I.truly, verily, really, indeed (only joined with pers. pron. ego, tu, and with the demonstratives ille, iste, hic, and their advv.; in class, prose usually with a conditional clause).
I. In gen.: “ne ego homo infelix fui, Qui non alas intervelli,” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 169; cf.: “ne ego haud paulo hunc animum malim quam, etc.,” Cic. Tusc. 1, 42, 99: “ne ego, inquam, si ita est, velim tibi eum placere quam maxime,” id. Brut. 71, 249. So, ne tu, etc., id. Phil. 2, 2, 3; Ter. Eun. 2, 2, 54; Liv. 26, 6, 15: ne ille, Naev. ap. Non. 73, 18 (Trag. Rel. p. 9 v. 40 Rib.); Plaut. Ps. 3, 1, 3; Cic. Cat. 2, 3, 6: “ne iste,” Ter. And. 2, 1, 24; id. Heaut. 4, 1, 8 al.—
II. Connected with other affirmative particles, as hercle, edepol, mecastor, medius fidius: “ne tu hercle,” Plaut. As. 2, 4, 6; id. Curc. 1, 3, 38: ne ille hercle, id. Bacch. 2, 3, 76: “edepol ne ego,” id. Men. 5, 5, 10: “edepol ne tu,” id. ib. 1, 2, 50: “ne ista edepol,” id. Am. 2, 2, 213: “ne istuc mecastor,” id. Men. 5, 1, 34 (729 Ritschl): “ne ille, medius fidius,” Cic. Tusc. 1, 30, 74; cf.: “medius fidius ne tu,” id. Att. 4, 4, 6, § 2.— Rarely with a pron. poss.: “edepol ne meam operam, etc.,” Ter. Hec. 5, 3, 1. (All passages in which ne stands in classic prose without a pronoun are probably corrupt; cf. Haase in Reisig's Vorles. p. 379 sq.; v. Liv. 26, 31, 10; 34, 4, 16 Weissenb.)