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.
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”).
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).
Is HIC or EGO in this case considered to be 3rd person?
thanks.
“Hic” refers to the third person (he) /tertiam personam spectat
“Ego” refers to the first person (I) /primam personam respicit
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.
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
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.
I suppose this follows the pattern and is correct:
ILLE SUM EGO
is the same as (a substitution):
ILLE SUM HIC
thanks.
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.
is there any chance that NOS and VOS are third person pronouns?
thanks.
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”?
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.
Salve canorcaerulecarotâclavoque.
You are wrong. It is.
Falsò dicis. Est certè pronomen personae tertiae.
Again, not so. “He” in “He is talking” is a third person pronoun in English.
Iterum erras. “He” anglicè tertiae personae pronomen est.
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.
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
_Ludos computatrales fabulasque cogita quibus habes
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.
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.
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”)
is the same manipulation possible with the older sentence?
TRISTIS PATER SUM EGO
changing it to:
TRISTIS ILLE SUM EGO
thanks.
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.
Similarly, maybe you forgot to add what “nos” is, but just to be crystal clear, it is a first person pronoun, right?
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.