# Suus vs. Ejus [eius]



## modus.irrealis

Moderation Note: This thread was split from another but it need not revolve around the topics and examples mentioned in the first couple of posts. Please feel free to illustrate your points with new examples.

Could someone explain the issue of _eius_ and _suus_, i.e. how the two words are used. I was under the impression, like clara mente said, that you can only use _suus_ when it refers back to the 3rd person subject of a sentence, so that outside of context you'd have to use _eius_. And copying a previous example, you'd have _suus_ would be used in something like _Iesus dixit nomen suum misericordiam esse_.

And what about a sentence like "There came a man and his name was mercy," (which, I guess, would not be structured this way as two sentences joined with "and" in Latin, but I can't think of a better example) would that "his" be _eius_ (because "name" is the subject of "was mercy") or _suum _(because it sort of refers back to the subject of the previous sentence) or is either fine?


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> And what about a sentence like "There came a man and his name was mercy," (which, I guess, would not be structured this way as two sentences joined with "and" in Latin, but I can't think of a better example) would that "his" be _eius_ (because "name" is the subject of "was mercy") or _suum _(because it sort of refers back to the subject of the previous sentence) or is either fine?


 
Well, I can only speak for German where we can distinguish between suus (sein) and eius (dessen) as well. For you sentence above, we would use "dessen" (we would not use 'and' there):

Es kam ein Mann; dessen Name war _Barmherzigkeit_.
Vir venit; nomen eius _miserirecodia_ erat.

It would not make much difference to use "sein" (suum) here, but what I can tell you is that "dessen" (eius) cannot be used without context. For the sentence "His name is Mercy" (the thread title), we would use "sein" in German. However, if you put a sentence in front, you could use "dessen," which is, by the way, the same kind of genitive we have in Latin "eius."


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit, thanks. I thought, though, that "dessen" is more like _cuius_, where I understand why you'd need more context (it'd be more natural in English to say "There came a man whose name..."). Could you use "dessen" to distinguish between sentences like:

Cicero nomen suum amat.
Cicero nomen eius amat.

And that makes me think of another question. If I had chosen a different word like _placeo_, could you say

Nomen suum Ciceroni placet

even if Cicero isn't the grammatical subject?


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> Whodunit, thanks. I thought, though, that "dessen" is more like _cuius_, where I understand why you'd need more context (it'd be more natural in English to say "There came a man whose name...").


 
I knew you would think that. 

Yes, _dessen_ can mean _cuius_ as a relative pronoun (whose) or _eius_ as a genitive demonstrative pronoun (literally: of him). As for your questions:



> Could you use "dessen" to distinguish between sentences like:
> 
> Cicero nomen suum amat.
> Cicero nomen eius amat.


 
You would use "sein" in German, because "dessen" would refer to someone else in this context:

Cicero liebt seinen Namen.

You would use "dessen" in this context:

Cicero amicum suum nactus est. Nomen _eius_ autem ignotum est.
Cicero traf seinen Freund. _Dessen_ Name ist jedoch nicht bekannt.

Here "dessen" refers to "seinen Freund."

If you used "sein" in that sentence, it would be ambiguous:

Cicero amicum suum nactus est. Nomen suum autem ignotum est.
Cicero traf seinen Freund. Sein Name ist jedoch nicht bekannt.

You would not know whose name is not known. Cicero's? Or his friend's?



> And that makes me think of another question. If I had chosen a different word like _placeo_, could you say
> 
> Nomen suum Ciceroni placet
> 
> even if Cicero isn't the grammatical subject?


 
In German, it would be clear out of context that Cicero likes his own name: (let me use "Cicero nomen suum amat" in German, because it sounds better)

Cicero mag seinen Namen. (your sentence: Cicero gefällt sein Name.)

However, if there's a sentence put in front, you would need to make it more clear by _dessen_, because with _sein_, it would be ambiguous:

Cicero amicum suum nactus est. Nomen eius Ciceroni placet.
Cicero traf seinen Freund. Cicero mag dessen Namen.

