alius vs. alter

[interprete]

Hello,

My lesson of the day is on alius and alter. It says, like everywhere else on the internet, that alter = for two things, and alius = starting with three things.
The problem is that I keep bumping into sentences which use alter for an unidentified number of possibilities, not just two.

For example, in the very same texbook I’m using:
-there is an Astérix et Obélix cartoon where Obelix has finished eating his boar, so Astérix suggests getting him one more, saying: "Visne alterum aprum, Obelix?" Yet according to the lesson, this is supposed to mean "would you like THE other boar?" (as if there were only 2 as implied by alter, and Obelix ate one and is moving on to the second one). And clearly this is not the intended meaning, since obviously what Asterix actually asks is "would you like ANother boar", not "THE other boar", and it may already be the third or fourth, given Obelix’s appetite.

-Consuetudo est altera natura, commonly translated in French as "l’habitude est UNE seconde nature", not "LA seconde (like there is none other) nature". So why altera and not alia ? It seems to contradict the rule given in my textbook.

-Amicus est tanquam alter idem : same problem for me: this implies that there are only two versions of me: the "me" version, and my (implicitly) only friend’s version of me. Or if I have several friends, there are all that same other (alter idem, not alius idem) version because there are only two.

I hope my problem is clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Not sure if I can tag @Pacifica like this but here is me trying (in case it can be easier to get it using French examples).

Thanks.

 

[Clemens]

I think it's just a question of numbers, not of definiteness. If Obélix has eaten one boar, then another one would be one of two, whether there are only two available or not. English and French add a subtlety that might not be possible to express in Latin: that the second boar is the only one available (the other) or is just one out of many (another).

 

[Pacifica]

For example, in the very same texbook I’m using:
-there is an Astérix et Obélix cartoon where Obelix has finished eating his boar, so Astérix suggests getting him one more, saying: "Visne alterum aprum, Obelix?" Yet according to the lesson, this is supposed to mean "would you like THE other boar?" (as if there were only 2 as implied by alter, and Obelix ate one and is moving on to the second one). And clearly this is not the intended meaning, since obviously what Asterix actually asks is "would you like ANother boar", not "THE other boar", and it may already be the third or fourth, given Obelix’s appetite.

I think it's just a question of numbers, not of definiteness. If Obélix has eaten one boar, then another one would be one of two, whether there are only two available or not.

Yes, alter can mean one more, a second. Strictly, I would expect Obelix to have eaten only one boar yet. Maybe they weren't always so precise in their thought, though, so I can't swear there couldn't have been more.

-Consuetudo est altera natura, commonly translated in French as "l’habitude est UNE seconde nature", not "LA seconde (like there is none other) nature". So why altera and not alia ? It seems to contradict the rule given in my textbook.

-Amicus est tanquam alter idem : same problem for me: this implies that there are only two versions of me: the "me" version, and my (implicitly) only friend’s version of me. Or if I have several friends, there are all that same other (alter idem, not alius idem) version because there are only two.

Same as above, basically. "A second" is a frequent meaning of alter too.

Also note, tangentially, that the genitive singular form of alius (alíus) is extremely rare and usually replaced by alterius no matter the number involved. The same sometimes happens with the dative singular, though alii also occurs fairly often.

 

[interprete]

Thank you both for your explanations. I’m afraid I still don’t get it. In the Obelix example, what then would the difference in meaning be between alterum aprum and alium aprum?

Also note, tangentially, that the genitive singular form of alius (alíus) is extremely rare and usually replaced by alterius no matter the number involved. The same sometimes happens with the dative singular, though alii also occurs fairly often.

I’m confused, my textbook says the genitive form of alius is alienus, not alterius...

Also, what would I be saying if I said that consuetudo est alia natura? or that amicus est tanquam alius idem?

 

[Clemens]

Thank you both for your explanations. I’m afraid I still don’t get it. In the Obelix example, what then would the difference in meaning be between alterum aprum and alium aprum?

Alium aprum would seem to imply that at least two had already been eaten, and that the additional one was at least the third one, regardless of how many could potentially be eaten.

Incidentally, doesn't French make a somewhat similar distinction between second and deuxième, at least in formal language?

 

[Pacifica]

Alium aprum would seem to imply that at least two had already been eaten, and that the additional one was at least the third one, regardless of how many could potentially be eaten.

I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. But I think alterum is more usual for "another/a second" and that's just how it is.

I’m confused, my textbook says the genitive form of alius is alienus, not alterius...

Alienus isn't the genitive of anything. It's the masculine nominative singular form of an adjective meaning "belonging to another". It can be used instead of the genitive of alius, too.

Of course alterius isn't the genitive of alius, either. It's the genitive of alter, but is often used in lieu of the rare genitive of alius.

 

[interprete]

Incidentally, doesn't French make a somewhat similar distinction between second and deuxième, at least in formal language?

This is what confuses me, I can’t clearly discern the nature of that distinction. Un second sanglier in theory would mean the second of two. If you equate second with alter, then it doesn’t work in the Obelix example because the intention is not to say there are only two sangliers available. Hence my confusion. It’s weird because I told myself ’huh this looks like a very easy and light chapter’ yet I’ve been on it since last night and still don’t get it.
Another example from the drills: Tibi sunt (alia/altera) studia atque ceteris. My textbook says "other X than" is "alius atque" so I guess it should be alia here, fine. But then how do I say "l’habitude est une autre nature que la nature innée"?

