Talk:Latin declension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has been considerable discussion on the order of the cases in the tables. If you want to comment this further, please first consider the section Order of cases infra!JoergenB 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the pronouns should not be in separate tables for the different genders, instead I think that they should be in one table. The colummns should be ordered Masculine, Feminine, then Neuter. This is the way I have seen it in every Latin textbook I have seen (3) and the way that every Latin teacher has taught it that I had.

Also, there are no locative endings for the first, second, and third declensions. It should be noted that all the nouns in a declension are not all of one gender.

Contents

[edit] T-V Distinction

Is there really a T-V distinction in the Latin? Until someone provides evidence that there is, I shall edit away that part claiming there is a T-V distinction--Darthanakin 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third declension

The third declension needs to be cleaned up a bit. The possible endings should be re-worded and there should be some explanation why the stem of nomen becomes nomin– when adding an ending.—Kbolino 04:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] is/ea/id

Isn't is/ea/id the third declension personal pronoun, and not a demonstrative? 03:52, 8 January 2006 Pedxing585

Latin didn't really have one set of forms that were the 3rd. person pronouns (except for the reflexives se, sui, sibi etc.). Is, ea, id was a relatively weak/vague demonstrative, which could also be used in 3rd person pronominal reference if you didn't have any particular reason to use forms with a more specific meaning. AnonMoos 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reflexive pronouns

By the way, the reflexives se, sui, sibi etc. aren't included in the article. AnonMoos 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scortum (neuter), whore

Who is up for changing this? Could something else maybe, just maybe, be declined(!) I'll just change this back to the way it was.

[edit] Possessive translation of the genitive

I have removed the possessive translation of the genitive cases, because although it is correct in most cases, the "of …" translation is correct in all cases. This is also to avoid confusion with the possessive pronoun (mine, yours, its, his, hers, ours, theirs, …).—Kbolino 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing tables

I am in the middle of cleaning up the tables, I prefer them to all follow the same pattern, i.e. no colors and also the same headings and stuff. That just makes it easier to read. So I'm going to bed now, but I'll go to fix that later. Plus, there are some errors in the latin translations (like vocative with an exclamation point) that need to be revised. J. Finkelstein 04:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • while you are at it, remove the nonexistant locative forms on the tables.

[edit] Greek declension

Should we add Greek declension?

[edit] Order of cases

Since this discussion pops up now and then, I've taken the liberty to move some older and newer comments here (some of which were deleted by others than the contributors, without references to archiving), in time order.--JoergenB 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Learning Latin and Greek and German at school, the order of cases was always Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, Ablative -- as per the reference grammars we used (eg Kennedy's Latin Primer, first published in the 19th Century).

Where does the order Nom/Gen/Dat/Acc/Abl that Wikipedia uses come from? Is it an American thing? Jheald 11:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further looking up with Google finds that the Wikipedia order goes back to Byzantine grammarians originally writing about Greek. NOM-GEN-DAT-ACC is also the normal presentation of the cases in German in German language texts. But in the UK, the order Nom-Voc-Acc-Gen-Dat-Abl became standard with the introduction of Kennedy's Latin Primer as the standard Latin teaching grammar in the country's top seven Public Schools in 1866 [1].
Courses in the UK for teaching other languages subsequently followed this lead. Kennedy's order is still the standard in the UK, and in countries using UK-originated textbooks. Some possible advantages for Kennedy's scheme are discussed in a Yahoo post here [2]. Jheald 14:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things that I don't get is the order of cases (usually it's Nominative, Genitive, ...) and why is vocative capitalized. (Unsigned contribution 09:31, 2 October 2005 from 81.15.146.91.)

Someone mentioned the order of cases earlier: when I learnt from "The Approach to Latin" it was Nom-Voc-Acc-Gen-Dat-Abl; Locative was only mentioned as needed. This is also the order in Jacques Brel's song "Rosa". "A New Approach to Latin" omitted the vocative, which made me hate it. jnestorius(talk) 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense; it's the standard ordering that the cases are taught in France (and presumably Belgium), as well as the UK and the Commonwealth. -- Jheald 22:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
Well, for me NGDAcVAb makes far more sense, but that's probably because it's closer to German and because I was taught that way. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is so much easier to trot off the cases in NVAGDA order. Also with this order there is a handypoem:

The subject goes in the nominative.
The vocative is for addressing.
The object goes in the accusative.
The genitive is for possessing.
The dative can mean to or for,
And don't forget there is one more -
For by or from or in or with,
The Romans used the ablative!

