In Gen. 1:26 by Sebastian Castellio:

ita fatur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram, nostri similem, qui dominetur piscibus aquatilibus, volucribus aereis, pecudibus, denique toti terrae, et quidquid in terra movetur.

Why quidquid is not in the dative case like the rest? Also is ...cuicui in terra movetur correct? or should we add "qui", like: cuicui quod in terra moventur?

  • Does the dative cuicui even exist? I found no hits in a classical corpus.
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    May 4, 2021 at 12:36
  • Well, I don't think I have seen it either, but based on Wiktionary it does exist.
    – d_e
    May 4, 2021 at 12:39
  • 5
    quidquid is the subject of the relative clause.
    – cmw
    May 4, 2021 at 12:42

1 Answer 1


You can't have a dative be the subject of a clause. quidquid...movetur is a new clause. It's something like "rule over...[everything] whatever moves on the land."

You don't need to add anything to the Latin, that's just how the language works. Think in English, "I rule over whatever moves." Do we have a prepositional phrase ("over whatever") with an implied subject? Or is it an implied prepositional phrase with an explicit subject? In Latin, it's the latter, because whenever you start a new clause, you need the subject to be nominative (except in infrequent cases of attraction). The subject of movetur is quidquid. The dative is implied.

As far as cuicui goes, you can't trust Wiktionary. Here is the relevant section in A&G (151.b):

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 quibusquibus; 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.

You'll often see cuicui modī written as one word, cuicuimodī. This however is not dative, but genitive.

  • 1
    thanks! There were probably not so few quidquids I was misreading as accusatives instead of nominative. At any case, apart for their page on quidquid, I now see Wiktionary has a separate page for quisquis that contains many usage notes.
    – d_e
    May 4, 2021 at 15:00
  • @d_e I still would trust a more traditional grammar, because at least with those there is editorial control, which Wiktionary lacks, but it seems about right. Be careful too with attestations to early Latin. The spelling conventions were different, so looks can be deceiving.
    – cmw
    May 6, 2021 at 1:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.