. "He" anglicè pronomen tertiae personae est. "You" anglicè secundae personae est.

unless the point of this is that 'he is giving her the table' and that 'he' is first and 'she' is second
and 'table' is third person - but i dont think you can replace 'table' with 'HIC'

That's wrong. In "He is giving her the table", "He" is a third-person pronoun, "her" is a third-person pronoun and "table" is not a pronoun but could be replaced by a third-person pronoun "hanc", and written "it" or "this one" in the sentence in English.
Falsum est. In "Is eae tabulam dat", "Is" pronomen tertiae personae est, "eam" pronomen tertiae personae, et "tabulam" pronomen non est sed "hanc" pronomine personae tertiae commutari potest.

See // Vide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person

Think about stories and computer games presented in a
1. first-person perspective (that shows what I see as narrator),
2. second-person perspective (that shows what the narrator says you see),
3. third-person perspective (that shows what the narrator says he/she/it sees).

Ludos computatrales fabulasque cogita quibus habes
1. primae personae prospectum (qui monstrat id quod ego narrator video),
2. secundae personae prospectum (qui monstrat id quod secundum narratorem tu vides),
3. tertiae personae prospectum (qui monstrat id quod secundum narratorem is/ea/id videt).

[Alatius]

... but the rules in the book explicitly state the following: 'HIC is used as third person pronoun for
he, she, it'.

if this is stated as follows then it leads us to believe that 'HIC' can replace 'he' which is not a thid person pronoun now is it?

He is talking

that is not third person

It says HIC ILLE ISTE can replace 'he' which is a third person pronoun. but 'he' is not third person it is second

unless the point of this is that 'he is giving her the table' and that 'he' is first and 'she' is second and 'table' is third person - but i dont think you can replace 'table' with 'HIC'

what have i got wrong?

I'm afraid you are still fundamentally misunderstanding what first, second, and third person mean, as grammatical terms. Spiphany and Adrianus have tried to explain it already; se above. But let me try to explain as well:

Everything that is said (or written) is said (written) by someone. This is the so called "first person". For example, here I am writing an explanation. I am the "first person".

Generally, an utterance has an intended recipient. For example, I write this explanation for you, and hence I adress you. You are the "second person".

Anyone that isn't either the one speaking or the one being spoken to, is the third person. For example, I mentioned Sphiphany above. I wrote about her, but not to her. She is a "third person".

Let us analyse your examples:

"He is talking." This is a statement about someone (we don't know his name, but we know that it is a man, because it says "he"). Let us call him X. As anything that is said, this statement ("He is talking") was said by someone. In this case, you wrote it, Blutoonwithcarrotandnail. Who is the intended recipient of this statement? That is, who are you telling this to? Well, the readers of this thread, presumably.

Were you talking about yourself? That is, is X and Blutoonwithcarrotandnail the same person? No, because then you would have said "I am talking."

Is X the person that you were talking to? No, because then you would have said "You are talking."

What then? Of course, it is someone else. Someone that is not either the one speaking, or the one being spoken to. It is the third person.

Let us look at the other example. "'He is giving her the table." This is a statement involving three different entities: "he", "her" and "the table". But none of them is refering to the originator of the utterance, nor do they refer to the one being adressed. They are all "third persons".

If I, Alatius, stand in front of you, Blutoonwithcarrotandnail, look you in the eyes, and say "I am happy", you know that this means that Alatius is happy. How can you know that? Because, in English, the word "I" are used by speakers to refer to themselves. Hence, the word "I" is a first person pronoun in English.

If I, Alatius, stand in front of you, Blutoonwithcarrotandnail, look you in the eyes, and say "You are happy", you know that this means that you, Blutoonwithcarrotandnail, are happy (or at least Alatius thinks so). How do you know this? Well, because you feel that you are the one being spoken to, and the English word "you" are generally used by speakers (in this case Alatius) to refer to the one being spoken to. Hence, the word "you" is a second person pronoun.

If I, Alatius, stand in front of you, Blutoonwithcarrotandnail, look you in the eyes, and say "He is happy", you would not generally assume that I intend to convey that "Alatius is happy", nor that I intend to convey that "Blutoonwithcarrotandnail is happy". You would think that I was talking about someone else, someone that is not part of the conversation. Because of this, the word "he" acts as a third person pronoun in the English language.