If there were a technical way of having them both and switching between them, would that be a good idea? RupertMillard (Talk) 09:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For declensions 1, 2, and 3 somebody messed up the order so that it goes Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, and then Ablative. This is not the right order. It should go Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Ablative, and then Vocative. Somebody should change it to the right way. (Unsigned contribution 04:42, 22 November 2006 from 24.136.28.32.)


Supra, Jheald has made out arguments for both orderings. NGDAccAblV is the traditional way (and the way e. g. my Latin grammar in Swedish uses). I do not know what the original reasons for this order were. The order NVAccGDAbl is more 'natural', in the sense that forms that often coincide are grouped together, and I would guess this was Kennedy's reason for adopting it. (E.g., the vocative often coincides with the nominative. So does the accusative; and, moreover, every time the accusative coincides with the nominative, then so does the vocative. Dative and ablative are never distinguished in plural, et cetera.) RupertMillard's idea of having a switch between both orders is interesting; but judging the feasibility of an implementation is beyond me. Else, I suppose the order dominating in Latin grammars in English should be decisive in en:wiki, and the order changed by hand as needed in other wikis.--JoergenB 15:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An extra complication I've just noted: There are five appendices in wictionary, for the five declensions; and links to them from this article. In these appendices, the traditional order NGDAccAblV is employed, not the Kennedy natural order.--JoergenB 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locative case

In latin does not exist a locative case except for domus rus et hums tha have a so called genitive locative, in the other nouns the locative is absorbed into the ablative. --Philx 02:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Putting 'locative' forms for such words as servus and rex is complete nonsence as they have no locative forms, the locative exists for cities, small islands and a few irregular nouns ie: domus, humus and militia. This is the kind of stupid error that gives wikipedia a reputation of innaccuracy.

I don't quite agree. It might be better to have a short section stating that there is a separate locative for domus, that it coincides with genitive for cities and small islands, and that (else and) in general ablativus (loci) is used as locative. It is also a mistake to claim that a case 'doesn't exist' because it coincides with others in form. (I'm a bit allergic to statements like 'Vocative only exists for nouns of the first and second declension', as I've sometimes read.)
At least, try to be consistent. Note that in the main article, latin is claimed to have seven cases, including locative.JoergenB 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocative case

There is some similarity between the 'incomplete cases' vocative and locative (supra), and I prefer a more conventional treatment of the former case, too. I've just corrected a table copy error of vocatives for some adjectives of the third declension. They would not have been there, if not the creator of the paradigm example tables had treated the vocative a bit less seriously, probably in his/her knowledge that anyhow it coincides with the nominative. I think the readers too would prefer just this information; perhaps stated in a couple of places; e.g. thus: "In all tables where no separate vocative is given, it coincides with the nominative"; together with the removal of unneccessary vocative lines.JoergenB 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say...

I distinctly remember "mare" being its own declension. Anyone else? —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No mare, maris is part of third declination neuter stem. --Philx 14:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It is? Well, we learned it separately. e-stem, IIRC. ::shrugs:: —Nightstallion (?) 08:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cleaning up

I think the tables need to be removed and replaced or revised. The locative case is 99% of the time replaced with the accusative of place to (ad regem, to the king). I'd suggest using the NOM-GEN-DAT-ACC-ABL-VOC format. It seems to be the smoothest. I think the following could be included here. Maybe there should be a Latin Adjectives Topic.

1. First Declension

  • First Declension regular
  • First Declension Greek nouns

2. Second Declension

  • Second Declension regular
  • Second Declension -er nouns
  • Second Declension Greek nouns

3. Third Declension

  • Third Declension regular sexed
  • Third Declension regular neuter
  • Third Declension i-stems
    • Third Declension i-stem sexed
      • Third Declension pure i-stem sexed
    • Third Declension i-stem neuter

4. Fourth Declension

  • Third Declension regular
  • Third Declension neuter

5. Fifth Declension

  • those like seriēs
  • those like rēs

6. First and Second Declension adjectives

  • First and Second Declension regular adjectives
  • First and Second Declension –er adjectives
  • First and Second Declension –īus genitive adjectives

7. Third Declension adjectives

  • Third Declension 1 ending adjectives
  • Third Declension 2 endings adjectives
  • Third Declension 3 endings adjectives

