"Ex nihilo fit quidlibet"

[CMatthiasT88]

"Ex nihilo fit quidlibet"
From nothing you can make whatever you like. -Iota Unum

This is a phrase from a book on church history by Romano Amerio, said in reference to a certain point of view among a school of thought within the clergy. I have some doubts about the English translation, especially how quidlibet should be treated here, and if you might know of a classical or ecclesiastical context for this.

 

[Dantius]

Seems like it's a response to Lucretius's doctrine that's often quoted as nihil ex nihilo fit (De Rerum Natura 1.205: nil igitur fieri de nilo posse fatendumst) Lucretius and the Epicureans, in arguing for their atomic theory, claimed that "nothing can be made from nothing." It seems that your quote is claiming the opposite position, "anything," or "whatever you like" (quidlibet is literally quid + libet) can be made from nothing.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you, I think that I understand it well enough now. quidlibet is a nominative substantive, and a more literal translation might be "Anything whatsoever is made from nothing."

 

[Iacobinus]

Thank you, I think that I understand it well enough now. quidlibet is a nominative substantive, and a more literal translation might be "Anything whatsoever is made from nothing."

I would not call it a substantive. I would analyse it as a verbal locution, made of a subject indefinite pronoun (quid, “something”) and a verb (libet, “it pleases”), which is pronominalized (= grammaticalized as a pronoun) and literally means “what[ever] pleases [you to be considered]” and might simply be translated by “anything” in English (or by “whatever you like”)

A similarly constructed indefinite pronoun is quidvis (quid, “something” + vis, “thou wantest”), “what[ever] thou wantest [to consider]” and which is also translated as “anything” (or as “whatever you want”).

It also have a common gender: quivis, quilibet (“anyone”) and a feminine gender: quævis, quælibet...

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you. Iacobinus, I think this may be a good opportunity for us to learn something about this topic. When I first wrote substantive, I did so based upon intuition instead of research; and so when you said instead that it is a verbal locution with a "subject indefinite pronoun (quid)" added to 'verbal pronoun (libet)', I suspected that you were certainly correct. (I take it that by "subject" you mean vaguely "nominative", as opposed to predicate). Although admittedly this classification seemed to me somewhat lengthy.

Afterwards, I did some reading in the grammar, and I would like to know what you think about it: I found that both quis and qui fall under the two separate categories of Interrogative Pronouns and Indefinite Prounouns; and that qui is the adjectival form in both of these two categories, and that quis is the substantive form(AG 148b). The difference between the adjectival and substantive forms are subtle perhaps, but apparently it does matter somewhat; although I should say that the note at the end of 148b claims that occasionally authors will mix the two up. So if we just had quid alone in our quote above, I would say that it must be an indefinite substantive pronoun in the nominative case.

However, we have the verb libet added to the quid, so how should we classify the word quidlibet? I suppose perhaps it could be called a verbal locution, however the grammar seems to simplify the matter somewhat, saying "that the indefinite pronouns quidam,a certain one, quivis, and quidlibet, any you please, are used both as substantives and as adjectives" (AG 151c), if that makes any sense.

So by these things, it seems to me that what you said above could largely be true, however I would maintain that quidlibet is indeed a substantive here.

 

[Pacifica]

What Iacobinus said is correct, or almost correct,* from an etymological perspective, whereas simply calling quidlibet a substantive is correct from a pragmatic perspective, as that's how it ended up being used.

*To be precise, it seems to me that the quid in quidlibet must be relative ("what") rather than indefinite ("something")—though you can actually call it an indefinite relative, meaning "what(ever)" as opposed to a definite "what". The word must have been formed at a time when quid could still be a relative pronoun (it no longer could in classical Latin; by then it had been restricted to the indefinite meaning already mentioned—but only in some contexts—and to the interrogative meaning of "what", except in some compounds like this one).

 

[Pacifica]

that's how it ended up being used

As Iacobinus himself said:

which is pronominalized (= grammaticalized as a pronoun)

It's fine to call it a pronoun. But a pronoun is one type of substantive, so it can also be called a substantive.

