Talk:Latin declension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latin declension article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

To-do list for Latin declension:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

We Need to do the following to fix this page

First, weed out unnecessary tables and control the formatting, remember, these people are not learning Latin from this, they are using it to understand it, and for help with small things, not advanced research projects.
Second, simplify the language used in the article so that it can be more easily understood.
Third, review all text for grammatical errors, in both languages.

--Meissmart 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, make a consistent and sensible decision on whether or not to include locative, here or elsewhere

--JoergenB 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Anything else can be added to the table in an organized fashion

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.

[edit] Instrumental Case

I read in the *History of Latin* page that *Vestiges of the instrumental case may remain in adverbial forms ending in -ẽ*. I couldn't find any other information on it. Should it be included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.36.129 (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waaay too long

This article is very very long. It gives me a headache looking at it! I think it needs seperation, into different parts, maybe? In the mean time, lets put a Too long box on the front. Or not. The Wiggle Fish 11:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started to try chopping the article down by branching subsections off into new entries. Have managed only one so far; this is going to be a long, ugly process. Wombat1138 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've radically trimmed down the First Declension section, on the theory that readers of this general article only want a quick overview and can refer to the Wiktionary appendix if needed. Guess I'll check back in a few days to see whether that's been reverted or if I should keep plowing through-- I do appreciate all the effort that previous editors have put into making the declension tables, but IMHO all of that info ends up being cumulatively overwhelming for a single article. Wombat1138 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[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 declensions?

[edit] Order of cases

I changed it all to the NVAGDA ordering, as it was half one way and half the other, which is far worse than a particular random choice of order. I apologize if that was the "wrong" ordering. Feel free to change it, but do it all. 24.205.91.162 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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. ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 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)

In the texts I've used to study Latin, two used the NGDAccABLV order, and one used the NAccGDAbl. I think the difference may be American vs. European: the first two were both American, while the third was Dutch. I agree that it doesn't matter much, but it can be confusing when the order's not what you're used to. 69.116.89.12 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a lot of discussion just to figure out the order of the cases. I agree that the order should be uniform of on one page but as long as they are clearly labled in each box then I don't see the need to argue over what the right order is. There really isn't a right order which is why grammar book and primers take to putting them in any order what so ever. When I learned Latin we first learned to speak using the nomnative and accusitive only before we ever got to open our books. --Billiot 00:11, 23 June 2007 (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)

Given Locative forms are totally incorrect, Ablative/Dative forms are 1:1 coppied in to Locative. Locative has never been equal to Ablative/Dative especially in Plural. The Locative case for regular nouns/adjecives must be removed. Roberts7 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Erikus Doctissimis Wikipedianis sal.

Ecce secundum illum veritatis fontem Wikipedia, latinitas nunc in omnibus nominibus casum amplectitur locativum. At wikipedia sese fallit namque non existit is. De constantia, Joergen, licet quaedam locativum habeant nomina tamen hoc factum nequaquam eo reductum est ut omnia eum habeant. Stephem Colbert, vir ille clarissimus videtur, saltem quatenus ad Latinitatem attineat, recte apteque de "wikiality" nos docuisse.

Scribebam iuxta Montellam 20 Mai. anno MMVII —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.41.53 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 May 2007.

I realise I may have been overzealous so far in what I perceive to be fighting vandalism. I'm going to step back now. However, I don't believe a consensus has yet been reached, and do believe the page should stay as it is until an agreement is found. I also don't believe posting in Latin on the English language Wikipedia to be helpful. Tbone762 14:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it like this: This locative thing is the Latin equivalent of saying that the plural of "moose" is "mooses" or the plural of "child" is "childs". How about putting that in the English language article! Hey while we're at it, let's have a make-believe Locative case for English words too! If we make it true in Latin than surely we can make it true in English! Do you really want that kind of stuff in your Encyclopedia? If you do, then Wikipedia has justly earned its reputation. And actually, part of me would prefer to see wikipedia make a fool out of itself (again).

We have one fellow, 'JeorgenB', who insists that the falsehoods be maintained for sake of consistency. Well sometimes languages aren't consistent. Example, English is said to have a plural but that does not imply that all nouns have a plural. English is said to have a passive voice but does that imply that all verbs have such a voice (eg. 'shall' 'may')? By the way Joergen we say in Latin it that it does not exist in most nouns because it does not eg: We can say:

                Nunc domi scribo.

or:

                Nunc humi inaugero.

but (for the most part) not

                Nunc arbore scribo.

because 'arbor' has no Locative. Instead:

                Nunc in arbore scribo.

And we most certainly would not say:

                Nunc puellà scribo

Rather:

                Nunc apud puellam scribo.

or:

                Nunc coram puellà scribo.