8. Comparison and Superlatives

  • How they are formed

9. Formation of Adverbs

  • How they, and their comparison and superlative forms are made

10. Declension of idem 11. Personal Pronouns

  • Is, Ea, Id

12. Interrogative Pronouns

  • Quis, Quid

13. Demonstrative Pronouns

  • Hic, Haec, Hoc
  • Ille, Illa, Illud
  • Iste, Ista, Istud

14. Relative Pronouns

  • Quī, Quae, Quod

--Blurrzuki 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, most grammars (including most importantly Kennedy's and Gildersleeve and Lodge) don't list the locative in their tables. It forces patently nonsensical translations like "verbīs, at (the) words'" (what the apostrophe's doing I have no idea - is this supposed to be an "apud" alternative? It shouldn't be.). It would be much better to replace with an explanation of what the locative is, how it's formed (completely regular) and when it's used. It's been discussed further up and there was no objection. It should be fine. So Blurrzuki, do you want to or shall I? --Lo2u (T • C) 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. You may go ahead. I'm revising the declension tables now. Hard work. —Blurrzuki t - c 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the tables of locative case, latin has never had a such case, it is like greek, as in greek per syncretism the function of ablative are conflued to genitive , so, in latin, the locative idem was absorbed into Ablative not accusative. --Philx 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other things...almost finished

I'm going to add a section called Peculiarities within declension, and the system used for third conjugation stems. Then, the article will basically, be complete! Though, this'll take a while. I'm a bit busy over here.--Blurrzuki 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

When it is, I will be very happy; and after I have used it, rapturous. I look forward to using it more then. Rintrah 14:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question from an inferiorling

Greetings, Latin scholars. I have a question: is the first table in the First and Second Declension Adjectives section stating all masculine adjectives are declined like -us second declension nouns, all feminine adjectives like 1st declension nouns, and all neuter adjectives like 2nd declension -um nouns — except, of course, irregular adjectives, and adjectives in the other tables? Rintrah 15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian and Spanish 'grammatical' cases

I have reverted an edit by "84.146.122.203", who added that both Italian and Spanish have grammatical cases, although these are expressed by means of prepositions. My reasons follow infra; and I'd propose not to change back without first discussing this further here.

When we speak about 'cases', we may refer to specific functions or specific forms. The discussion in this article is essentially about special forms. Latin nouns have up to 6 different forms, but Italian and Spanish only have one form. Several modern languages have more forms than one; English has 2, German 4, and Polish 6; which this section refers to. It would be rather confusing to discuss prepositional constructions, which gramaticaly have similar functions as Latin or Polish case forms, in the middle of this. If we should touch this in this article, it should be in a very brief section of 'form' versus 'function'.

When we speak about functions, we may distinguish more than 6 or even 7 in Latin. Especially ablative has several fairly different functions (in a few cases corresponding to older distinctions of form). My grammar makes very fine distinction, ending up with the following list:

  • Ablativus separativus
  • Ablativus originis
  • Ablativus comparationis
  • Ablativus loci
  • Ablativus viae
  • Ablativus temporis
  • Ablativis comitativus (rare)
  • Ablativus qualitatis
  • Ablativus instrumenti
  • Ablativus pretii
  • Ablativus causae
  • Ablativus respectus (limitationis)
  • Ablativus mensurae
  • Ablativus absolutus

However, we count all these as one single case; or possibly two cases, if we distinguis a locative; even that distinction is motivated by differences in forms. (The same function as that of Ablativus loci is expressed by the form of the genitive for cities and smaller islands. If we want to talk of the case form of this function, we have to distinguish a case, which sometimes is identical to ablative, sometimes to genitive.) All other of the enumerated functions behave grammatically in a coherent manner: They have the same form, which we call the ablative case; and if the nouns have adjective attributes, these have the corresponding ablative forms (cf. congruence). (The latter hols also for ablativus loci, which is a major argument against treating locative as a separat case.)

There is nothing corresponding in the Italian or Spanish prepositional expressions. E.g., the preposition de is used in most modern Romanic languages (inter alia) to express a genitive function, much like of in English. Thus, I may translate The girl's book into Spanish as El libro de la chica; but that does not make de chica to a case form of chica. There is no reason to enumerate such preposition expressions in the middle of a discussion of case forms, or even case enumeration orders.

On the other hand, such information is valuable in articles about Italian or Spanish. JoergenB 12:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/t/Talk%7ELatin_declension_227e.html"