second to none

[Imperfacundus]

In the case of 'ubi est ignis', nothing in the sentence is grammatically novel, so no precedent is needed (though I'm sure one exists). The substitution of the dative following secundus with ad + accusative is novel though, so it does. That the basic meanings of ad + acc. and the dative are both expressed with 'to' in English, or 'with regards to' as the case may be, doesn't make them always interchangeable in Latin. There are plenty of contexts involving one where the other would be indisputably incorrect: filiae meae florem do, venit ad Tartarum, mihi erat malleus...

 

[Cantor et Poeta]

Yes, but even the Dative is somewhat novel in "nulli secundus". No indirect object, no sense of giving. That's what compelled me to come up with an alternative in the forum. The use of "ad" in this sense is not any more novel than the Dative here, just not the usual sense of time and space associated with "ad": "nil est ad nos" -Lucretius "It's nothing to us." etc. I could go on with quote after quote without "nullum". But I feel we'd become caught up in, as the French say, a "folie circulaire". What it boils down to then is that here we have no indisputable certitude as to usage, so we have to rely on precedent, which exists for nulli secundus, though I've never seen secunda or secundum used, just the masculine secundus. Eheu, way past my bedtime.

Cheers,

C & P

 

[Imperfacundus]

Yes, but even the Dative is somewhat novel in "nulli secundus".

Lots of adjectives regularly take datives denoting respect, like alienus. What separates those that do so from those that take ad + acc. is an interesting question.

 

[Imperfacundus]

Most obviously, the ones with ad tend to denote direction (at least in their original sense) and tend to be participles of one sort or another.