I think that the locative case should be noted on the article but we should only show a word like a City Name or Island that actually takes it. In this way we can note it and for each declention we can state to which other case it looks and be done with it but still have an article lacking in nothing.--Billiot 00:15, 23 June 2007 (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? —Nightst a llion (?) 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:: —Nightst a llion (?) 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. —Blurr_zuki 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)

[edit] Declension order

I just read through the discussion above, and I don't know why we have continued to use NomGenDatAccAblVoc, when the arguments seem in favour of NomVocAccGenDatAbl - more people learn it that way, Kennedy uses it, it groups together cases that have a similar purpose (I cannot fathom why the subject is at the top and the object in the middle - how could this possibly make sense to the casual learner?), and I'll add another one - someone looking up these tables will not see the Nominative and Vocative together and notice that they are, in all but one declension, exactly the same, which also makes it easier to stick in the mind (obviously we're not writing this article for revision purposes, but it should be assumed that a person looking up this article is interested in learning them, no?). The current version seems to be stricter limited to North America whereas the Kennedy version has a much more international flavour and wider audience. I am happy to rewrite every single table myself - does anyone object to this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. I'm also in favour of altering the Attic Greek article to the NomVocAccGenDatAbl order too. InfernoXV 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth Declension?

Is there really a sixth declension? There's no source for it, and the supposed method of it's birth was from an event in New Zealand. I can't find anything on W.T. Buckingham anywhere either. 204.39.56.140 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. It sounds like a hoax. Googling "sixth declension" and Latin turns up only us ... someone is testing the system, methinks ... John Riemann Soong 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless one has been designed by neo-latinists, there is no such thing as a sixth declension. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocative in relative and demonstrative pronouns

I took the liberty to delete the vocative since this pronouns do not have vocative case, because it's impossible to call someone using the demonstrative i.e. "This Mark, come to say hi to your aunt!" In english sounds terrible, same for spanish and obviously the same in latin. As for the relative in vocative is exactly the same, but I'm too lazy to put here an example.189.145.100.70 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusative in English

It says under "accusative" that English (who > whom) is where English explicitly distinguishes accusative.

But "whom" is dative. (proof: english declension page) "who" is accusative or nominative. Right now is written very bad misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.41.142 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't entirely correct. "whom" is the modern form of an old dative. Since modern english doesn't grammatically distinguish between more than one object it would be more correct to call "whom" an object form, neither accusative nor dative.

--Asdfgl (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Whom should be accusative(I agree with Asdfgl). e.g. Whom do you see? Others I think are him, her.etc--Jondel (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the Greek Declensions

I am not expert enough to modify the Latin Declensions page, but, as a visitor, I would like to leave a comment -- I would get rid of the Greek declensions and put them on a separate page. The Greek declensions are similar, for sure, but I came to this page strictly to look at the Latin declensions (the subject of the article), and the Greek ones just cluttered the page for me. Spunkybart (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the first/second declensions' Greek subsections legitimately represent the incorporation of Greek loanwords, since their case system differs from Latin and might be otherwise indecipherable. However, I don't know enough about Greek to tell whether those charts are substantially different from the existing ones in the main "Ancient Greek" article other than word choice and Latinate transliteration. Wombat1138 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tables

Hi, I (along with a few other people) am removing the tables present in the article, replacing them with a brief description of the declension endings, and setting up links to the relevant Wiktionary appendices. Is this okay? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Locative in English Usage Section

I am new to this, and I have been pouring over the Appendices to try and figure out a way to attack memorizing these tables. I noticed that the locative seems to be identical to the dative in every declension I have looked at so far (up to third). Most importantly, you say that it is identical to the genitive in the first declension singular but the genitive is identical to the dative too, so that is redundant. Also, in the second declension, that statement is just wrong. The second declension masculine singular genitive is muri, and the second declension masculine singular locative is muro. Luckily, the dative is identical to the locative here as well. That goes ditto for the third declension.

Moreover, if you include the Greek nouns in the first, second, and third declension it is an even more fallacious statement. Luckily, even with the Greek nouns, the locative is identical to the dative.

I am new to this and could very well be misinterpreting your meaning or misreading the tables, but, if I am right, please correct that statement. I would probably then personally dispense with the locative altogether for memorization purposes. Their meaning seems to be fairly identical anyway, with the locative just being specially qualified to locales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.49.221 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third declension nominative singulars, etc.

The way the third declension nominative singulars had been shown with suffixes in the table was misleading. For example, "princeps" is not the root "prince-" with the suffix "-ps" attached as was implied. First, the root is "princip-", not "prince-". Second, "-ps" is not a suffix, and certainly not a regular feature of the nominative singular form. So I replaced the suffixes with a reference to a footnote I wrote explaining this. I proceeded accordingly with the vocative singular forms, as well as the neuter accusative singular.

Next, the way the genitives were shown at the top of a table (in the column headers in nom. sing. full, gen. sing. suffix form) implied that the genitives are built by adding the suffixes shown to the root. But they aren't—what the suffixes that were shown would have to be added to was not generally the root to which the suffixes in the body of each table are added. To add clarity, I replaced each suffix with the full genitive singular form. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Iste?

I could not find the declension of Iste (an informal insulting way to say that). i think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashpotter (talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right under the table showing the declension of "ille" is the sentence "Another demonstrative pronoun iste, ista, istud, which means 'that of yours', and the intensive pronoun ipse, ipsa, ipsum follow the declension of ille, illa, illud." —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: To do