Yes, both words should be declined -- if they can be All the ordinals are regular -us, -a, -um adjectives. "Bis" is as adverb, so it's indeclinable.

Robert Zisk 's answer:

I don't have Wheelock. However, I think your difficulty stems from a misunderstanding of the construction. In "multum artis" multum is not an adjective modifying artis (in which case it would be multae, and not good Latin). Artis is in fact a partitive genitive following multum. This use of the partitive genitive is common after the nominative or accusative neuter singular of adjectives such as multum, tantum, quantum plus, minus, parum, satis, etc.

Marsha E. Wood's answer:

Homini bis millesimo qui pontum transiverit praemium dabunt.

They'll give a prize to the two thousandth person to cross the bridge.

Joe Ireland's answer:

Ea can be neuter accusative plural, agreeing with animalia. The two words would then translate as "those animals" in the accusative case.

Mary McClavey's answer:

I think that your problem would solved if you thought about "ea" agreeinng with "animalia", that is, Acc, Neut, plural and used as a demonstrative pronoun meaning "this or that." Is, ea, id can have these meanings as well as he, she, it. Also, it might be handy to stretch the meaning of "inter" a little to mean among, yes, but something of the idea of "at the hands (paws) of, " or "in the midst of".

The dative of possession does exist, but it's only used with "esse", e.g., "Liber eIs est", "The book is theirs."

3rd person possessives which refer back to the subject of the sentence are usually handled with "suus, -a, -um", an adjective in agreement with the noun it modifies. So "their" would be "suIs urbibus".

3rd person possessives which refer to someone/something other than the subject of the sentence are rendered with the genitive of is, ea, id (that is, with "eius" (all genders) in the singular and "eorum" (masculine & neuter) or "earum" (feminine) in the plural.). That would of course be "urbibus eorum"

"Ille" is indeed a better choice for "those", since it unequivocally means "those". "is, ea, id" is really closer to "the".

Well, "olim" is "once", as in "Once upon a time...." Indefinite past (or, interestingly enough, indefinite future!), more likely long ago (or far-future) than not. It's the time-word for fairy stories and legends. When Maria and Tony sing, in "West Side Story," There's a time for us; / Someday, a time for us. / Peace and quiet and open air / Wait for us -- somewhere...." that "someday" is an indefinite-future "olim"

"Olim" can't really be used for "at that time"; it's much too vague. But unfortunately Wheelock's, following the Elementary Lewis (a well-known beginner's dictionary) actually *defines* "olim" as "at that time", so I'm not surprised that some people chose to use it. More advanced dictionaries, including Lewis & Short and the Oxford Latin Dictionary (which is the Latin-English equivalent of a Webster's xth International) do *not* give that definition for "olim".

"Tum" is "then", as in "Such-and-such happened, and *then*.... It's a sequence marker, usually marking time, sometimes marking the next step in a train of thought or a logical proof. It could be used for "at that time", given a suitable context.

"Illo tempore" actually means "at that time", so it's the better choice.