unus quisque-unus quique...

[Swth\r]

The first is normally used substantively, the second adjectively. What is exactly the form of the female gender in each case and how is it declined?

[adrianus]

Salve Swth\r

Pronomen Feminini Generis Interrogativum et Relativum (aut Adjectivum)
Nominativum: una quisque, una quaeque
Accusativum: unam quamque, —ditto/dictum—
Genetivum: unius cuiusque, —ditto/dictum—
Dativum: uni cuique, —ditto/dictum—
Ablativum: unâ quâque, —ditto/dictum—

Nota benè: formam nominativam er relativam correxi qui "quaque" scripsi.

[Swth\r]

Gratiam tibi iterum ago, Adriane!

Quo ex libro id legisti, quaeso?

[adrianus]

Quo ex libro id legisti, quaeso?

I didn't read it, Swth\r, but I can't imagine reasons to think otherwise. Obviously, this is just what I think.
Id, Swth\r, non legi, sed rationes ad aliter intellegendum carent. Clarè, modò sic opinor.

Oops. Noticed a mistake above and corrected it: "quaque" [sic] I wrote for "quaeque".
Me ineptum. Erratum suprà animadverti. Formam nominativam et relativam correxi qui "quaque" pro "quaeque" scripseram.

[Swth\r]

I am a little bit confused. Confusus sum paulum, mi Adriane...

G.M.Lane, 692 says:

quisque, quaeque, quicque, quidque or quodque. Sometimes unus is prefixed: unus quisque. Both parts are declined. quisque and quemque are sometimes feminine.

Allen & Greenough, 151.f say:

quisque is declined like the interrogative quis, qui. - substantive quisque, quidque, adjective quique, quaeque, quodque.
In the compound unusquisque both parts are declined (gen. uniuscuiusque) and some times written separately and even separated by other words [...]

Lewis & Short Lexicon says:

quis-que, quaeque, quodque, and subst. quicque (quidque), pron. indef., [...]

So, there is nothing about quique as nom. m. sing. used adjectively, either in Lewis & Short or in G.M.Lane. Only A & G say that there is a nom. singular quique...

So there is a dispute about unusquisque-unusquique also... Does the form unusquique exist at all as nom. m. sing?

What is your opinion Adriane? Quid opinaris, Adriane?
Could we perhaps search in some other books? Possimusne fortasse in aliis libris grammaticis aut dictionariis scrutari? Scisne in quibus?

[adrianus]

Does the form unusquique exist at all as nom. m. sing?

Easy to reply. Yes. Ask and it will be given, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you on the internet (Matthew §7.7).
Facile est respondere. Exstat. Pete et dabitur tibi, quaere et invenies, pulsa et aperietur tibi interrete (secundum Evangelium Matthaei §7.7).

[Swth\r]

Does the form unusquique exist at all as nom. m. sing?

Easy to reply. Yes. Ask and it will be given, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you on the internet (Matthew §7.7).
Facile est respondere. Exstat. Pete et dabitur tibi, quaere et invenies, pulsa et aperietur tibi interrete (secundum Evangelium Matthaei §7.7).

I am not sure [EDIT] that I have understood the point of your post...

Also Charles.E.Benett, 91, gives the pronoun as follows:

quisque, quidque (substantive) quisque, quaeque, quodque (adjective)

where in all first 5 compound substantive pronouns the form -quis (or quis-) is implied to be both male and feminine.

He does not also provide a form quidam for adjective use...

I am lost in the formalism...

[adrianus]

You ask if "unusquique" exists as nom. s. masculine. If you search online, you will find that it does exist in that very form.
Pete an masculini generis nominativo casu et singulariter exstet "unusquique". Si interrete quaeris, id illâ formâ benè exstare invenis.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... art=10&sa=

I agree with you that the use of "quisque" and "quique" interchangeably is pretty confusing. I think usage varies between authors and over time, too.
Tibi concurro inter "quisque" et "quique" usum invicèm satìs confusum et confundendum esse. Usus quidem per tempore et inter scriptores mutat, nisi fallor.

[Swth\r]

Thanks for the link but I am interested in classical use especially. I found this one (it is taken out of your search results):

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:O3 ... clnk&gl=uk

If I understand correct the italian text is says that the adjective form is unusquisque and not unusquique... The same for quisque. See paragraphs 8 and 9.

[adrianus]

The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives an example of irregular use of "quique" in CIL 6.12129. Classically, I suppose, it's an exceptional usage.
Secundum OLD, in Corpore Inscriptionum Latinarum "quique" ut inaequale exemplum notatum est. Ut puto, forma inaequalis seu insueta est classicé.

[adrianus]

A small defence of A&G. In the bit from Allen & Greenough mentioned, since quisque in unusquisque is itself an adjectival pronoun (I believe), I think you must take it that it stands apart from the preceding sentence. The exact meaning, however, is unclear, if not actually a mistake. All the same, I fear that what I say may be even more suspect, since I know very much less than they do!

Apologia humilis pro A&G. In grammaticâ de Lewis & Short in loco suprà citato, cum adjectivum (meâ mente) ibi sit 'quisque', forsitan illud pronomen seorsum ab sententiâ praecedente teneri accipiendum sit. Quod autem volunt dicere auctores clarum non est, nisi quidem suspicax. Quod interim egomet dico suspiciosius tamen esse vereor, qui eis tantùm minùs capax sim!

[Swth\r]

What I have noticed is that only Allen & Greenough cite an adjective form quique . So, since this book was my first reading about this matter, I thought that also a form unus quique may occur. They do not say so.

But... All other sources that I have found do not mention at all any form quique... All say thath the adjecive form is quisque, like the substantive one.

"Gildersleeve & Lodge" also, on page 62, paragraph 107.5:

http://books.google.gr/books?id=Qk7foW6 ... q=&f=false

[adrianus]

I think that's a very keen observation.
Est observatio peracuta, ut puto.