First, there are a few nouns which are used in apposition with a proper noun, or are applied to persons. This use is a special illustration of the figurative meaning of these words: intercessit iste _Ligus_ nescio qui, additamentum inimicorum meorum, Sest. 68; _Sertia_ uxor, quae incitamentum mortis et particeps fuit, Tac. A. 6, 29; in conspectu _parentum coniugumque_ ac _liberorum_, quae magna etiam absentibus hortamenta animi sunt, Liv. 7, 11, 6; acerrima seditionum ac discordiae incitamenta, _interfectores_ Galbae, Tac. H. 2, 23; Fufidius, ancilla turpis bonorum omnium dehonestamentum, Sall. Lep. 22; _P. Rutilius_ qui fuit documentum hominibus nostris virtutis, antiquitatis, prudentiae, Rab. Post. 27; illius _sum_ integumentum corporis, Bacc. 602; vidi hunc ipsum _Hortensium_, ornamentum rei publicae, paene interfici, Milo, 37; _ipsa quae_ sis stabulum nequitiae, Truc. 587; quod umquam huiuscemodi everriculum [_Verres_] ulla in provincia fuit, Verres, 4, 5, 3; quid, duo propugnacula belli Punici, _Cn._ et _P. Scipiones_ cogitassene videntur, P. 12; qui sibi _me_ pro deridiculo et delectamento putat, Heaut. 952. These examples show that the suffixes do not imprint on the nouns the idea of instrument, or any other idea, so strongly that the nouns may not be applied to human beings as well. Of those nouns which get precision of meaning from a dependent genitive, perhaps there is no better example than fragmentum, which, expressing the result of the action of breaking, may mean a piece or fragment of any breakable object: tribunum adoriuntur fragmentis _saeptorum_, Sest. 79; ut glaebum aut fragmentum _lapidis_ dicemus, N. II, 82; fragmenta _tegularum_, Liv. 34, 89, 11; fragmenta _ramorum_, Liv. 23, 24, 10; fragmenta _crystalli_ sarciri nullo modo queunt, Plin. 37, 2, 10; fragmenta _panis_, Plin. 9, 8, 8; mille carinis abstulit Emathiae secum fragmenta _ruinae_ [the remnants of the army], Lucan, 9, 38. The genitives all answer the question, fragments of what?