Talk:Latin declension

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Instrumental Case

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Waaay too long

message: 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)
thread_title: T-V Distinction

message: "There are several small groups of feminine exceptions, including names of gemstones, plants, trees, and some towns and cities." And some neuters as well (vulgus, virus, pelagus; with accusative in -us).2A02:A444:10D6:1:1151:8A5D:9C5E:106C (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Second declension

message: 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)
replies: text: Surely not. is is a demonstrative adjective, just like hic, ille, and iste. All of these can of course also be used as pronouns.  Kanjuzi (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: is/ea/id

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possessive translation of the genitive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fixing tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vocative case 

message: I distinctly remember "mare" being its own declension. Anyone else? —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No mare, maris is part of third declination neuter stem. --Philx 14:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is? Well, we learned it separately. e-stem, IIRC. ::shrugs:: —Nightstallion (?) 08:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. You may go ahead. I'm revising the declension tables now. Hard work. —Blurrzuki t - c 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Cleaning up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other things...almost finished

message: 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)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, adjectives generally follow either the first/second (a/us/um) or the second (is/e) declension. Shinobu (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from an inferiorling

message: 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)
replies: text: Spanish and Italian (and French, and Portuguese, and Catalan) have cases, but the case system of those languages is largely restricted to the personal pronouns.  Depending on the grammarian, there is either a two-way distinction between direct and oblique or a three-way distinction between nominative, accusative and dative.  At least in Spanish, there is also a special genitive form for the relative pronoun cuyo which, curiously enough, flexes with gender: compare el hombre cuyo caballo huyó (the man whose horse fled) with el hombre cuya yegua huyó (the man whose mare fled).  None of this, however, has much bearing on an article about declension in Classical Latin. 189.122.82.229 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian and Spanish 'grammatical' cases 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems there was a 6th declension in Carolingian Latin (Signalons le rare oubli de quelques caractéristiques médiévales (par ex. l'apparition d'une sixième déclinaison à l'époque carolingienne, en -a, -ane : cf. la célèbre Dhuoda, Thomas Deswarte dixit). Such declension would evoke to me the Old French declension in -a, -ain. I alas can't find any source on it on Internet. Captain frakas (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth Declension? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vocative in relative and demonstrative pronouns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accusative in English 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on the Greek Declensions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why would you do that? What benefit to the article would that bring? The case/declension system lends itself very well to a tabulated representaion. Removing the tables would remove the structure and the result would certainly be less clear. Shinobu (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Description of Locative in English Usage Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third declension nominative singulars, etc. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to Iste?

message: ...Since when is this article devoted solely to Classical Latin?  Surely, it is focused primarily on Classical Latin.  And the article on Medieval Latin should contain a more definitive listing of major differences between the two.  However, I see no reason that we shouldn't add in a note here or there on this page along the lines of "Note: this construction changed significantly enough in Medieval Latin that you should be aware of it, be careful".  Of course, then we run into the whole debate of if "Medieval Latin" is a language in its own right.  Indeed, the problem is that Medieval Latin writers were trying to *imitate* what Classical Latin was and were just imitating it to the best of their ability.  But remember:  this article is not meant as some sort of....Platonic "form", existing high, mighty, and pristine on the internet: as if only a "pure" Latin from the world-of-thoughts was the only Latin in existence.....rather, this article is meant as an aide to readers who are trying to decipher Latin.  Some of them I am aware are Classicists studying Tacitus or Livy directly.  But we do not all have the luxury of elegant Ciceronian prose!  For those trying to use this to decipher Medieval Latin documents, it would better to add in notes or aides on major changes that have occurred; mentioning structural changes to Dative case, or major changes to words which here are used as paradigm words.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would best belong on the Medieval Latin page.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical Latin vs Medieval (Ecclesiastical) Latin

message: the section on Numerals is incomplete.  What are, definitively, all of the numeral constructions including the very rare ones?  The two common ones are Cardinal and Ordinal.  I have a basic idea of the uncommon Adverbial and Distributive.  But I think there are several others mostly to do with fractions or something, i.e. duplex,triplex. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Declension of Numerals