 

[Iacobinus]

(Thanks for the information. I didn't knew. I thought that only nouns were substantive. It surprises me a bit to have pronouns as substantives.

But indeed I read it: “Nouns and pronouns are called substantives.”

Substantives, English Grammar, Advanced English Grammar

Substantives, English Grammar, Advanced English Grammar

www.english-for-students.com

My point was mainly that quidlibet isn't a noun, but a pronoun... and I thought that a substantive would imply being a noun. French grammars commonly use substantive as a synonymous for noun.)

 

[Pacifica]

As I understand it, a substantive is a noun or anything that can fill the same function as a noun—which a pronoun does, being a word that stands for (pro) a noun.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

*To be precise, it seems to me that the quid in quidlibet must be relative ("what") rather than indefinite ("something")

I'm a bit confused by that, could you explain why it would be a relative instead of an indefinite?

 

[Pacifica]

Because quidlibet means literally/etymologically "what pleases" rather than "something pleases".

 

[CMatthiasT88]

I think that I see what you mean now, and that your thinking here is quite literal. I was confused when you said that the quid in quidlibet was here a relative pronoun, since it seems that a relative pronoun would require some type of antecedent, which is here absent. However, when you say "what pleases", I'm guessing that another way of expressing this would be "that which pleases"?

In which case, you might see the phrase as being quite literally:

"Ex nihilo fit quid* quod** libet"

* (nom. indefinite substantive pronoun)
** (nom. relative pronoun)

Am I making any sense?

 

[Pacifica]

However, when you say "what pleases", I'm guessing that another way of expressing this would be "that which pleases"?

Yes. Relative pronouns don't necessarily need a stated antecedent. That happens with "what" and "whatever" and "whoever" in English, and it happens a lot more in Latin.

In which case, you might see the phrase as being quite literally:

"Ex nihilo fit quid* quod** libet"

* (nom. indefinite substantive pronoun)
** (nom. relative pronoun)

Am I making any sense?

No, the combination of quid and quod doesn't make much sense there. It's just ex nihilo fit quidlibet = literally "out of nothing, what(ever) pleases is made"; i.e. whatever you like is made, anything is made.

 

[Pacifica]

Just to make sure this isn't forgotten:

The word must have been formed at a time when quid could still be a relative pronoun (it no longer could in classical Latin; by then it had been restricted to the indefinite meaning already mentioned—but only in some contexts—and to the interrogative meaning of "what", except in some compounds like this one).

In classical Latin, the neuter singular relative pronoun is quod, not quid, but quidlibet was formed at a time when quid could be a relative pronoun.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Relative pronouns don't necessarily need a stated antecedent. That happens with "what" and "whatever" and "whoever" in English, and it happens a lot more in Latin.

Thank you, could you offer a few examples of this?

the combination of quid and quod doesn't make much sense there.

But why not I wonder? Wouldn't this be correct? " Ex luto fit vas quod continet aquam", where vas is the 'substantive' and quod is the relative?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, could you offer a few examples of this?

Vincit qui se vincit (proverb) = Vincit is qui se vincit.
Ego quos amo, arguo, et castigo (Rev. 3:19) = Ego quos amo, eos arguo, et castigo.
Misit qui vocarent Magium ad sese in castra (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 23.7.7) = Misit aliquos/homines qui vocarent...

This kind of thing is very common.

But why not I wonder? Wouldn't this be correct? " Ex luto fit vas quod continet aquam", where vas is the 'substantive' and quod is the relative?

Yes, that is correct, but not quite comparable.

At a stretch I suppose you could say ex nihilo fit aliquid quod libet, but that sounds strange and doesn't mean the same thing as ex nihilo fit quidlibet.

Quid in the sense "something" only occurs in some more-or-less specific contexts, and doesn't work here.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Ok, good, thank you. I think we're making some progress now.

