EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

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.
blutoonwithcarrotandnail
Textkit Fan
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Bergenfield, NJ

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by blutoonwithcarrotandnail » Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:32 am

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.
cuts like ice cream fast like a razor blade

Alatius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by Alatius » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:04 am

blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote:TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO

probably means 'i am the sad father'
Right. Or "I am a sad father", depending on context.
blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote: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
Textkit Fan
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Bergenfield, NJ

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by blutoonwithcarrotandnail » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:25 am

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.
cuts like ice cream fast like a razor blade

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

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by adrianus » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:59 am

blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote:...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.
Last edited by adrianus on Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:42 am, edited 11 times in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

Alatius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by Alatius » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:21 am

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

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by adrianus » Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:47 pm

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.
Last edited by adrianus on Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

blutoonwithcarrotandnail
Textkit Fan
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Bergenfield, NJ

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by blutoonwithcarrotandnail » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:55 am

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.
cuts like ice cream fast like a razor blade

blutoonwithcarrotandnail
Textkit Fan
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Bergenfield, NJ

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by blutoonwithcarrotandnail » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:23 am

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.
cuts like ice cream fast like a razor blade

Borakovelover
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:59 pm

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by Borakovelover » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:39 am

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

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

Re: EGO vs SUUS third person with HIC

Post by adrianus » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:16 am

blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote: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.
blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote: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
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

Post Reply