message: *Old Latin had only two patterns of endings.
*:Where did the other ones come from? Mixups between the existing ones? Sound changes? Foreign import?
*One pattern was shared by the first and second declensions, with a clear similarity to the first and second declensions of Ancient Greek.
*:Yes, I noticed that in school. I didn't have to study for one of the Greek grammar tests because of this.
*The other pattern was used by the third declension and was very different from Greek, even for direct cognates.
*:But Greek has a third declension, and some of the endings do look similar. And I know some Greek third declension words were borrowed in Latin as third declension words, even preserving some odd Greek forms. Please give a more detailed description of the history of the third declension and how it relates to the Greek one.
*When new words were absorbed into Latin, they were generally placed in the third declension.
*:Really? Greek words with an alfa or omicron stem weren't, names were often latinized by adding first declension endings, some words and names that happened to end in -a have been put in the first declension... so I think that statement needs some qualifiers. And some detailed statistics, like loanwords by declension by language of origin by original declension or something like that.
Shinobu (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of cases 

message: According to this article, the locative of the first and second declension is identical to the respective genitive. Yet the wiktionary appendix says that locative singular is -ō. And if the locative singular is like the genetive, is it the same lenght also? The Old Latin page says that the locative was originally -ō, though. ~ InsérerNombreHere (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, 3rd ed. (1903), §33 Remark 3, and Allen and Greenough (1903), §49a, the locative singular of the second declension ends in -ī (and not -ō). — Leendert Meyer 2001:838:305:0:0:0:0:3 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second declension locative 

message: Bennett was very quick to use the macron! My dictionaries do not know of his long vowels in ullus, nullus, princeps, audacter, instar, rastrum, etc. Can anything be gained by this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fostercoxfoster (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macrons 

message: In the table, it says "effigiēs,  –ēī: effigy, ideal f."  shouldn't "ideal" be "idol"?   --Ptharien's Flame (Alexanderaltman) 01:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nouns fifth declension section — typo? 

message: What does this have to do with the fact that the locative case is marginal in Latin? Tripsin (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Romans considered islands to be small 

message: There's an imperative case, but I don't see it mentioned here. It's used to issue orders. Perhaps it's the same as the Vocative, but then that should still be mentioned. (I don't recall it being the same as Vocative, though, but both are forms of address...)
Tace ("Be silent!") we used in my Latin class a lot. Iacete ("Throw, everyone!") we used to coin a word for Chucks (the hi-tops), since that was an in-thing in high school.
Nebuluus (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Latin conjugation - the imperative mood of verbs is discussed there. Count Truthstein (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And iacete is wrong. The correct form is iacite. CapnPrep (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To amplify on Count Truthstein's reply: Nebuluus, you're in the wrong article. Cases are part of declension, which applies to nouns and adjectives. The imperative is a mood (sometimes "mode"). Moods are part of conjugation, which applies to verbs. --Thnidu (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperative case 

message: Why are there dashes under most of the plural entries for Phoenix and Conamen, in the 3rd declension tables? If someone knows, please clarify in the article.  Does it mean "same as to the left", "same as above", "unattested", or something else? 
Whatever the reason, does it make them poor choices for a table of "typical" examples, or are most 3rd declension words like that? Cbogart2 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes in table for phoenix and conamen 

message: The article states:
"Masculine, feminine and neuter nouns each have their own special nominative singular endings. For instance, most masculine nouns end in an –or (amor). Most feminine nouns end in an –īx (phoenīx), and most neuter nouns end in an –us (onus). As in all declensions, some nouns defy these rules."
This suggests, at least, that a large majority of third declension nouns ends in -or, -ix, or -us. This is not the case. Third declension nominatives singular show great variation.
I would suggest the following changes:
(1) Give lists of the most common endings with corresponding gender, e.g. -or/oris for masculine; -as/atis, -x/cis, -io/ionis, -do/-dinis, -tus/tutis etc. for feminine; -us/oris, -en/-inis, etc. for neuter.
(2) Explain that most nom. sg. forms can be explained from an ending -s which usually contracted (c + s > x, -ion + s > -io, etc.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenvreugd (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Declension, Nominatives Singular 

