Estne solud?

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It's wrong, of course. It also mistakenly gives ullud, nullud and totud as the neuter accusative singular forms of ullus, nullus and totus.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
As for whether those precise forms exist at all, I don't know; but some -ud-for-um mistakes were made in ancient times. Egeria wrote ipsud for ipsum at some point for instance (by analogy with illud and istud). But I don't know if or why anyone back then would ever have gotten it into their heads to make the accusative different from the nominative. It seems a more unlikely mistake to make, given as absolutely all neuter words are the same in the nom. and acc.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I believe she did refer to Sanctus Moyses, though she's unlikely to be the only lady who did so. But we're probably thinking of the same person.
 

Anbrutal Russicus

Active Member

Location:
Russia
But I don't know if or why anyone back then would ever have gotten it into their heads to make the accusative different from the nominative.
ipsud was a neuter nom. = acc. byform in line with the regularity you mention. This uncertainty in the choice of pronominal endings is why you have ille, illud but ipse, ipsum - alongside ipsus, ipsum like tōtus, tōtum. This extends to the Genitive: -ī̆us vs -ī/ae, later even augmented as illaeī (> It. lei).

To the OP, I suggest you avoid these autogenerated-table websites - they're invariably full of errors, and this particular one has barely anything on it.
 
Top