Différences

Cette page vous donne les différences entre la révision choisie et la version actuelle de la page.

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2015/10/27 20:35]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2016/01/27 17:59] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 72: Ligne 72:
  
  
-Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra and Elektran; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.+Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra///‘Hλεκτρα// and Elektran///‘Hλεκτραn//; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.
  
    
Ligne 134: Ligne 134:
  
  
-Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule  +Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule 
-/i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V+ 
 +  
 +    * /i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V
  
  
Ligne 261: Ligne 263:
  
  
- __________________________________________+---- 
 + 
 If we want at all costs to use these false concepts, we can only say that the unparasyllabic lexemes ending with two consonants have always //-ium// as a plural Genitive (cf. //urb-s//, gen. pl. //urb-ium//; //nox, noct-is// (f.) “night”, gen. pl. //noct-ium//; //ar-s, art-is// (f.) “art”, gen. pl. //art-ium//; etc.), and the other unparasyllabic lexemes have normally //-um// as a plural Genitive (cf. //dux, duc-is//, gen. pl. //duc-um//; //plēb-s, plēb-is// “common people”, gen. pl. //plēb-um//; //imperātor, imperātōr-is// (m.) “commanding officer”, gen. pl. //imperātōr-um//; //consul, consul-is// (m.) “consul”, gen. pl. //consul-um//; //fulgur, fulgur-is//, gen. pl. //fulgur-um//; //ratiō, ratiōn-is// (f.) “calculation”, gen. pl. //ratiōn-um//; //tempus, tempor-is// (n.) “time”, gen. pl. //temporum//; and /patr-Ø/, //patr-is// (m) “father”, gen. pl. //patr-um//; /ma:tr-Ø/, //mātr-is// (f.) “mother”, gen. pl. //mātr-um//; etc. And so, the lexemes ending with a dental (like: //aestā-s, aestāt-is// (f.) “summer”, gen. pl. //aestāt-um//; //custō-s, custōd-is// (m) “guardian”, gen. pl. //custōd-um//), apart from //dō-s, dōt-is// (f.) “dowry”, //cīuitā-s, cīuitāt-is// (f.) “city”, //Penāt-ēs// “tutelary gods”, //optimāt-ēs// (m.) “nobility” and //Quirīt-ēs// (m.) “citizens of Rome”, which have both forms, respectively //dōt-um// and //dōt-ium//, //cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //Penāt-um// and //Penāt-ium//, //optimāt-um// and //optimāt-ium//, //Quirīt-um// and //Quirīt-ium//; and //līs, līt-is// (f.) “lawsuit”, whose plural Genitive is only //līt-ium//. If we want at all costs to use these false concepts, we can only say that the unparasyllabic lexemes ending with two consonants have always //-ium// as a plural Genitive (cf. //urb-s//, gen. pl. //urb-ium//; //nox, noct-is// (f.) “night”, gen. pl. //noct-ium//; //ar-s, art-is// (f.) “art”, gen. pl. //art-ium//; etc.), and the other unparasyllabic lexemes have normally //-um// as a plural Genitive (cf. //dux, duc-is//, gen. pl. //duc-um//; //plēb-s, plēb-is// “common people”, gen. pl. //plēb-um//; //imperātor, imperātōr-is// (m.) “commanding officer”, gen. pl. //imperātōr-um//; //consul, consul-is// (m.) “consul”, gen. pl. //consul-um//; //fulgur, fulgur-is//, gen. pl. //fulgur-um//; //ratiō, ratiōn-is// (f.) “calculation”, gen. pl. //ratiōn-um//; //tempus, tempor-is// (n.) “time”, gen. pl. //temporum//; and /patr-Ø/, //patr-is// (m) “father”, gen. pl. //patr-um//; /ma:tr-Ø/, //mātr-is// (f.) “mother”, gen. pl. //mātr-um//; etc. And so, the lexemes ending with a dental (like: //aestā-s, aestāt-is// (f.) “summer”, gen. pl. //aestāt-um//; //custō-s, custōd-is// (m) “guardian”, gen. pl. //custōd-um//), apart from //dō-s, dōt-is// (f.) “dowry”, //cīuitā-s, cīuitāt-is// (f.) “city”, //Penāt-ēs// “tutelary gods”, //optimāt-ēs// (m.) “nobility” and //Quirīt-ēs// (m.) “citizens of Rome”, which have both forms, respectively //dōt-um// and //dōt-ium//, //cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //Penāt-um// and //Penāt-ium//, //optimāt-um// and //optimāt-ium//, //Quirīt-um// and //Quirīt-ium//; and //līs, līt-is// (f.) “lawsuit”, whose plural Genitive is only //līt-ium//.
  
