Plural of unus

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
Boban
Textkit Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:08 pm

Plural of unus

Post by Boban »

Does numeral unus have plural form?
For example, lets do declination of unus rex.
In plural is it unus reges?

Gonzalo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am

Post by Gonzalo »

It would be duo reges.

Boban
Textkit Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:08 pm

Post by Boban »

Gonzalo wrote:It would be duo reges.
Hm, I am not sure that I explained it well.

I don't know in english but in my native Serbian language there are different forms of "one king" and "one kings", actually "one" is not same in plural (original would be "jedan kralj" and "jedni kraljevi").
So, one has also plural forms, that's why I asked for latin.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »

Yes, it does have plural forms. From Allen & Greenough's grammar:
It [unus] often has the meaning of same or only. The plural is used in this sense; but also, as a simple numeral, to agree with a plural noun of a singular meaning: as, ūna castra, one camp (cf. §137. b). The plural occurs also in the phrase ūnī et alterī, one party and the other (the ones and the others).
The plural forms are regular -- same as you'd get with magnus. So it would be uni reges (in the nominative).

Essorant
Textkit Fan
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: Regina, SK; Canada
Contact:

Post by Essorant »

<b>An</b> "one" in Old English was used sometimes in the plural as well, as in the Blickling Homily XV: Spel be Petrus & Paulus, where the plural means "alone"

<i>Þonne be þære lare mines lareowes þe þu me befrune, ne magan þær nænige oþre men onfon, butan þa <b>ane</b> þe mid clænum geleafan hie to þæm gegearwiaþ.</i>

"Then about the lore of my teacher that thou askedst me, there may not any other men receive [it], but those alone that with clean belief prepare themselves thereto."

In Modern English we sometimes use a plural <i>a</i> with the word few too, as in <i><b>a</b> few kings</i>.

<pre> </pre>

Gonzalo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am

Post by Gonzalo »

modus.irrealis wrote:Yes, it does have plural forms. From Allen & Greenough's grammar:
It [unus] often has the meaning of same or only. The plural is used in this sense; but also, as a simple numeral, to agree with a plural noun of a singular meaning: as, ūna castra, one camp (cf. §137. b). The plural occurs also in the phrase ūnī et alterī, one party and the other (the ones and the others).
The plural forms are regular -- same as you'd get with magnus. So it would be uni reges (in the nominative).
Thanks for the clarification.

Boban
Textkit Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:08 pm

Post by Boban »

modus.irrealis wrote:Yes, it does have plural forms. From Allen & Greenough's grammar:
It [unus] often has the meaning of same or only. The plural is used in this sense; but also, as a simple numeral, to agree with a plural noun of a singular meaning: as, ūna castra, one camp (cf. §137. b). The plural occurs also in the phrase ūnī et alterī, one party and the other (the ones and the others).
The plural forms are regular -- same as you'd get with magnus. So it would be uni reges (in the nominative).
Thanks for help.

How do you declinate plural uni?
Singular genitive and dative have forms unius and uni.
Is it:
m. pl.
1. uni
2. unorum
3. unis
4. unos
6. unis

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus »

In this way (it's regular in the plural)...
Declinatur ità (aequale hoc adjectivum cum pluralis numeris est)...
Casus singulis numeri (generis masculini, feminini, neutrius)
Nominativus unus una unum
Vocativus une una unum
Accusativus unum unam unum
Genitivus unius unius unius
Dativus uni uni uni
Ablativus uno una uno
Casus pluralis numeri (generis masculini, feminini, neutrius)
Nominativus uni unae una
Vocativus uni unae una
Accusativus unos unas una
Genitivus unorum unarum unorum
Dativus unis unis unis
Ablativus unis unis unis

Boban
Textkit Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:08 pm

Post by Boban »

adrianus wrote:In this way (it's regular in the plural)...
Declinatur ità (aequale hoc adjectivum cum pluralis numeris est)...
Casus singulis numeri (generis masculini, feminini, neutrius)
Nominativus unus una unum
Vocativus une una unum
Accusativus unum unam unum
Genitivus unius unius unius
Dativus uni uni uni
Ablativus uno una uno
Casus pluralis numeri (generis masculini, feminini, neutrius)
Nominativus uni unae una
Vocativus uni unae una
Accusativus unos unas una
Genitivus unorum unarum unorum
Dativus unis unis unis
Ablativus unis unis unis
I thought there isn't vocative form?
In book that I learn from there isn't.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus »

Boban wrote:I thought there isn't vocative form?
In book that I learn from there isn't.
Nor is it in my books and I've always wondered why not. "Ô numere une! (Oh, number one! What a nice number you are!)" Maybe one does say, "Ô numere unus!". It's not unusual that I should be wrong and could do with correction.
Meis libris etiam deest et semper me rogo quâ ratione? "Ô numere une! Ut bellus numerus es!" Fortassè quidem dicis, "Ô numere unus!" Saepè erro et corrigendus sum.

Twpsyn
Textkit Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:30 am
Location: Head: in the clouds

Post by Twpsyn »

Lewis and Short says:
voc. une, Plaut. ap. Prisc. p. 673 P.; Cat. 37, 17; cf. Varr. L. L. 8, § 63 Müll.; Aug. Conf. 1, 7
In other words, yes there is a vocative. It is both regularly formed and quite rare, so I am not surprised a basic textbook would omit it.

Boban
Textkit Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:08 pm

Post by Boban »

Twpsyn wrote:Lewis and Short says:
voc. une, Plaut. ap. Prisc. p. 673 P.; Cat. 37, 17; cf. Varr. L. L. 8, § 63 Müll.; Aug. Conf. 1, 7
In other words, yes there is a vocative. It is both regularly formed and quite rare, so I am not surprised a basic textbook would omit it.
That makes sense. :roll:

Post Reply