This makes me think of something else: If you use "dessen" in the first sentence, it wouldn't be Cicero's friend any longer:

Cicero amicum eius nactus est.
Cicero traf dessen Freund.

You would instinctively ask "Whose friend?" A preceding sentence could answer it:

Hannibal magnus imperator erat. Cicero amicum eius nactus est.
Hannibal war ein großer Feldherr. Cicero traf dessen Freund.

Complicated, isn't it?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit said:


> I knew you would think that.



That is the way "dessen" is usually presented .



> Complicated, isn't it?



Yup, but thanks for taking the time to explain it, but I might have some more questions after I digest things a bit.


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> That is the way "dessen" is usually presented .


 
Yes, however if you learn German more thoroughly, you'll soon realize that dessen is a word you can sound very intelligent with. 



> Yup, but thanks for taking the time to explain it, but I might have some more questions after I digest things a bit.


 
No problem, but please tell me whether you understand _eius_ the same way as I do. I would translate it with _dessen_, let's see if you agree or not.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Alright, here's my take on it, although I'm not really competent to make any comment about how to say things German. Before today, in the back of my head, I had _eius_ = "that guy's" and _suus_ = "his own" to try to distinguish them as much as possible. And I thought _suus_ worked the same way as "his own", e.g. you can't just say "His own name is mercy", or at least it sounds distinctly odd.



Whodunit said:


> Yes, _dessen_ can mean _cuius_ as a relative pronoun (whose) or _eius_ as a genitive demonstrative pronoun (literally: of him).



That actually makes me think "dessen" is even more like _cuius_, since they both seem to have a lot more flexibility than, say, English "whose" -- e.g. I've learned that in many cases you just have to translate _qui_ as "and he" because sometimes it's impossible in English to use "who." To put it another way, _cuius_ can also mean _eius_ (_qui = et is_). E.g. where you said,



> Cicero amicum suum nactus est. Nomen _eius_ autem ignotum est.


I think you can just as easily say _cuius_ as _eius_, and in fact maybe Latin would prefer that since Latin authors seem to have really disliked putting sentences side-by-side with no connection.



> If you used "sein" in that sentence, it would be ambiguous:
> 
> Cicero amicum suum nactus est. Nomen suum autem ignotum est.
> Cicero traf seinen Freund. Sein Name ist jedoch nicht bekannt.
> 
> You would not know whose name is not known. Cicero's? Or his friend's?


That sounds right -- but the German sentence is still grammatical, right? One of things I'm wondering about is whether the Latin version is grammatical.

One last question about how would you translate into German something like

sororem eius vidi

where in the context where it's spoken who _eius_ refers to is perfectly clear. I would have thought you'd use "sein" here, and not "dessen."



Whodunit said:


> No problem, but please tell me whether you understand _eius_ the same way as I do. I would translate it with _dessen_, let's see if you agree or not.



I think I understand _eius_ the same as you -- at least I think I understand why you're using"dessen" to translate it here, but I think we understand _suus_ differently, since it seems I see it as having a much more restricted use than you do. Does it seem that way to you?


----------



## clara mente

modus.irrealis said:


> And what about a sentence like "There came a man and his name was mercy," (which, I guess, would not be structured this way as two sentences joined with "and" in Latin, but I can't think of a better example) would that "his" be _eius_ (because "name" is the subject of "was mercy") or _suum _(because it sort of refers back to the subject of the previous sentence) or is either fine?