Ligne 314: Ligne 318:
 Some allomorphs are to be added to these morphological segments which define the third declension. Concerning the lexemes which have a segment //-ium// as Genitive Plural, some of these have a segment of Nominative //-ēs// beside //-is//, like //uall-ēs// and //uall-is, -is, ium// “valley”, //ap-is (ap-ēs), -is, -ium (-um)// “bee”, or instead of //-is//, like //sēd-ēs, -is, -ium//, “seat”, //nūb-ēs// (//nūbis//, once in Plaut., Merc. 879), //-is, -ium// “cloud”, //uāt-ēs (uāt-is     -is, -um (-ium)// “prophet”. Some allomorphs are to be added to these morphological segments which define the third declension. Concerning the lexemes which have a segment //-ium// as Genitive Plural, some of these have a segment of Nominative //-ēs// beside //-is//, like //uall-ēs// and //uall-is, -is, ium// “valley”, //ap-is (ap-ēs), -is, -ium (-um)// “bee”, or instead of //-is//, like //sēd-ēs, -is, -ium//, “seat”, //nūb-ēs// (//nūbis//, once in Plaut., Merc. 879), //-is, -ium// “cloud”, //uāt-ēs (uāt-is     -is, -um (-ium)// “prophet”.
  
-LE TEXTE QUI SUIT N'A PAS ENCORE ETE MIS EN FORME + 
-The Ablative segment  ī, and the Accusative segment -im are found exclusively in the following nouns: uīs (f.) “violence”, sitis (f.) “thirst”, tussis (f.) “cough”, securis (f.) “axe”, and Tiberis (m.) “Tibre”, and sometimes in puppis (f.) “poop” and turris (f.) “tower”; the accusative in -im sometimes also in febris (f.) “fever”, restis (f.) “rope”, and the ablative in -ī, sometimes in auis (f.) “bird”, febris “fever”, finis (f.) “limit”, ignis (f.) “fire”. +The Ablative segment //-ī//, and the Accusative segment //-im// are found exclusively in the following nouns: //uīs// (f.) “violence”, //sitis// (f.) “thirst”, //tussis// (f.) “cough”, //securis// (f.) “axe”, and //Tiberis// (m.) “Tibre”, and sometimes in //puppis// (f.) “poop” and //turris// (f.) “tower”; the accusative in //-im// sometimes also in //febris// (f.) “fever”, //restis// (f.) “rope”, and the ablative in ////, sometimes in //auis// (f.) “bird”, //febris// “fever”, //finis// (f.) “limit”, //ignis// (f.) “fire”. 
-Concerning the lexemes which have a segment -um as Genitive Plural, the masculine or feminine lexemes with final n have a special Nominative, which is not a segment added to the lexeme, but an internal modifying of the lexeme itself, which erases simply the final n, if it is preceded by a long vowel, otherwise, it changes the vowel with an ō long. The Nominative is thus equivalent to a replacive  as + 
-/o:← (o:n)/   or  /o:← (in)/+ 
 +Concerning the lexemes which have a segment //-um// as Genitive Plural, the masculine or feminine lexemes with final //n// have a special Nominative, which is not a segment added to the lexeme, but an internal modifying of the lexeme itself, which erases simply the final //n//, if it is preceded by a long vowel, otherwise, it changes the vowel with an //ō// long. The Nominative is thus equivalent to a replacive  as 
 + 
 + 
 +    * /o:← (o:n)/   or  /o:← (in)/ 
 + 
 as in: as in:
-ratiō (f.) “reason” (= /ratio:n-o:←(o:n)/ = /ratio:n-\n  /),*** ratiōn-is, ratiōn-um; praedō (m.) “pirate”, praedōn-is, praedōn-um; leō (m.) “lion”, leōn-is, leōn-um; Dīdō (f.)  “Dido”, Didōn-is; + 
 + //ratiō// (f.) “reason” (= /ratio:n-o:←(o:n)/ = /ratio:n-\n  /),//ratiōn-is, ratiōn-um////praedō// (m.) “pirate”, //praedōn-is, praedōn-um////leō// (m.) “lion”, //leōn-is, leōn-um////Dīdō// (f.)  “Dido”, //Didōn-is//; 
