Talk:Locative case

message: I think the long Sanskrit example is not justified here. This article is about the locative case (in any language), but it looks to me you are telling what cases are in general, including ablative, instrumental etc...
In Latin, only relics of locative remain, so the word "particularly" is quite inappropriate here.
----
"It is no longer productive."
This sentence needs to be clarified. The word "productive" appears to have a special meaning in relation to grammar, but it is simply stated without a definition.--B.d.mills 05:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The locative case is used fairly commonly in Classical Latin to indicate a place "where" (we would prefix the place name with "at") as opposed to "to which" (we would prefix the name with "to").
In Classical Latin the locative was dying out. Please correct the sentence, or else attach a reliable reference.
Also, I think there should be a separate article for the Latin locative. RedRabbit (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin

message: When somebody has got the time (or myself), certain corrections ought to be made in reference to the Latin section.
"The Latin locative case is extremely marginal" is perhaps an overstatement. It crops up now and again. But that is a minor point. 
The problem is the big end section after "Walking "in Rome" is not the same as walking "to Rome"." which to me creates more confusion than good about the meaning of the locative case:
# Romum is just plainly wrong. Roma is 1th declension. Shame on the person who did this. ;)
#  Ad domum I cannot defend as being grossly incorrect. Cat.63.20, Cic. In Verrem 2.5.93.10, Livius 4.52.3.3, id. 39.51.3.4, Seneca de beneficiis 3.23.2.6, and others (including Suetonius and Tacitus) have examples of "ad domum". I found 36 instances in the PHI5 cd, so it is not an unknown construction.
# There is some confusion about the meaning of the locative. There shouldn't be. Any decent grammar would have a nice section about the locative stating that is is a case which denotes time when and place where, not anything else, and it wouldn't contain "loosely speaking [...] but not technically" locatives which in reality aren't locatives but accusatives of direction or ablative of separation. The "domum" of the Monty Python sketch is not a locative under any circumstance. I suggest a clearup or a deletion. 
I hope I have expressed myself as clear as possible as I am quite tired. --NuclearWarhead (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin (again) 

message: The section on Latin mentions the ending of the locativus is the same as the genitivus or ablativus depending on declension. 
However, IMO, that does not mean the cases are the same (even though the same letters are used): Romae (loc.) still is a different case from Romae (gen.).:
"The first declension locative is by far the most common, [...] therefore use the Genitive form"
I wouldn't call it "use the Genitive form" but "use the same form as the Genitive".
But perhaps I'm being a nitpicker here...
--92.108.210.53 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin (yet again) 

message: 'Statements such as "в библиотеке" v biblioteke ("in the library") or "на Аляске" na Alyaske ("in Alaska") demonstrate the usage to indicate location. However, this case is also used after the preposition "о" ("about") as in "о студенте" o studente ("about the student").'
In all these cases used other case than locative, i.e. prepositional case. Locative is not used in modern Russian.--MathFacts (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ...except for the second locative as explained in the article.  (The quoted text above refers to the prepositional case as it is made clear in the opening sentence of that paragraph).Gr8white (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian 

message: I noticed that there is a section on the article describing the 6 locative cases of Estonian. Finnish has the same 6 cases, just written differently: ssa, sta, Vn (where V is the preceding vowel); lla, lta, lle. Could someone add a section for Finnish?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.138.190 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Finnish under Uralic? 

message: Comparasion: In case of the vocative many modern grammar books are incorrect (I can't even give a counter example of a correct modern book), as they usually omit the vocative or state something like "except for the 2nd declension the vocative is the same as the nominative". This is incorrect in case of many Latin words derived from Greek, which usually aren't mentioned in modern grammar books.
So: Are the information given here still correct in case of loan words, e.g. from Greek?
(And there are Latin city or iland names which are loan words, e.g. Hebron and Hierusālēm (also Ierusālēm)).
-84.161.25.101 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin (Loan words) 

message: The Etruscan locative case has been very clearly and certainly established as '-i'. The '-θi' that is given in the article is a locative postposition. (Hama-i-θi "at Hamae")
"The suffix of the locative is -i" (Woodard, Roger D., and Helmut Rix. “Etruscan.” In The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010.) (Chapter by Helmut Rix)
"The ending for the locative case, regardless of stem type, was -i." (Wallace, Rex. Zikh Rasna: a Manual of the Etruscan Language and Inscriptions. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 2008.) Romveno (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan '-θi' 

message: According to reference works such as Weiss, Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin (2009) and Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1995), -e is in the fact the old locative ending that has replaced the inherited ablative ending and not vice versa.  The locative signification of -e is the original one.  The ending -ī is presumably from i-stems.  109.184.98.226 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin third declension