 
Allright, esteemed members of this forum. Let's see if we can put this issue to bed at last.
To approach the first question brought up by Fla. Snowbird. You are correct in that either form can be used here depending on the intended reference to the "oringinal" subject, even if it may have appeared in a previous clause or , in fact, a previous sentence.
As for Modus' example, this indeed opens up an interesting grammatical/linguistic can of worms: "There came a man and his name was mercy." Now what is the real subject of this sentence? Well, let's first analyze the predicate, "came", Who or what is the verbal agent of the act of coming?... A man! So we are back to the translation of "A man came." Even if we translate this sentence very litterally and go with "Illuc vir venit et nomen suum Misericordia erat." We still end up with the same
subject.
Finally, as an example, let me pose the following sentence to really clarify this confusion of "suus, vs. eius" : "Marcus ad Galliam ivit ut fratrem suum uxoremque eius inveniret." OK, everyone with me so far? Let's now swap the eius and we end up with :"Marcus ad Galliam ivit ut fratrem suum uxoremque suam inveniret." What do you think of Marcus' brother now?


----------



## modus.irrealis

> As for Modus' example, this indeed opens up an interesting grammatical/linguistic can of worms: "There came a man and his name was mercy." Now what is the real subject of this sentence? Well, let's first analyze the predicate, "came", Who or what is the verbal agent of the act of coming?... A man! So we are back to the translation of "A man came." Even if we translate this sentence very litterally and go with "Illuc vir venit et nomen suum Misericordia erat." We still end up with the same
> subject.


I'm a little unclear about what you're saying -- do you mean that you have to use _suum_ if you want to refer to the name of the man who came, or can you use _eius_ as well? Part of my problem is that the subject of _erat_ is _nomen_, so _suum_ here would not be referring to the subject of its own clause but to the subject of some other clause, but which his more pertinent to the discussion. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to say that _suum_ is possible here, but is it the only option?

I looked this up in a reference grammar and it left me more confused than anything, where it says that in examples like (it's in a section about _se_ vs. _is_ in general):

non fuit eo contentus quod ei praeter spem acciderat "he was not content with that which had happened to him beyond his hope"

where it says _sibi_ could not be used, but why couldn't a _sibi_ in the _quod_-clause reach back to the subject of _fuit_?


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> non fuit eo contentus quod ei praeter spem acciderat "he was not content with that which had happened to him beyond his hope"
> 
> where it says _sibi_ could not be used, but why couldn't a _sibi_ in the _quod_-clause reach back to the subject of _fuit_?


 
Although it's a bit off-topic (we should split this thread anyway):

I wouldn't use "sibi" in this meaning outside of an _a.c.i. clause_:

_Sibi_ praeter spem aliquid acciderat dixit.
He said something had happened to _him_ beyond his hope.


----------



## jazyk

> _Sibi_ praeter spem aliquid acciderat dixit.
> He said something had happened to _him_ beyond his hope.


I think you mean_ Sibi praeter spem aliquid accidisse dixit.

_Jazyk


----------



## clara mente

modus.irrealis said:


> I'm a little unclear about what you're saying -- do you mean that you have to use _suum_ if you want to refer to the name of the man who came, or can you use _eius_ as well? Part of my problem is that the subject of _erat_ is _nomen_, so _suum_ here would not be referring to the subject of its own clause but to the subject of some other clause, but which his more pertinent to the discussion. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to say that _suum_ is possible here, but is it the only option?
> 
> I looked this up in a reference grammar and it left me more confused than anything, where it says that in examples like (it's in a section about _se_ vs. _is_ in general):
> 
> non fuit eo contentus quod ei praeter spem acciderat "he was not content with that which had happened to him beyond his hope"
> 
> where it says _sibi_ could not be used, but why couldn't a _sibi_ in the _quod_-clause reach back to the subject of _fuit_?