If I say "He is happy" and actually do mean to convey that "Alatius is happy", then you would rightly say of me that I "speak of myself in the third person". (Something which can be rather confusing.)

Now, your book says that "HIC is used as third person pronoun for he, she, it". This simply means that a Latin speaker generally would not use the word "hic" to refer to himself, nor would he use it to refer to the one he is speaking to. He would use it to refer to someone else, someone who is not part of the conversation. The third person.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

FIRST person refers to the speaker or speakers ("I")
SECOND person refers to the person(s) being addressed (without the presence of you, the audience, anything I say would be a monologue -- you, the second person, make it a conversation)
THIRD person is neither the speaker nor the addressee -- it is someone not present or not participating in the conversation)

EGO first person
TU second person
NOS VOS second person

I first person
You second person
He/She/It third person
We first person
You second person
They second person

Table can be replaced by third person pronoun HIC

IS EA ID third person
HIC ILLE ISTUD third person


So in this sentence:

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

HIC cannot replace EGO because EGO is first person and HIC is third

so saying that HIC can replace a third person pronoun in Latin means that:

HIC can replace 'he/she/it' in english?

If this is correct can you give me an example where HIC replaces he/she/it in english?

thanks.

[adrianus]

Ille venit = "He comes" (where "he" refers to "that man I am pointing to") -> Hic venit = "He comes" (where "he" refers to "this man I am pointing to")

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

is the same manipulation possible with the older sentence?

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

changing it to:

TRISTIS ILLE SUM EGO

thanks.

[Alatius]

I first person
You second person
He/She/It third person
We first person
You second person
They second person

Almost. This may be a simply typo, but I want too make sure you understand this. "They" is not a second person pronoun: If I speak to you and talk about what "they" do, I'm not talking about what you are doing, am I? "They" refers to someone else. Hence, it is a third person pronoun.

EGO first person
TU second person
NOS VOS second person

Similarly, maybe you forgot to add what "nos" is, but just to be crystal clear, it is a first person pronoun, right?

is the same manipulation possible with the older sentence?

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

changing it to:

TRISTIS ILLE SUM EGO

Well, yes, I think it is possible to say that in Latin, in a special context (for example, if you are showing an old photograph of yourself.) But, may I ask you, what do you envision that "tristis ille sum ego" is supposed to mean? How would you translate it into English? You speak about "manipulating" and "replacing" words, which gives me the impression that you wat to learn to apply mechanical rules to form grammatical Latin sentences, rather than learn how to express ideas in Latin, and understand what different Latin constructions mean. Hence my question.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

probably means 'i am the sad father'

but when you switch it to

TRISTIS ILLE SUM EGO

ILLE is probably the wrong demonstrative to use

Which is the right one to say the same thing among the following
available: HIC ILLE ISTA

is this then an application of the rule 'HIC/ILLE/ISTA' can be used
to substitute for third person pronouns such as 'he/she/it'

thanks.

[Alatius]

TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

probably means 'i am the sad father'

Right. Or "I am a sad father", depending on context.

but when you switch it to

TRISTIS ILLE SUM EGO

ILLE is probably the wrong demonstrative to use

It doesn't have to be wrong; it completely depends on what you want to say.

HIC HAEC HOC roughly means "this one here".
ISTE ISTA ISTUD roughly mean "that one over there where you are, that one of yours", not seldom used in a derogatory sense.
ILLE ILLA ILLUD roughly means "that one over there".
IS EA ID roughly means "he/she/it".

Use the one that fits best with what you want to say.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

so the point is that

TRISTIS PATER EGO SUM

that ILLE cannot replace EGO because it is not third person -
but PATER is?

then why does the rule say 'ILLE' can replace a third person pronoun
and not a noun? 'PATER' is a noun. wouldnt it be replacing EGO?
unless this is what it means: PATER is replaced by a pronoun as
it is a noun. this is the function of a pronoun to replace a noun
(and you use a third person one)

thanks.

[adrianus]

...unless this is what it means: PATER is replaced by a pronoun as
it is a noun. this is the function of a pronoun to replace a noun
(and you use a third person one)

That is mostly right. It depends on what the noun refers to, usually. Mostly the noun refers to the third person.