 + 
 + 
 or in: or in:
-homō (m) “human being” (= /homin-o:←(in)/),*** homin-is, homin-um; uirgō (f.) “girl“, uirgin-is, uirgin-um;  + 
-but exception daemōn (m.) ”supernatural spirit”, daemon-is, daemon-um  (gr. da…mwn).  + 
-If the lexeme with final n is a neuter noun, then its nominative is simply a segment Ø, and the lexeme shows the morphological alternation called the synchronic apophony, i.e. the opening of the short closed vowel in a final syllable: the nominative of nōmen (n.) “name”, nōmin-is, nōmin-um is explained by the lexeme /nōmin/+ Ø, which corresponds thus to /nōmi~e←(i)n-ø#/, realized  [no:men].                                                    +//homō// (m) “human being” (= /homin-o:←(in)/), //homin-is, homin-um////uirgō// (f.) “girl“, //uirgin-is, uirgin-um// 
-In the masculine and feminine nouns, when the Nominative is /-s/ or Ø, it brings sometimes but not always a lengthening of the final vowel of lexeme, as in pē-s (m.) “foot”, ped-is, ped-um, pariē-s (m.) “wall”, pariet-is, pariet-um, pūbēs (m.) “grown-up person”, pūber-is, pūber-um, ariē-s (m.) “ram”, ariet-is, ariet-um; arbōs (f.), arbor-is, arbor-um, phonetic realizations of /arbos-is/, /arbos-um/. But there is no lengthening in pede-s (m.) “infantryman”, pedit-is, pedit-um, lapi-s (m.) “stone”, lapid-is, lapid-um, come-s (m. or f.) “companion”, comit-is, comit-um, lepus phonetic realization of /lepos-Ø/ (m.) “hare”, lepor-is, lepor-um, etc.   + 
-Morphological alternation in the lexical morphemes of the third declension: + 
-We know that from the diachronic apophony, which is the closing of short unclosed vowels in open interior syllable, it results, in classical Latin, a morphological rule of alternation between a short closed vowel in open interior syllable and an unclosed vowel in a closed final syllable, which we can call “synchronic apophony” and note from the following way:  +but exception //daemōn// (m.) ”supernatural spirit”, //daemon-is, daemon-um//  (gr. Δαιμωv). 
- /i  (or u) Cons + ~  e Cons + s #/ + 
-or +  
- e ← (i) or (u) /  ̶  Cons - s #+If the lexeme with final //n// is a neuter noun, then its nominative is simply a segment //Ø//, and the lexeme shows the morphological alternation called the synchronic apophony, //i.e.// the opening of the short closed vowel in a final syllable: the nominative of //nōmen// (n.) “name”, //nōmin-is, nōmin-um// is explained by the lexeme /nōmin/+ //Ø//, which corresponds thus to /nōmi~e←(i)n-ø#/, realized  [no:men].  
 + 
 +                                                   
 +In the masculine and feminine nouns, when the Nominative is /-s/ or //Ø//, it brings sometimes but not always a lengthening of the final vowel of lexeme, as in //pē-s// (m.) “foot”, //ped-is, ped-um, pariē-s// (m.) “wall”, //pariet-is, pariet-um////pūbēs// (m.) “grown-up person”, //pūber-is, pūber-um, ariē-s// (m.) “ram”, //ariet-is, ariet-um////arbōs// (f.), //arbor-is, arbor-um//, phonetic realizations of /arbos-is/, /arbos-um/. But there is no lengthening in //pede-s// (m.) “infantryman”, //pedit-is, pedit-um, lapi-s// (m.) “stone”, //lapid-is, lapid-um, come-s// (m. or f.) “companion”, //comit-is, comit-um////lepus// phonetic realization of /lepos-Ø/ (m.) “hare”, //lepor-is, lepor-um//, etc.  
