Haes?

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
I've been avoiding that site because of its very annoying and excessive pop-ups. But now that I revisit it, I don't see any pop-ups at all, so I'll probably go back more often. I don't know if pop-ups disappeared because Cactus 2000 has repented of providing them, or Firefox has improved or if I've set something in my browser controls. In the DuckDuckGo browser, I don't even see any advertising on this site, which is probably not fair to them.
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
...I never knew hibus existed...
If indeed it did, then it must be archaic. The classical dative and ablative plural forms of hic are represented by his. Might hibus be an early Old Latin form of that (from a hypothetical Proto-Italic *hekbos)?
 
Last edited:

Quasus

Civis Illustris
Might hibus be an early Old Latin form of that (from a hypothetical Proto-Italic *hekbos)?
Yes, it is. Forcellini says there's an instance in Plautus: Curc. 4. 2. 20.

...nor have I ever seen huiius before, either, which I have to assume might be an archaic form of huius?
It's just a way of spelling. It's known that j was doubled in pronunciation between vowels (hujus, major, etc.), and this was occasionally reflected in spelling.
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
It's just a way of spelling. It's known that j was doubled in pronunciation between vowels (hujus, major, etc.), and this was occasionally reflected in spelling.
What might that sound like? Who-ee-yoos, mah-ee-yor??
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Yes, it is. Forcellini says there's an instance in Plautus...
Not that Forcellini demands any verification, but upon looking back at the demonstrative pronoun section in Allen & Greenough today, I read a tiny bit of text to the effect that: "For the dative and the ablative plural the old form hibus is sometimes found." (the text doesn't overtly state "Old Latin", but such seems to be implied) Funny how you can scan over that type of statement on a first reading, somehow thinking it irrelevant. Relevance always seems to assert itself in the fullness of time...
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I actually didn't know that hibus existed until @Pacifica mentioned it recently ... I remember laughing at a friend of mine for misconjugating the dative/abl. plural of hic to hibus. She obviously didn't get any points for that :D
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
I was thinking: since hic as an adjective is 1/2 decl., the fact of the older form being hibus seems to indicate that it either was once irregular, or otherwise might have once declined as 3 decl., which has -ibus as the abl./dat. plural inflective suffix.
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
The i's are consonantal, the words are disyllabic. Probably, something like [ˈhui̯.jus].
Consonantal and disyllabic, I understand. But I think I'll have to stick with [ ˈhui̯.jus ], since I don't know the sound of [ i̯ ].
 

Quasus

Civis Illustris
That's non-syllabic [ i ] like y in boy, which is a bit different from y in yes. I guess Allen would transcribe it as [huyyus]. Never mind IPA, it's just double y in the middle.[/I]
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
That's non-syllabic [ i ] like y in boy, which is a bit different from y in yes. I guess Allen would transcribe it as [huyyus]. Never mind IPA, it's just double y in the middle.[/I]
Now that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying!
 
Top