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.
Right. Or “I am a sad father”, depending on context.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! this is sooooo confusing! Somone please explain it to me? 
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.
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
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?