message: It says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Comparatives_and_superlatives_of_.E2.80.93lis_adjectives that only adjectives listed there are the only ones with that unique form, but doesn't "Laudābilis" have the same form?
In my dictionary, which is the CASSELL'S LATIN DICTIONARY Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, on page 339, it has an entry that is as follows:
 laudābĭlis -e (laudo), adj. (with compar.), praiseworthy, laudable: vita, Cic.; orator, Cic.; Ov.; Liv.
      Adv. laudābĭlĭter, laudably, in a praiseworthy manner: vivere, Cic."
Is the dictionary entry wrong, am I misunderstanding something, or is what Wikipedia incorrect? And, if it is just me, I'm sorry for bringing this up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.171.230 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That section says only the adjectives listed have the irregular superlative form. They are the only adjectives with superlatives in -limus: for example, facilis with facillimus. The dictionary entry mentions the adverb ending in -iter, not the superlative. Therefore there's no contradiction. — Eru·tuon 03:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laudābilis 

message: I do not speak Latin nor have studied the language, but am fascinated by it. I have tried to read the tabled to answer my question, but have not been able to identify the answer. 
Basically I am looking for is what is the proper case ending for people from Venedotia (Gwynedd). For some reason, I am thinking it may be Venedotii ? I am unsure. There is a text written in the 5th century, post-Roman Gwynedd:  "Cantiorix hic iacit/Venedotis cives fuit/consobrinos Magli magistrati", ("Cantiorix lies here. He was a citizen of Gwynedd and a cousin of Maglos the magistrate"). 
Any guidance you all may provide is welcome08:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venedotia case endings.... 

message: Where does echo (derived from Greek) belong to? en.wiktionary.org/wiki/echo#Latin lists it as 4th declension - than loan words from Greek in the 4th declension would be missing here. Older books (from the 19th century) seem to list it as 3rd declension, but they use another declension than given in Georges, which is: ēchō, -ūs, accusative -ōn, ablative -ō, f. (ηχώ). -IP, 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  echo? 

message: 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 (or maaybe at those en.wt pages)? -IP, 08:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th declension 

message: Latin displays many examples of syncretism (same forms for different cases and numbers). The article currently uses an order of cases (NOM-VOC-ACC-GEN-DAT-ABL) that places most of the identical case-forms in both the singular and plural next to each other (NOM-VOC, NOM-VOC-ACC, GEN-DAT, DAT-ABL). This is a good decision, in my mind, for making syncretism visible. I think something further could be done: the table cells of syncretic forms in each number could be merged (using rowspan properties). Here is an example.
          	aqua, –aewater f.	aqua, –aewater f.	aqua, –aewater f.	aqua, –aewater f.		bellum, –īwar n.	bellum, –īwar n.	bellum, –īwar n.	bellum, –īwar n.
          	Singular         	Singular         	Plural           	Plural           		Singular        	Singular        	Plural          	Plural
Nominative	aqua             	–a               	aquae            	–ae              		bellum          	–um             	bella           	–a
Vocative  	aqua             	–a               	aquae            	–ae              		bellum          	–um             	bella           	–a
Accusative	aquam            	–am              	aquās            	–ās              		bellum          	–um             	bella           	–a
Genitive  	aquae            	–ae              	aquārum          	–ārum            		bellī           	–ī              	bellōrum        	–ōrum
Dative    	aquae            	–ae              	aquīs            	–īs              		bellō           	–ō              	bellīs          	–īs
Ablative  	aquā             	–ā               	aquīs            	–īs              		bellō           	–ō              	bellīs          	–īs
Locative  	aquae            	–ae              	aquīs            	–īs              		bellī           	–ī              	bellīs          	–īs
I think I changed some of the tables in this way, but my changes must have been reverted. Do others object to this type of change? — Eru·tuon 01:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't revert it, but IMO it's not good. nom. & voc. (& acc. for neuter) are merged as they are the same. But gen. sg. and loc. sg. aren't merged even though they're the same, too. For this neuter example one could put loc. between gen. & dat., but I doubt that that is always a solution. Maybe it would work, if loc. would be omitted (or replaced by a note). Justification for the omitting/replacement: not every word has a locative. -91.63.251.125 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displaying syncretism 