 + 
 +  
 +**Morphological alternation in the lexical morphemes** of the third declension: 
 + 
 + 
 +We know that from the diachronic apophony, which is the closing of short unclosed vowels in open interior syllable, it results, in classical Latin, a morphological rule of alternation between a short closed vowel in open interior syllable and an unclosed vowel in a closed final syllable, which we can call “synchronic apophony” and note from the following way: 
 + 
 +  
 +    * /i  (or u) Cons + ~  e Cons + s #/ \\ or \\  e ← (i) or (u) /  ̶  Cons - s #  
 + 
 as in:  as in: 
-iūdex (= /iu:de←(i)ik-s#/, iūdic-is, iūdic-um (m.) “judge”, auceps (= /auke←(u)up-s#/), aucup-is, aucup-um (m.) “bird-catcher”, mīle-s, mīlit-is, mīlit-um (m.) “soldier”,  + 
-with moreover the phonological rule of neutralization of the opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents  + 
-rēmex (=/re:me←(i)ig-s#/), rēmig-is, rēmig-um (m.) “oarsman, rower”,  +//iūdex// (= /iu:de←(i)ik-s#/, //iūdic-is, iūdic-um// (m.) “judge”, //auceps// (= /auke←(u)up-s#/), //aucup-is, aucup-um// (m.) “bird-catcher”, //mīle-s, mīlit-is, mīlit-um// (m.) “soldier”, 
-and the variation of /t/ before /s/ and the simplification of group [ss] in word-final position  + 
-obses*** (= /obse←(i)id-s#/), obsid-is, obsid-um (m.) “hostage”. +  
-Some lexemes present specific alternations in word-final position, i.e. most of the time in nominative; so, /kapot-/ is an allomorph of capit- in caput (n.) “head” (= /kapot-ø/, phonetically realized [kaput] with the neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /t/), capit-is, capit-um; senek- of sen- in senex (m.) “old man”, sen-is, sen-um; femur of femin- in femur (n.) “thigh of human being”, femin-is, femin-um; iecur of iecinor- in iecur (n.) “liver”, iecinor-is, iecinor-um; and iter of itiner- in iter (n.) “line of travel”, itiner-is, itiner-um. But, since, besides the genitives feminis and iecinoris, there are genitives like femoris and iecoris, it is better if we see femur and iecur as phonetic realizations of /femor/ and /iekor/ because the same neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /r/ or /t/ as before the final apicodental /s/ of tempus, corpus, etc. Then, it becomes possible to say that 1) femur, femor-is, femor-um was a secondary regularization of the declension femur, femin-is, femin-um, which seemed strange, and femen, attested at least by Ampelius (30,2) in the second century AD, is another way to regulate; and 2) the nominative of iter and iecur can be described by the erasing of the segment /in/ from their signifier: iter corresponding to it(in)er, and iecur, phonetic realization of /iekor/, to iec(in)or. +with moreover the phonological rule of neutralization of the opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents 
-The morphological alternation between onus (n.) “burden” and oner-is, oner-um is actually an alternation between /onos/, the second /o/ of which is phonetically realized [u] before an apicodental s, and /onis-is/, the phoneme /s/ of which is phonetically realized [r] because the rhotacismus, and the phoneme /i/ is opened before the [r], because the neutralization of the opposition /i/ ~ /e/ before [r]. + 
-Grammars indicate some other irregular nouns of the third declension: +  