Sometimes, however, (more rarely) it may refer to the first or second person, to "me" or to "you", but that depends on who is saying the sentence. In the sentence "Adrian says hello", because I am Adrian I will replace the noun "Adrian" with first-person "Ego" in Latin for "I say hello". If you were to use the sentence, you would replace the noun "Adrian" with either "He says hello" (third person) if you were talking about me, or "You say hello" (second person) if you were talking to me. In all these cases, the bottom line is you must think first about the meaning of what it is you want to say. But mostly nouns do refer to the third person, unless I refer the noun to myself or to you.

That's why your sentence "Tristis pater sum ego" = "I am a sad father" doesn't fit the pattern. "Tristis pater" refers to me, "ego". But when you say "Tristis ille sum ego", you are now referring to someone else, because "ille" refers to the third person and we seldom talk about ourselves in the third person. You have drastically changed the sentence meaning and you probably didn't want to do that. Meaning comes first.

Paenè accuratum in toto quod dicis. Plerumquè res pertingit quis vel quod nomen significet. Generaliter, tertiam ad personam nomen pertinet.

Interdùm sed rarò, praeter quis sententiam dicat, ad primam vel secundam personam, ad me vel ad te, pertinet. Ego Adrianus sequenti in sententiâ dicendâ, "Adrianus salutem dico", pronomen "ego" personae primae pro Adriano nomine substituere possim. Tu blutoowithcarrotandnail pro nomine substituat eius pronomen de me in dicendo, et tui pronomen mihi directè dicens. Omnibus horum exemplorum, oportet te primò significationem illius quod dicere vis considerare. Plerumquè quidem nomen tertiam personam refert nisi me vel te significetur.

Ideò, pronomine illius pro nomine patris in sententiam praecedentem substituto, "Tristis ille sum ego" videlicet, valdè confundit. Infelix est quod illo exemplo deniquè nomen ad primam personam addicitur. Hîc "ille" personam tertiam refert, at priore in versione nomen patris primam personam, "ego" enim, retullit. Si "ille" pro "pater" subtituas, sensum magis mutas, quod facere noluisti, ut conjicio. Ante omnia alia, sensum vel significationem pone.

[Alatius]

so the point is that

TRISTIS PATER EGO SUM

that ILLE cannot replace EGO because it is not third person -
but PATER is?

Yes, that sounds correct, I think.

then why does the rule say 'ILLE' can replace a third person pronoun
and not a noun?

Wait, what? What rule are you talking about? And what do you exactly mean with "replace"? As in reformulating a Latin sentence without (fundamentally) changing the meaning, or as in translating from English? In a Latin sentence, you can use a pronoun, such as "ille", instead of a noun, if you wish. If you are translating from English, it is often not unreasonable to translate an English pronoun with a Latin pronoun. In any case, there is no "rule" that says that "ille" can't replace a noun, whatever you mean with "replace".

'PATER' is a noun. wouldnt it be replacing EGO?

(I suppose "it" refers to the word "ille"?) It is questions like this that makes me confused as to how you are reasoning. Is it that you take a sentence, and then decide that you want to use the word "ille" in (for some reason), and then you look for which words that you can legally replace? Well, what I want to stress is that it depends on what you want to say, what meaning you want to convey. If you want to express "that sad one is me" in Latin, you can say "tristis ille sum ego", I guess. If you want to say "the/a sad father is that one (over there)" ("that one is the/a sad father"), you can say "tristis pater est ille", but then you would use "est" instead of "sum", since the subject is no longer yourself, but a third person, and the sentence means something entirely different.

unless this is what it means: PATER is replaced by a pronoun as
it is a noun. this is the function of a pronoun to replace a noun

Yes, that's exactly it! The very definition of a pronoun is something that stands in the place of a noun.

[adrianus]

Salve canorcaerulecarotâclavoque et Alatique spiphanyque,

What makes this such an interesting thread, I think anyway, is that there are so many levels on which confusion can take place.
1. Language is being used to refer to itself.
2. Language is being used to refer to things outside of itself.
3. Language is being used to refer to things outside of itself also from the alternative perspectives of the Self and the Other.
4. Two languages (English and Latin) overlap in the discussions arising in 1, 2 and 3 above.
5. References are made to things not open to all the participants (a book and some supposed rules).
6. Language may be used loosely (formally, informally and metaphorically).
7. Language may be used inaccurately either in terms of one's intentions, or of formal grammar, or of concepts about language or the world outside language or even about oneself and the clarity of one's thinking.
8. Language can be used to lie or to dissimulate.

