Appendix talk:Latin fourth declension

My Latin grammar book tells me that there are a few words that end in -ubus in plural dative and ablative - lacus and arcus, for example. A few webpages I found agree with my Latin book. http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/ln4.html http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin4thdecl.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension_.28u.29
Is the -ibus ending correct or should it be replaced with -ubus in these few cases? --Ruhtinas routa 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look again at the first link you noted, you'll find that you have already found the answer. --EncycloPetey 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From the first link which you provided it appears that there are two alternative forms (manibus/manubus) which are both correct. So, for example, for "manus", you can append a note at the end of the table which says "Note: the dative and ablative plural forms can also be "manubus". This is just an idea; I'm no authority on this subject.
—AugPi 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not quite "both correct". The -ubus ending is extremely rare except for the half dozen words listen below the table, which normally take the -ubus ending instead of the more usual -ibus enging that other fourth-declension nouns use. The -ubus ending is the older one, but had mostly disappeared from use by the time of Classical Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek

The Greek declension has to be checked. www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/echo has it as "ēchō, ūs, Akk. ōn, Abl. ō. f.", English: "ēchō, -ūs, accusative ōn, ablative ō, f.". www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=echo&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059 has it as "ēcho , ūs, f., = ἠχώ", but maybe it doesn't mention accusative and ablative case of Greek forth declension substantives if they are kind of regulary. -IP, 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Declensions that need to be checked

• partus#Etymology 2:
  • [www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/partus] doesn't say anything special, so should be regular with -ibus. PS.: He adds at the end: dat. sg. partu (not -ū?, well maybe typo), dat. & abl. pl. -ubus (uncommon: -ibus).
  • [de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung?q=partus&l=dela&in=&lf=] has it with -abus but also with dat. sg. -uī or -ū
  • Lewis & Short: A Latin Dictionary doesn't have it
• arcus#Latin
  • Georges and Pons doesn't mention anything regarding plural, thus should be -ibus
  • Lewis & Short: A Latin Dictionary mentions -abus but also many other things
• artus#Etymology_2
  • pons lists it as regular word
  • L&S:ALD doesn't have it
  • Georges writes "artus, ūs, m. (Stamm AR-o, griech. ΑΡ-ω [...]), [...], gew. Plur. artūs, tuum, Dat. u. Abl. tubus, m.", English "artus, ūs, m. (stem AR-o, Greek ΑΡ-ω [...]), [...], commonly plural artūs, tuum, dative & ablative tubus, m."
• echo#Latin -- also see above
  • pons: ēchō, -ūs, f. (gr. Fw. [= Greek borrowed word or better borrowed word from Greek]) -- the "gr. Fw." part replaces declension notes. E.g. kind of irregular first declension nouns of Greek origin are only marked with "gr. Fw." and nothing else.
  • L&S:ALD, [www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=echo&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059]: "ēcho , ūs, f., = ἠχώ" -- with short o, though should be an error
  • Georges: ēchō, -ūs, acc. -ōn, abl. -ō, f. (ηχώ)
• cornu#Latin
  • Georges: "cornū, ūs u. (selten) ū, n.", i.e. either "cornū, -ūs, n." or rare "cornū, -ū, n."
  • E.g. in [books.google.de/books?id=yu9YAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA106] it says that cornu and every other word of fourth declension with u form is in all singular cases "cornu". Though the author adds, that it's sometimes -us in gen. sg. and that especially cornus is common.

-IP, 20:34&21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC) & 07:16&14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Neuter declension

• Accourding to some old grammar works (19th century) it's usually gen. sg. -u (e.g. [books.google.de/books?id=uJREAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA101]), though with some exceptions like cornu, -us.
• Georges has cornu as: cornū, -ūs & (rare) -ū, n.. That would kind of fit with those old grammar works. But he commonly lists 4th declension words as -ū, -ūs.
• Accourding to a newer dictionary from Pons it is gen. sg. -ūs, but dat. sg. -ū (-ūi)
• Pons (internet dictionary) has partus as: partus, -ūs, m. (dat. sg. -uī & -ū; dat. & abl. Pl. partubus). That does fit with their dictionary (though they could have made up that -ui). Though, Georges has partus as: partus, -ūs, m., and adds dat. sg. partu (not -ū?), dat. & abl. pl. -ubus (uncommon: -ibus).
• Georges commonly has (at least as far as I saw) neuter 4th declension words as "ū, -ūs". Thus, those old grammar works might be wrong. Or maybe there are different opionens on how to decline or different declensions in different times, like classical with -us and once modern just -u?

-91.63.248.143 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions: gender f. and plural -ubus

From 19th century books, like [books.google.de/books?id=uJREAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA102](&103):

• feminine nouns of the 4th declension: acus, domus, manus, porticus, tribus, idus (-uum, plurale tantum).
• Dat. & abl. plural with -ubus instead of -ibus: arcus, arcus, artus, ficus, lacus, partus, quercus, specus, tribus.
  Dat. & abl. with -ubus & -ibus: portus, sinus, genu, pecu, tonitru, veru.
  arcubus, artubus & partubus are used so it doesn't get mixed up with dat. & abl. of arx (dat. & abl. pl. arcibus), ars & pars.

It seems like the authors made complete lists (or at least tried to give complete lists) of these (kind of) irregular cases. As it isn't much: Should they be mentioned here? -91.63.248.143 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What is the difference between -us and -ūs? I understood they both rhymed with moose, and it was only anglicization that gave us the 'uss' sound.