Sorry for the confusion, in that there was a compound sentence and "nomen" is indeed the subject of the second part. Nevertheless, since it is clear that "his name" undoubtedly refers to "man" then the use of suum would be the rule here. In the end though, I am quite sure that Joe Publius Six-Pack would understand either.
As far as your "sibi vs. ei" dilemma , off the top of my head I believe that usage in subordinate clauses is more restrictive due to the fact that since there is another subject in the mix and confusion may abound in many cases


----------



## clara mente

jazyk said:


> I think you mean_ Sibi praeter spem aliquid accidisse dixit._
> 
> Jazyk


Amen to that construction. Indirect/ reported discourse is certainly called for when you enter the land of "dixit"


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> I think you mean_ Sibi praeter spem aliquid accidisse dixit._
> 
> Jazyk


 
Oh, yes, I did. I just copied the phrase from Modus' post and added "aliquid" without paying attention to the rest.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Alright, I think I won't bore you guys anymore with my confusion, although it's still feels odd that you have to use s_e_ in some subordinate clause, can't use it in others, but then have to use it in coordinated clauses (which seems like a looser connection than the second case). I think I just need more exposure to Latin...


----------



## cajzl

The thing is more complicated. In later Latin the authors often mixed up the pronouns *suus* and *eius*, *sibi* and *ei*, etc. 

For example:

*pater et sui filii* instead of the correct classical *pater et eius filii*
*Dic sibi!* instead of *Dic ei!*

This evolution led to the Romance languages:

e.g. *padre y sus hijos*


----------



## virgilio

clara mente,
                Re your""Marcus ad Galliam ivit ut fratrem suum uxoremque eius inveniret." OK, everyone with me so far? Let's now swap the eius and we end up with :"Marcus ad Galliam ivit ut fratrem suum uxoremque suam inveniret." What do you think of Marcus' brother now?"
Actually the jury is out, I think, on the brother. After all there is no actual evidence of hanky-panky in the passage cited.
I'll await further and better particulars.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Re the difference between "suus (etc)" and "ejus", the whole thing can be made very simple indeed by assigning meanings to each accurately.
"suus (etc)" means "his (own), her (own), its (own), their (own), one's (own)" 
"ejus" - if it is genitive singular of the *pronoun* use of "is" "ea" and "id" - means "of that male person", or "of that female person" or "of that thing" according to context.
Let your native language take the strain!
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Re the difference between "suus (etc)" and "ejus", the whole thing can be made very simple indeed by assigning meanings to each accurately.
> "suus (etc)" means "his (own), her (own), its (own), their (own), one's (own)"
> "ejus" - if it is genitive singular of the *pronoun* use of "is" "ea" and "id" - means "of that male person", or "of that female person" or "of that thing" according to context.
> Let your native language take the strain!
> Virgilio


 
Which one would you choose then?

Iesus cum amico suo venit.
Iesus cum amico eius venit.

Does "suus" make sense at all? It's not his _own_ friend, it's just the fried of the person Iesus.


----------



## virgilio

Who dunit,
               Not at all sure I understand your question: 
Re:"(a) Iesus cum amico suo venit.
(b) Iesus cum amico eius venit."

Without any further context, the style of (a) sounds a bit odd but the syntax is OK. The adjective "suo" is hardly necessary.
As for (b) style and syntax both OK. The friend in this case is the friend of some other man than Iesus.

Don't see the problem, I'm afraid.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Without any further context, the style of (a) sounds a bit odd but the syntax is OK. The adjective "suo" is hardly necessary.
> As for (b) style and syntax both OK. The friend in this case is the friend of some other man than Iesus.


 
Okay, I think we are talking about the same thing. _Eius_, if it refers to another person works like the German _dessen_, which I tried to explain above. _Suus_ is like _sein_ German, which always refers back to the subject of the sentence. However, to explain _suus_ by _his own_ is ok, in my opinion, but not sufficient. Last week, I read this sentence in my Latin textbook:

_Hac igitur, qua diximus, aetate cum patre Hispaniam profectus est. Cuius post obitum Hasdrubale imperatore suffecto equitatui omni praefuit._