De hôc filo, tales aspectus meâ intersunt quales res confundunt, ut opinor.
Prima res. Modo sui referendi lingua adhibetur.
Secunda. Linguâ utamur ut de rebus ultra linguam loquamur.
Tertia. Ut de rebus ultra linguam loquamur, linguâ duo aspectu utamur, uno Mei Ipsius et alio Alteri.
Quarta. Duae linguae (Anglicum Latinumque videlicet) inter se commiscent eis rebus quas includunt materies prima, secunda, tertia.
Quinta. Sunt res jactatae, sicut liber quidam sicut regulae quaedam putatae, quas non omnis nostrorum habet.
Sexta. Ut qua lingua licenter sonatur possibile est. Attentivè, affabiliter, metaphoricè loquamur.
Septima. Etiam abusivè loquamur, quòd semper et intentionibus, et regulis grammaticis, et notionibus prae linguâ vel prae mundo extra linguam vel prae nobis ipsis ac claritate mentis erramus.
Octava. Ut mentiamur vel dissimulemus, linguâ utamur.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

so if i changed the sentence to

TRISTIS PATER EST

then you could change it to:

ILLE PATER EST

because PATER is third person while EGO was first person violating
the pattern because EGO is first person

correct?

thanks.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

just to double check:

VOS is 3rd person 'they'

I (1st) You (2nd) He/She/It (3rd) We (1st) You (2nd) They/Them (3rd)

thanks.

[Borakovelover]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! this is sooooo confusing! Somone please explain it to me?

[adrianus]

TRISTIS PATER EST

then you could change it to:

ILLE PATER EST

Yes, you can if you want to. // Ita. Si id facere vis, potes. "Father is sad" or "Father is that one" // "That one is the father" or "The sad one is the father"
Consider first what it is you want to say. // Ante omnia, quid dicere velis cogites.

VOS is 3rd person 'they'

No. VOS is YOU plural (2nd person). // Minimé. VOS secundae pronomen personae pluraliter est.

Borakovelover, See // vide http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_6-Pronouns

[ptolemyauletes]

May I try?

First off - Persons

I teach my little Year Sevens to turn to someone else in the classroom, and consider everything from a selfish perspective..
Firstly, I say 'Point to the most important person in the room.' They should point to themselves, because each thinks that 'I' am the most important.
Secondly, I say ''Point to the second most important person in the room.' They should point to the person they are facing, because if 'I' am the most important, then 'you' must be the second most important, otherwise 'I' wouldn't be speaking to 'you'.
Thirdly, I say 'Point to the third most important person in the room.' They point to 'he', or 'she' or 'it', as these other people are clearly not that important, since 'I' am not speaking to them.
Once this is understood, I have them gang up in bigger groups to teach plurals.


Next I show them this handy little rule.
First Person laudo - o, first letter in One.
Second Person laudas - s, first letter in Second.
Third Person laudat - t, first letter in Third.

Plurals are not as easy, but at least all Latin plural Endings have more than one letter, so that helps.

Hope that helps with first, second and third person. It all depends on perspective.



Now, pronouns, hic, ille, is, etc.
These pronouns are difficult in a sense because their meaning is often misunderstood.
Hic is usually referring to something close by, easy to point to.
Ille is usually referring to something further away, especially in contrast to hic.
'Is, ea, id' is far less specific than either of these two, and is commonly used in cases other than nominative (though nominative is not rare), with meanings akin to English them, him, her, etc.

hic vir est magnus, ille parvus. librum eis dedi.
This man is big, that one small. I gave a book to them.

Why do hic and ille appear in the dictionary as 'the former' and 'the latter'? This is a literary device, owing to the nature of Roman books, which are scrolls. Hic, the latter, refers to someone literally closer on the page, while ille, the former, refers to someone higher up on the page, further away from the reader's perspective.

All these pronouns can be translated as he, she, it, him, her to him, to her etc. but they have specific uses, as mentioned above.

Now, hic and ille and is, ea, id, are all normally used in third person circumstances whn replacing the subject of a sentence, but they can also replace second and first person subjects.
e'g'
ego sum is qui cibum omnem consumpsi.
I am he who ate all the food.

tune es ille quem in foro heri vidit?
Are you that man whom he saw in the forum yesterday?

nonne es hic vir in pictura quam in manu teneo?
You are this man in the picture which I am holdong in my hand, aren't you?

Helpful?