"what" and "whatever" and "whoever" in English,

That was unclear to me, since "what" for example, is classified in my Webster's as being an exclamatory, a substantive pronoun, an adjectival pronoun (plural or singular), an indefinite pronoun, an indefinite relative, and a compound relative pronoun "equivalent to 'which' added to an antecedent demonstrative- you may have what is left"

When you said above that quid here is equivalent to "what", and that it functions as a relative more than an indefinite, I think that you meant it was compound relative, instead of a simple relative. You used the word "indefinite relative", but I didn't know what you meant there. The simple relative would be "which".

In the case of quidlibet, it seems that we agree that both the indefinite and the relative are required for it to be grammatically correct (aliquid quod libet) , as it were. But the question now appears to be which which one is explicit, and which one is implied. Since L&S defines quislibet as in indefinite, and A&G likewise, I think that the indefinite is the explicit and the relative is the implied, and so I would like to call quislibet a compound indefinite substantive pronoun. Maybe you think that I'm splitting hairs here, but I think this is interesting.

At a stretch I suppose you could say ex nihilo fit aliquid quod libet, but that sounds strange and doesn't mean the same thing as ex nihilo fit quidlibet.

How is it different?

 

[Pacifica]

When you said above that quid here is equivalent to "what", and that it functions as a relative more than an indefinite, I think that you meant it was compound relative, instead of a simple relative. I think that you used the word "indefinite relative", but I didn't know what you meant there. The simple relative would be "which".

It's an indefinite relative because it means "what(ever)" rather than a specific "what".

Compare:

1) Take what you like = take whatever you like (I don't know what you'll like, but whatever it is, take it).

2) I like what you said yesterday = I like the specific thing which you said yesterday.

In both sentences, "what" is a relative pronoun.

You can also say that in both sentences, "what" is a compound relative pronoun (I didn't know that term before) since in both cases it stands for "that which".

But the difference is that the relative pronoun in 1) is indefinite while that in 2) is definite.

In the case of quidlibet, it seems that we agree that both the indefinite and the relative are required for it to be grammatically correct (aliquid quod libet) , as it were.

No, we don't agree on that. All you need for it to be grammatically correct is quidlibet.

But the question now appears to be which which one is explicit, and which one is implied. Since L&S defines quislibet as in indefinite, and A&G likewise, I think that the indefinite is the explicit and the relative is the implied, and so I would like to call quislibet a compound indefinite substantive pronoun. Maybe you think that I'm splitting hairs here, but I think this is interesting.

We have to separate etymology and usage.

Etymologically, quidlibet = quid, used as an indefinite (and compound) relative pronoun + the verb libet. So, literally, "what pleases."

Now that combination came to be used simply as an indefinitive pronoun: quidlibet = anything.

quislibet

Note that the masculine nominative singular form is quilibet.

the relative is the implied

Relatives are never implied in Latin. In English you can say things like "the thing I saw" for "the thing that I saw". But in Latin the relative must always be expressed.

How is it different?

Ex nihilo fit aliquid quod libet = "out of nothing is made something that pleases." (And it frankly sounds wrong due to how libet is normally used, but let's not get into that right now.)

Ex nihilo fit quidlibet = "out of nothing, anything (or whatever you like) is made."

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Ok, that all sounds good, thank you. Now I see the difference between the "compound relative" and "indefinite relative", and likewise between aliquid quod libet and quidlibet. With "quislibet", I was confused because I'd looked at the entry for quisquislibet.

So etymologically, you see quidlibet as being an indefinite relative pronoun, however being used typically as a simple indefinite, that the authors of the grammar preferred the practical usage over the etymological?

 

[Pacifica]

So etymologically, you see quidlibet as being an indefinite relative pronoun, however being used typically as a simple indefinite, that the authors of the grammar preferred the practical usage over the etymological?

Almost.

To be more precise, etymologically, quidlibet is two words: 1) an indefinite relative pronoun, quid, meaning "what" + 2) a verb, libet, meaning "(it) pleases".