Relative pronouns and adjectives
2.Interrogative pronouns
Interrogative adjectives
Indefinite pronouns and
Indefinite adjectives.
I’d be interested to know which one of these quisque / quemque derives from. Looking at Betts’ TYSL he doesn’t allow the form ‘quis’ in 1., 3., or 5.
My guess (and it really is a guess) is that quisque / quemque is a form of 4. - an indefinite pronoun.
Also in Orberg: LLPSI Ch. XVII. Line: 13 he gives us:
Magister Diodorus recitare desinit et pueros aspicit, qui taciti stant ante suam quisque sellam; nemo eorum dormit.
‘qui’ is a relative pronoun (masculine nominative pural) and ‘quisque’ is masculine nominative singular (exact pronoun type to be advised?) and therefore not part of the objectve; Orberg helpfully rearranges the words in the margin to explain: ‘quisque ante suam sellam’
That said I’m not claiming to really understand the nuances of these pronouns. Also I’m assuming that quisque / quemque are examples of the types listed above. Whether they are or not I’d be grateful if anyone can - after pointing out my terrible ignorance - guide me to a good overview of their use.
I’m not sure why you keep saying “quisque / quemque” when there’s really nothing special about “quemque”. You might as well add “cuiusque”, “cuique”, and “quōque”, since they’re all forms of quis + que.
My guess (and it really is a guess) is that quisque / quemque is a form of 4. - an indefinite pronoun.
That’s the closest match out of the five. I’m not sure if there might be another, more specific term. It doesn’t seem terribly indefinite to me…
“Quisque” simply means “each person” or “everybody”. It always takes singular agreement, whereas “omnēs” takes plural agreement.
Though ‘each in front of his own’ is less definite than identifying a particular sella…I’ve taken on the task of identifying the exact case / person / gender of every word and with respect to these pronouns I’m interested in identifying what kind of pronoun they are - i.e. what are they doing in the sentence..
You contrast “quisque” and “omnes”, furrykef, for a reason that’s not clear. The equivalents are “quisque” and “omnis” for “everyone” or “each” as one person from more than two, and “quique” and “omnes” as a plural number.
Certainly “quisque” is an indefinite pronoun meaning “whoever or whatever it be” (which in English too sounds indefinite) and so “each” and “every”.
Nescio cur “quisque” et “omnes” componas, furrykef. Compares sunt haec: “quisque” et “omnis” singulariter è numero trans duo et “quique” et “omnes” pluraliter.
Certè infinitivum pronomen est (quod et anglicè “whoever or whatever it be” infinitum sonat).
I make the distinction because both “quisque” and “omnēs” are common ways of expressing the same English word (“everyone”), despite taking different number agreement. The other forms don’t mean “everyone”, as far as I can tell; “omnis” means “all” (generally with uncountable nouns, it seems, but I’d hardly be surprised to find exceptions), and I’ve yet to encounter “quīque” at all (I guess it’s used when you’re dealing with groups of plural things?), so I’m not sure what it means. Of course “quisque” literally means “each person”, and often that’s a fine translation, but there are times where “everyone” is more natural.
You have only to look up the words in the dictionary to understand, furrykef. “Omnis homo” will mean “every person” (where people are countable) and “omnis” “everyone” or “each”. Modò inquiras in dictionarium ut intellegas. “Omnis” enim “quisque” significet vel nomina numerabilia vel innumerabilia spectans.
“Omnes” does not express the English word “everyone” but “all”. “Omnis” means “everyone”. Per “omnes” non significatur “omnis”.
I can’t find anything in the Lewis & Short entry to corroborate your POV, though maybe I’m not looking hard enough…
Meanwhile, to corroborate mine, I have sentences such as:
Omnēs idem sentiunt.
“Everyone feels the same thing.”
Nōn omnēs eadem amant aut eāsdem cupiditātēs studiaque habent.
"Not everyone loves the same things or has the same desires and pursuits.
Omnēs solent mīrārī ea pulcherrima quae Athēnīs vident.
“Everyone is accustomed to marveling at the beautiful things they see in Athens.”
Omnēs quī habent aliquid nōn sōlum sapientiae sed etiam sānitātis volunt hanc rem pūblicam salvam esse.
“Everyone who has not only some wisdom but also some sanity want this republic to be safe.”
(I believe these were all from Wheelock, though the translations are my own.)
In each case you can also translate it as “all people” and keep the plural agreement, but when translating, one should generally translate the underlying idea, not the exact words, and the underlying idea behind “everyone” and “all people” is often the same.
Your evidence is your translations? Don’t you see the circularity there, furrykef? Traductiones tuas ut argumenta profers! Nonnè vides ut circulum in probando praestes.
And if “everyone” and “all people” are the same, why give preference to one? Si similia sunt, cur unum non alium praefers?
I’m afraid I can’t see any particular circularity in saying “Both quisque and omnēs can be translated as ‘everybody’” and then providing examples to that effect.
I just realized that what you’re saying is right, furrykef, because, from your Wheelock sentences, I see you’re talking just about the substantives, whereas in my head I’ve been moving from substantives to adjectives with “omnis”, and I see from OLD that in the singular only the neuter form of omnis tends to be a used substantively.
I’m sorry everyone for leading us all up the garden path.
Modo animadverti, furrykef, te rectè dicere, quià sententiae latinae apud Wheelock quas das clarè substantivum omnis adjectivi usum spectant. Ego autem in mente meâ substantivum cum adjectivo misceo, quod sic in faciendo secundum OLD singulariter non licet separatim praeter neutrum genus.
Me excusetis qui nos omnes pravis consiliis corruperim.
