Talk:quis

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Compounds with quis

quisquam

For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

• Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
  One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
  Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
  Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
• Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
• Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
  Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
• The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
  Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
  The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
• The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
• Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
  • Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
    "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
    "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
    So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
  • Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
  • The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
  • The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
    F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
    After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
• With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

	substantivally			adjectivally
	sg.			sg.
	m./f.	n.		m.	f.	n.
nom.	quisquam	quidquam/quicquam		quisquam	quisquam / [quaequam]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen.	cujusquam (cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")			cujusquam (cuiusquam etc.)
dat.	cuiquam			cuiquam
acc.	quemquam [quenquam]	quidquam/quicquam		quemquam [quenquam]	[quemquam / quamquam] [ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl.	quōquam also quīquam	quōquam		quōquam also quīquam	[quōquam / quāquam]	quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

quisquis

RFV for:

• feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
• feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

• Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
• As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
  As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
  There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
  • If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
  • There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
• Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
• Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
  For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.

References:

• See quisquis for some citations and notes.
• Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
  "In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
  Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
  Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
  • Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
• Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
  Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
  Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
  44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
  [....]
  [...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
  [...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
  Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
  The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
  44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
  [....]
  [...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
  [...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
  • So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
• L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
• The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
  (a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
  (b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
  (c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
  (d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
  Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
  For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
  There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
  As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
  F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
  So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

• substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
• adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
• adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

-80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam#Citations, mecum#Adverb, illic#Pronoun) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. -91.6.199.79 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Very late reply, but doesn't quamquam also mean "although"? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV closed without any deletions, a bit unconventional but this is clearly going nowhere so I'll do the dirty work. If someone really objects and is willing to put in some effort, let them succinctly and gradually re-RFV the entries affected. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2021–February 2023

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

quis

Latin. "for feminine quae etc.". 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

@2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718: Pinkster 2015 p. 1174: The distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut (see § 11.28), as can be seen in (b): qui and quae are used where quis is the regular form. Neuter quid and quod are clearly distinguished. Also this stackexchange answer and this one - I suggest using that for questions about Latin grammar. Brutal Russian (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's "masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms)", that is qui and not quis, and also has "normally the determiner forms", meaning there are exceptions, that is qui (f. quae) used like pronouns. 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).

@2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718: Quis, quī and quae are all used as both pronouns and determiner forms, as explained in the stackexchange answer. Quī and quae are "normally" the determiner forms, and optionally interrogative pronoun forms. quis is "normally" the interrogative pronoun form, and optionally the masculine determiner form. Saying that they're used "like" the other one is begging the question. quis and quī are clearly in a complementary distribution based on being followed by a vowel or a consonant. A confusion between these two paradigms - one o-stem, one i~consonantal-stem, existed for millenia, and saying that quae is part of the quī paradigm is equivalent to saying that the Dat./Abl. quibus is part of the quis paradigm that is exceptionally used "like the o-stem determiners", whose Dat./Abl. is quīs. You're trying to shoehorn the language into tidy prescriptive school grammar-friendly tables, it doesn't work like that. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Cited (under sense 1). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Cited in Old Latin (which in en.wiktionary once was a separate language). I guess that should be noted somehow, or further quotes would be needed. --2003:DE:372E:DA74:2560:4D6F:A0D6:B2F5 15:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. I've added one from Cicero just for you. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna Thank you! I have been editing quis further, since I found some examples from the Vulgate. I think it's clear that quae can be used from a certain point on in Latin as a feminine singular interrogative pronoun, but I'm not sure examples like "Quis illaec est mulier?", "Sed quae illaec avis est?", "At quae est ista tertia decuria?" are actually conclusive with regard to the form of the interrogative pronoun, because couldn't these be forms of the interrogative adjective used in agreement with the accompanying noun? For comparison, it seems Cicero was able to use "quod" instead of "quid" in "Quod est hoc iudicium in quo iam biennium versamur?" (Pro Quinctio 42.3). I'm not sure how to explain the syntax, but it seems somehow it was possible to use interrogative adjective forms in this kind of context (I'm not sure if there was a slight difference in meaning as in English between "What trial is this?" vs "What is this trial"). This makes it seem tricky to me to sort out whether examples of quae should be cited on the page for quis or qui—would it make sense to keep a separate citation page for quae, with a note at the top of the other citations pages linking to it?--Urszag (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cited (again). I added a separate citation page for quae: Citations:quae. There are a number of unambiguously pronominal examples of quae in the Vulgate, such as "Quae ego sum?" and "quae es?". There is also a usage note now at quis saying that quae is used as a feminine form "in later Latin", while quis is used as a feminine form "In the early Latin of Plautus". It's clear I think that the feminine nominative singular quae existed as an interrogative pronoun past a certain point, while it's less clear what exactly that point is, but anyone interested in that specific question can look at the citations. Unless there is some challenge to the current citations, I think this should be considered verified.--Urszag (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV passed since the citations of feminine quae have stood for more than a week without further challenge. Accordingly, I'm going to de-tag the word.--Urszag (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)