Appendix talk:Latin first declension

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

I've transferred over some material from Wikipedia's main Latin declension article as part of the cleanup process over there; some links may need tweaking. 76.191.141.62 11:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Wombat1138

macron[edit]

Whoa there with the macrons! Stella with a long e? C'mon! —This unsigned comment was added by Fostercoxfoster (talkcontribs) at 04:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

What’s wrong with that? My Latin–English dictionary (A Smaller Latin–English Dictionary by Sir William Smith [3rd Ed., 1933]) lists “stēlla, ae, f. […]” on page 707.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that would account for it. Fortunately neither my Lewis & Short nor my four other Latin dictionaries describe this phenomenon. I have found recently that Kenneth Jackson in Language and History in Early Britain also insists on this. Can anything be gained by it?

The correct pronunciation can be gained by it. Feyerabend and Wheelock also both agree that the first vowel is long. Lewis & Short's opinion on vowel length is often out of date with respect to phonological scholarship. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Souter, White, Woodhouse, Traupman: bad. I see ~

I'm not thoroughly familiar with all of those. Souter is inconsistent at best, when it comes to macrons. I haven't looked at White in a while and can't recall my opinion about his use of macrons. --EncycloPetey 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ablative singular of nouns from Greek with -ēs?[edit]

In this appendix ablative singular of words with -ēs (e.g. comētēs) was (& is) abl. -ā (e.g. comētā).
Accourding to [books.google.de/books?id=yu9YAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA52] & comētēs it's -ē (e.g. comētē). (In the book it's simply dynastes and dynaste, but there macrons are commonly not used -- maybe 'cause macrons weren't common back then, or 'cause there were different opinions regarding the length, or 'cause the author felt like it isn't needed in most cases where a "normal" pronunciation is correct.) So which is correct? -IP, 10:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Allen & Greenough list both -ā and -ē for this type, but for some words (Persēs, Anchīsēs, Aeneadēs) they list the -ē form first and then the -ā form in parentheses, while for comētēs they list the -ā form first and then the -ē form in parentheses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... Then two general questions:
  • What's when sources contradict?
  • What's when en.wt templates are wrong/incomplete?
    • Especially: What's with single words being declined in a special way or being somehow irregular? E.g. some 4th declension words might appear with both -ubus and -ibus while en.wt might just mention one form.

Examples:

  • In Allen's & Greenough's "New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges" it's: "The dative and ablative plural of dea, goddess, filia, daugther, end in an older form -abus (deabus, filiabus) [...]". Accourding to Georges' dictionary also "filiis" appeared for daugthers. This edit would be wrong (accourding to Allen & Greenough), right (accourding to Georges), maybe kind of bad (by logics), i.e.: Shouldn't be both forms in one template? Shouldn't there be a note, why or when it was -abus? Shouldn't there be a note, like telling that Allen & Greenough only mention -abus, and Georges having both -- But well, as far as I know such usefull notes are uncommon in wt.
  • In some grammar works 4th declension neuter is -u, -us (nom. sg, gen. sg). E.g. in the one above at google books it's -u, -u (with exceptions with -us). Furthermore: Some grammar works list the dative as -u, some as -ui or -u (= both being used).
  • Some grammar works split the 3rd declension in two subdeclensions (consonantic and i), some in three (consonantic, i, mixed OR first split it consonantic and i and then i being split in pure and mixed).
  • Allen & Greenough have stella as "stella" (without macron); in Lewis' & Short's "Latin Dictionary it's "ēcho" (accourding to [www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=echo&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059]); Georges (1913) and Pons (modern, internet version) both have them as "stēlla" & "ēchō". So, who's right, and which form should be in the entries stella and echo?
  • Accourding to en.wt it was filii and fili as an old form. Accourding to Georges it's usually fili, but with filie appearing somewhere (the name a place, where it can be found). Accourding to Allen & Greenough the vocative singular of filius is fili. If I get them right, then it's usually -ius becoming -ie resp. -us becoming -e (excluding proper nouns). Accourding to the google book above (p.62) -ius (excluding proper nouns) becomes -ie, exceptions being filius (fili) and Genius (Geni). So, if it is usually -ius becoming -ie in vocative and filius/fili being an exception, that the en.wt template is wrong: 1. it's -ie and not -ii (so not filii), and 2. the text that fili is old and filii resp. filie is the usuall form is wrong. That is, the template resp. the text can't be used for filius.
  • en.wt has Satanas & Messias only with acc. sg. -an. Accourding to the google book above it's -am (or at least commonly -am). At Vulgate (Latin): Mark Chapter 3 & Evangelium secundum Marcum of the Nova Vulgata @ vativan.va it's: "Quomodo potest Satanas Satanam ejicere?". Thus: Here it's -am and not -an. And as Satan is a biblical thing, Satanam it's more likely that -am is more common.
    Notes: 1. Georges mentions Marc 3, 20 regarding Satanas, but seems to have mixed up 20 and 23, resp. maybe the printers made an error. 2. at e.g. Vulgate.Org: Latin Vulgate New Testament Bible - Evangelium Secundum Marcum - Chapter 3 it's "et convocatis eis in parabolis dicebat illis quomodo potest Satanas Satanan eicere" added by "And after he had called them together, he said to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan?", but that's using a bad/outdated style for the Latin text as it is without punctuation marks.
    Thus: the entry Satanas resp. the declension template used there is wrong/incomplete.
  • Regarding cometes: Allen & Greenough have nominative cometes (-a), accusative cometen (-am), ablative cometa (-e). I'm don't get, what they are trying to say. Is the variant in brackets less common (resp. less common found in old Latin texts)? Is it a possible variant, but one they don't recommend or don't like? Anyway, would one use Latin(-like) cometa and then Greek(-like) cometen or comete? By logics it should be cometes, -ae declined the Greek-like way, and cometa, -ae declined the Latin-like way.
-IP, 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Lots of questions, most of which I have no answer to! The declension templates aren't written in such a way as to accommodate alternative forms. We could list them separately below the declension table though. There seems to be uncertainty in the sources as to the length of the e in stella, but as far as I know, French étoile and Italian stella (with [e] not [ɛ]) can only come from stēlla, not stĕlla. But that might just mean it was a long vowel in Vulgar Latin; it's conceivable (but unlikely) it was short in Classical Latin and long in Vulgar Latin. I don't know what A&G mean by the parentheses. I assume they mean the first one is more common and the one in parentheses is less common, but I don't know for sure. It's not surprising that these words show a lot of variation; the language we call "Latin" covers everything from Ciceronian Classical Latin through Renaissance Latin and on into modern-day Latin, so it's perfectly natural that some texts use, e.g. Messian as the accusative and others use Messiam. Ideally, it would be wonderful if we could pin down exactly under what circumstances which form is used, and which is more common than which, and so on. But until someone does all of that work, I think we're going to have to just manually add alternative forms underneath the tables. And if sources disagree on something, then we should probably list both and mention which sources say what, unless one of the sources is obviously obsolete and the other one clearly represents the consensus of modern scholars. I'm surprised there's a difference of opinion on the length of the e in ēchō, though; since it comes from Greek ἠχώ (ēkhṓ) it pretty much has to be long. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)