message: Isn't the word "fides, fidei" (faith) belonging to the fifth declentsion?
87.1.122.76 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. Burzuchius (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 87.1.122.76 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fides

message: Quite right, Lucretius uses both sŭbus (6.970, 6.975) and sūbus (5.970). I withdraw my objection. Should we add a reference? Kanjuzi (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  subus 

message: As far as I know, minus is not an adjective: you can't say *minus oppidum to mean "a smaller town". It can be a noun (minus praedae "a smaller amount of booty") or an adverb (minus bellicosi "less warlike"). But minor is an adjective (e.g. minor aetate "younger in age"). So they are not parallel and shouldn't be put in the table side by side as if they were. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed oppidum minus est quam urbs — isn't minus an adjective here? Burzuchius (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An ingenious point! However, that sentence wasn't written by a native speaker but it occurs in a note written by a 17th-century scholar, Andrew Dacer. You can search Perseus and the various Latin dictionaries in vain to find a similar example from a classical author. I'm not sure how you would say "smaller" in proper Latin, but probably it would be minus magnum, which is found in Cicero. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't minus an adjective here? Burzuchius (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can put it this way: minor is the opposite of maior (puer maior natu, puer minor natu), but minus is not the opposite of maius; you can say maius bellum but as far as I know you can't say minus bellum. Minus is the opposite of plus: minus praedae, multum praedae, plus praedae; minus te amo, multum te amo, plus te amo and so on. So minor and minus are not parallel and don't have the same meaning. Minor means smaller (in size) and minus means less (in quantity). Plus is not an adjective, and so minus is not an adjective. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have paid no attention on my link! I don't understand well the grammar of Tacitus' passage, but in Celsus, minus is clearly the opposite of maius.
Now, let's say about plus. Plus praedae seems to be used only in the nominative and accusative; but there are pluris and plure used as gen. and abl. pretii. The opposite of pluris is minoris. Can't minoris be also an adjective?Burzuchius (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Quite right, I hadn't clicked on your new link. It certainly seems that Celsus is contrasting maius and minus here; although the translation "less" is also applicable. As for the oblique cases and the plural, it is undoubtedly an adjective. But it still seems to me that the usual meaning of minus is "less" rather than "smaller", whereas the meaning of minor is "smaller" not "less". Kanjuzi (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor, minus 

message: How absurd to include the non-existent vocatives agre and vire! These should be omitted (even puere only occurs in Plautus, so is non-standard). The Wikipedia tables shouldn't include weird forms which are not found in Gildersleeve & Lodge or Kennedy. (According to both of these grammars, the vocative of these words is the same as the nominative.) On the other hand, the genitive plural -um (virum, nummum, sestertium) is quite common but for some reason not mentioned. But I get the impression that this whole article has been made on the fly, without reference to any standard grammar. It even has examples quoted from Ecce Romani, scarcely a reliable source of Latin grammar. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed agre and vire, but really the table needs to be recast in sortable form, so that those who prefer the American order can change it to that. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  agre, vire 