 

[Pacifica]

Un second sanglier in theory would mean the second of two.

Not necessarily. There would have been only one before, but there could be even more afterward. "Le second sanglier" would mean that there were only two in total. Latin doesn't make the distinction; alter can mean either of those things.

Another example from the drills: Tibi sunt (alia/altera) studia atque ceteris. My textbook says "other X than" is "alius atque" so I guess it should be alia here, fine. But then how do I say "l’habitude est une autre nature que la nature innée"?

You'd use alia there too... if I get your intent correctly. I would naturally read "une autre que" as "another than" = "different from", and that's alius/alia/aliud in Latin.

 

[interprete]

Not necessarily. There would have been only one before, but there could be even more afterward. "Le second sanglier" would mean that there were only two in total. Latin doesn't make the distinction; alter can mean either of those things.

You'd use alia there too... if I get your intent correctly. I would naturally read "une autre que" as "another than" = "different from", and that's alius/alia/aliud in Latin.

So:
-L’habitude est une seconde nature = consuetudo est altera natura
BUT
-L’habitude est une autre nature que ma nature innée = consuetudo est alia natura ac (blabla, don’t know how to say the rest anyway).

So from what you two are saying, it’s actually better not to try and find out the logic behind it, but simply to remember in general that
-un second/un deuxième = alter
-un autre = alius
-and then in groups with clearly defined numbers, 2 = alter and above 2 = alius
And these 3 rules cover it all.

Can I go with this?

 

[kizolk]

Slightly off-topic, but on that second/deuxième distinction: one of my history teachers insisted that we say "la Seconde Guerre mondiale", not so much because it was the more prescriptively correct term, but because it was a way for him to remind us we should do everything we could as citizens for it to be the last one.

 

[Pacifica]

-un second/un deuxième = alter
-un autre = alius
-and then in groups with clearly defined numbers, 2 = alter and above 2 = alius

Mostly yes.

But alter can also mean the second in a series. E.g. the first, the second, the third = primus, alter, tertius. It's also used where in English we would say "one" of a pair a things. E.g. altero oculo captus est = "he lost the use of one eye".

 

[Pacifica]

Slightly off-topic, but on that second/deuxième distinction: one of my history teachers insisted that we say "la Seconde Guerre mondiale", not so much because it was the more prescriptively correct term, but because it was a way for him to remind us we should do everything we could as citizens for it to be the last one.

I had never heard of that rule.

 

[kizolk]

Well as often with this kind of things, it's a slightly artificial rule, and I'm sure you could find a whole lot of quotes from great authors who didn't care one bit about it. But yes, it exists. I myself tend to make the distinction even in everyday speech, though that isn't very common in my dialect at least.

 

[Pacifica]

To me, "second" has always sounded merely like a more formal synonym of "deuxième", haha.

 

[kizolk]

Which it de facto is. Like I said, I tend to make the distinction, but that's just because I like it, not because I think it's "correct".

 

[interprete]

Well as often with this kind of things, it's a slightly artificial rule, and I'm sure you could find a whole lot of quotes from great authors who didn't care one bit about it. But yes, it exists. I myself tend to make the distinction even in everyday speech, though that isn't very common in my dialect at least.

I know UN translators get told off by their "purist" proofreaders when they use "deuxième" for "second" and vice-versa... among many other weird rules that no one knows but them.

Mostly yes.

But alter can also mean the second in a series. E.g. the first, the second, the third = primus, alter, tertius. It's also used where in English we would say "one" of a pair a things. E.g. altero oculo captus est = "he lost the use of one eye".

Funny, it looks like such a minor grammar point and yet I find it more complicated than most of the Latin grammar I’ve learned thus far.

 

[kizolk]

I know UN translators get told off by their "purist" proofreaders when they use "deuxième" for "second" and vice-versa... among many other weird rules that no one knows but them.

I like to think of purists as playing some kind of game: the one who manages to follow the greatest number of arbitrary rules that they often themselves don't understand, is the winner. Not sure what the prize is, but they seem to want it badly.

 

[Clemens]

I just checked, and Larousse makes no mention of this rule, but Robert does. Grevisse has this to say:

Second, fém. seconde, surtout usité aujourd'hui dans la langue soignée. Deuxième est la forme ordinaire ; il est aussi le seul à former les ordinaux complexes (vingt-deuxième, etc.).​

Les rapports de second avec deuxième ont fait l'objet de prescriptions arbitraires : tant que second a été la forme la plus courante, les grammairiens réservaient l'emploi de deuxième au cas où la série comprenait plus de deux termes (l'emploi de second étant considéré comme libre) ; quand second est devenu plus rare, ils ont voulu réduire celui-ci au cas où la série ne compte que deux termes (l'emploi de deuxième étant libre). L'usage a toujours ignoré ces raffinements (que Littré contestait déjà).​

A note provides a short list of important authors who ignore this distinction, as kizolk suggested.

 

[kizolk]

Not surprising. There's a very consistent pattern about these "rules".

 

[interprete]

Sorry to come back to this, but again I stumbled upon two similar sentences which yet use alius and alter respectively:

Ausonius: Ignosce aliis multa, nihil tibi.
Seneca : Ignosco semper alteri, nunquam mihi.

Why?

Thanks