In this part, you have three persons acting. _Pater_, _Hasdrubal_, and _he_ (in _praefuit_). How can you know that it was his father's death and not Hasdrubal's? If it were _suum_, the sentence would be nonsense, of course, but even _cuius_ is sometimes ambiguous.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             (1) Isn't there a preposition (probably "in") missing between "patre" and "Hispaniam"?
The problem you suggest is surely an unnecessarily hypothetical one, since I can find no trace  of any form of the adjective "suus" in the passage you quote.  The pronominal form of the interrogative correlative adjective "qui (etc)" is regularly used in Latin in the sense of "which latter (one)" and so surely here also it must refer to the father  (Hamilcar?), since he was the last mentioned.
Moreover, Hasdrubal can hardly be the dead man in view of his subsequent elevation in rank to imperator suffectus.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure where you could 'squeeze in', so to speak, any form of "suus".
As my grandfather used to say:"Don't mention the unmentionable and don't try to unscrew the inscrutable"

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Whodunit,
> (1) Isn't there a preposition (probably "in") missing between "patre" and "Hispaniam"?


 
Correct. I forgot to type it.



> The problem you suggest is surely an unnecessarily hypothetical one, since I can find no trace of any form of the adjective "suus" in the passage you quote.


 
No, but let's assume it would be _suum_ instead of _eius_ in that passage: would the sentence be nonsense? Would it refer to the _he_ in _praefuit_?



> The pronominal form of the interrogative correlative adjective "qui (etc)" is regularly used in Latin in the sense of "which latter (one)" and so surely here also it must refer to the father (Hamilcar? ), since he was the last mentioned.


 
Oh, well. Now I see what you mean. Yes, that makes sense. It's strange why I have never learned such a thing in all my Latin lessons, although we have the same possibility to distinguish between the both _his_ (eius/suus) in German.



> Moreover, Hasdrubal can hardly be the dead man in view of his subsequent elevation in rank to imperator suffectus.
> Come to think of it, I'm not sure where you could 'squeeze in', so to speak, any form of "suus".


 
You needn't. It was just an example where _eius_ could - in my opinion - be ambiguous. However, if you say that it meant _of the latter_, it is not ambiguous at all!

Sorry about the confusion and thanks for your reply.


----------



## Whodunit

Okay, here I am back with a rather tricky sentence:

_His enim magistratibus legati Carthaginienses Roman venerunt, qui senatui populoque Romano gratias agerent, quod *cum* *iis* pacem fecissent, ob eamque rem corona aurea eos donarent simulque peterent, ut obsides *eorum* Fregellis essent captivique redderentur._

I think a translation is not need, since you should be able to understand it. 

Why is _iis_ and _eorum_ used? It was the hostages of the Carthage envoys, so _sui_ would have been a better choice as well as _secum_ instead of _cum iis_. Would you like to make an attempt at an explanation?


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             I'm afraid I haven't got a copy of the Livy volume from which this quotation seems to have been taken. (Is it perhaps Book 8 of AVC?)  I can't help thinking that there are some omissions. Shouldn't there be a participle before or after "his magistratibus" either agreeing with "magistratibus" possibly in an 'absolute' expression or agreeing with the "legati"?  Moreover, there seems to be something missing in the clause following "simulque peterent". Just a guess but could it be "simulque peterent, ut obsides eorum *qui* Fregellis essent captivique redderentur"?
As it stands it just doesn't quite read like Livy's style.
Anyway, to come to your question, it would appear that both "iis" and "eorum" refer to the Carthaginienses, whom the "legati" represented but - such was the diplomatic protocol - with whom they could not officially equate themselves.
In other words in treating with the Roman authorities, the envoys would have to refer to the Carthaginian authorities, whom they represented, in the third person and not the the first person.

Not having the text in front of me I have to guess.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Anne345

Cornelius Nepos, Vitae, Hannibal 7.2 there 
 "his enim magistratibus legati Karthaginienses Romam venerunt, qui senatui populoque Romano gratias agerent, quod cum iis pacem fecissent, ob eamque rem corona aurea eos donarent simulque peterent, ut obsides eorum Fregellis essent captivique redderentur."