message: Whoever has added examples appears to have made them up, and some of them are incorrect. For example: trecentōs annōs Rōmanī tōtum Mare Mediterrāneum imperāvērunt, which is supposed to be an example of the accusative; there is no example of impero with the accusative meaning "rule" in Lewis and Short. Or again, Egō et Iūlia cum nostris amīcis de amīcitia dicebamus is surely an incorrect use of dico. The use of incurro with the plain accusative (Scīpiōnis Āfricānī exercitus incurret hostem) is also rare (and why the future tense?); it is usually used by historians in the form in hostem incurrere. The names of the different types of ablative, such as "difference degree ablative", are also made up and are not found in any standard grammar. In my opinion, it would be better to follow the grammar books and use real examples from Latin literature, as well as the standard terminology, with citations from Kennedy, Allen and Greenough, or Gildersleeve and Lodge. As it is, the article has some useful things, but because it has apparently been made without consulting any standard grammar, it seems very amateur as it stands and with numerous errors. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another rather dubious sentence: Centum ex viris mortem dice timēbant et nihil clementiae exspectābant. Apart from the typo "dice", which has stood there uncorrected for at least two years, it would seem that Latin authors generally used diu with the perfect tense not the imperfect (unless iam is added). And the length of the example somewhat detracts from its function as an illustration of the ablative of separation. But I wonder if the whole section describing the use of cases shouldn't be removed? After all, this article is supposed to be about declension, not about usage. What do other people think? This section really belongs in Latin syntax, or perhaps in its own article; and it should be rewritten to make sure that the examples are genuine ones, not invented, and that the names of the various types of ablative etc. are given proper citations. There is already an adequate (but much shorter) description of the use of cases in Latin grammar, as well as piecemeal in articles such as Dative case and Latin syntax. I should think that there is an argument for making a new article with the title "Latin use of cases" and putting all the material there. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Correction: The example above (complete with its typo) was added on 26th January 2019. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

text: The anonymous author, judging from the errors in spelling and English, appears to be a Spanish speaker, who has lifted all the examples, complete with the "dice" misprint, from this article in Spanish Wikipedia: :es:Declinación del latín. But there are no citations there either. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

text: So what we have here is a long section, with invented examples in incorrect Latin, and incorrect English headings (such as "expecting circunstances ablative"), without any citations to say that such things as centum ex viris really is an ablative of separation (is it? Gildersleeve and Lodge give no similar example among the many quotations in their section on Ablativus separativus), and which is also completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. I therefore propose to delete the entire section shortly. The article was much better before it was added. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections were raised I have now deleted the whole section. If anything is said about the meaning of the cases here it should be very short, and the rest should go in a separate article. But it will need a lot of cleaning up before it is fit to make into an article. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect examples 

message: There is no need for a separate table for "tuus", "suus", "noster", "vester", since these are identical to "altus" and "miser". There is no need for separate tables for "familia" and "poeta", since these are identical. "Familia" is a peculiar word to choose for a paradigm, and the long wordy footnote discussing its meaning is irrelevant. Why not just choose "puella" or "mensa" like most grammars do? Because of these duplications, the article is needlessly long.
The section on "Correlatives" is very nice but has nothing to do with declension. Words like "ubi", "tot" and "quotiens" do not decline. I shall therefore delete it. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles are written for an international audience. Our readers might expect such words to decline, especially if the equivalent word in their own native language does decline. Words that one might expect to decline but that are invariable in Latin should be listed at least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needless duplication 

message: I was just looking for answers for my homework :(  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.121.212 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there no answers 

message: Hello all. The first declension ablative singular ending is given as -ā in the paradigm table, but the two examples given, mensa and poēta, show the ablative singular as identical to the nominative singular. Is this an oversight or purposeful? I thought about being bold and changing the examples to match the paradigm, but thought I'd first check in here with the experts. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an error. Fixed. — Eru·tuon 19:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Northumbrian (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First declension ablative singular examples do not match the paradigm 

message: Sometimes, words in -us are given a vocative in -us as well, see e.g.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocatives on -us 

message: Couldn't find a citation for the genitive in -us. Presumably it's for the same reason it's neuter, that it used to be a neuter -s stem. But then I'd expect the u to be long? Like in Greek πελᾰ́γους. In any case, there should be a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virus 

message: More than ten years ago someone here remarked on the lack of historical discussion. When I look at the page now, I see that not much has changed and that the historical / etymological dimension is still almost entirely missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History / etymology