----------



## virgilio

Anne345,
             Thanks for the reference. I thought it didn't quite sound like Livy (I believe in France he is called "Tite Live"?). Ah well, if it's Nepos, that explains the omissions.
The answer to Whodunit's inquiry, however, even with Nepos still remains the same, I think.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Anne345

Même chez Cicéron, l'emploi du réfléchi n'est pas systématique, même dans une proposition principale.  : 
ORATIO CVM POPVLO GRATIAS EGIT, 1.2
quid dulcius hominum generi ab natura datum est quam sui cuique *liberi*? mihi uero et propter indulgentiam meam et propter excellens *eorum* ingenium uita *sunt* mea cariores. 

What sweeter thing has been given to the race of man, or to each individual, by nature, than his own children? To me especially, mine, on account of my affectionate nature, and on account of their own excellent qualities, are dearer to me than my life.


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Whodunit,
> I'm afraid I haven't got a copy of the Livy volume from which this quotation seems to have been taken. (Is it perhaps Book 8 of AVC?) I can't help thinking that there are some omissions. Shouldn't there be a participle before or after "his magistratibus" either agreeing with "magistratibus" possibly in an 'absolute' expression or agreeing with the "legati"? Moreover, there seems to be something missing in the clause following "simulque peterent". Just a guess but could it be "simulque peterent, ut obsides eorum *qui* Fregellis essent captivique redderentur"?


 
I'm sorry that I haven't given you any reference where I got that piece from. I was in a hurry when I posted it, so I forgot about a link and the previous sentence, which *is* necessary, of course.

As for your questions: Actually, there are no omissions; the sentence is quite easy to understand, if you know that _Fregellis_ is the locative (plural) of _Fregellae_ and that _essent_ belongs to _ut_, and is not in a relative clause to _obsides_. There's nothing more to _his (enim) magistratibus_, but I can tell you that it is an ablative absolute referring to the previous sentence.

When I read the sentence for the first time, I also thought _Fregellis essent_ to be a relative clause to _obsides (eorum)_, but my teacher offered me the following translation (which indeed makes sense). I'd like to translate it as literally as possible and will let you improve it by stylistically:

_After they had become chiefs, Carthaginian envoys came to Rome, who were to thank the senate and the Roman people, as they had made peace with them, who were to give them a golden wreath on account of that matter, and who were simultaneously to beg that they hostages (would) be in Fregellae and that the prisoners of war (would) be given back._



> Anyway, to come to your question, it would appear that both "iis" and "eorum" refer to the Carthaginienses, whom the "legati" represented but - such was the diplomatic protocol - with whom they could not officially equate themselves.


 
Would the sense have been changed if Nepos had used _secum_ and _sui_ instead?



> Not having the text in front of me I have to guess.


 
Sorry about the dilemma.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Re "Would the sense have been changed if Nepos had used _secum_ and _sui_ instead?"
Not for our historical purposes perhaps but I suggest that it would have indicated an altogether more relaxed, 'laid-back' and perhaps even 'cool' approach to diplomacy - which would, I imagine, have been inappropriate, given the context. An approach more probable in our age than theirs, I think.

Virgilio


----------



## tarinoidenkertoja

Whodunit,
"iis" and "eorum" both refer to the Roman people and senate, that's why they can't be replaced with anything else (obviously the Carthaginian  emissaries can't make peace with Carthage itself), in order to use "suus " the sentence should be reformulated as in : " Senatus populusque romanus peterent ut  legatos carthaginienses   obsides sui  Fregellis essent"


----------



## terredepomme

Okay, so what's the difference between all this and illlius?
I remember reading that it's somewhat pejorative.


----------



## Cagey

terredepomme said:


> Okay, so what's the difference between all this and illlius?
> I remember reading that it's somewhat pejorative.


This is a new question.  I think it may be answered by this thread:ille vs iste

If not, please post further questions on the topic there.


----------