-The noun uīs, the ablative of which is uī and the accusative uim, has a plural “formed on analogy of mores”, i. e. as if uī-s was *uīs-Ø, *uīs-is and hence with the rhotacismus *uīr-is, and the plural uīr-ēs, -īum. +    * //rēmex// (=/re:me←(i)ig-s#/), //rēmig-is, rēmig-um// (m.) “oarsman, rower”, 
-carō, carn-is, carn-ium, with the Nominative /ō ← (n)/ instead /ō ← (in)/.  The Genitive Plural -ium is the only one known for carō, whereas the lexemes in /ō ← (in)/ have normally -um as Genitive Plural (cf. uirgō “maiden”, uirgin-is, uirgin-um; homō “man”, homin-is, homin-um; imāgō “image”, imāgin-is, imāgin-um; similitūdō “ressemblance”, similitūdin-is, similitūdin-um, etc.), which could justify the educational explanation by the difference between parasyllabic and unparasyllabic words! But the explanation is immediately invalidated by the unparasyllabic word nix (f.) “snow”, niu-is, niu-ium, which has two allomorphs: /niu/, and /nik/ before consonant. The genitive plural niu-ium, is, according to the database of “itinera electronica”, found 13 times by 7 writers in 12 books. +  
-The other words quoted among the irregular nouns of the third declension, like os (n.) “bone”, oss-is, oss-ium, sū-s (m. and f.) “swine”, su-is, su-um, grū-s , gru-is, gru-um, bō-s (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, bou-is, bo-um, Iuppiter (m.) “Jupiter”, (Iūpiter), Iouis, are all regular, if we know the rules of the Latin phonological system. The lexeme os shows the simplification of the group [ss] in word-final position. If we admit a signifier /su:/ for sū-s, su-is, su-um, only the usual Ablative Plural and Dative Plural -bus in sū-bus, which the grammars give as usual, is irregular. But su-ibus seems more classical: it is found in Var., L. L. 5,110, Cic., fin. 5,38 and Plin., nat. 8,213, whereas sū-bus is attested by Var., Men. 127, and Lucr. 5,90, and su-bus by Lucr. 6,974 and 977 (probably by analogy of su-is, su-ī, su-em, where the long phoneme /u:/ is phonologically abbreviated before a vowel). As for grū-s, gru-is, gru-um, it is totally regular, since its ablative plural is only gru-ibus.      +  
-As for the lexeme bō-s (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, bou-is, bo-um, it is regular, if we admit that the phonemes /ou/ are phonologically realized [o:] before a consonant, and [ow] before vowel; but before the vowel u, /bou-um/, which is phonetically realized [bowum], is spelled boum, with only one u (cf. Niedermann, 19533, p. 104-105).  +and the variation of /t/ before /s/ and the simplification of group [ss] in word-final position 
-Gender in the third declension + 
-Masculine are the nouns in -tor, like orātor (m.) “orator”, orātōr-is, orātor-um, imperātor (m.) “commanding officer, general”, imperātōr-is, imperātōr-um, mercātor (m.) “merchant”, mercātōr-is, mercātōr-um, etc.  +  
-Feminine are the nouns in -tio, and -tas realization of /ta:ts/, like natio (f.) “people”, natiōn-is, natiōn-um, rātio (f.) “reason”, rātiōn-is, rāortiōn-um; cīuitā-s (f.) “city”, cīuitāt-is, cīuitāt-um and cīuitāt-ium, aetā-s (f.) “period or time of life”, aetāt-is, aetāt-um and aetat-ium, etc.  +    //obses// (= /obse←(i)id-s#/), //obsid-is, obsid-um// (m.) “hostage”. 
-Neuter are the nouns in men, min-is like: nōmen (n.) “name”, flumen, fulmen, etc.; in        -ma, -matis, -al like pŏēma (n.) “poem”, pŏēmātis, pŏēmātum (gr. po…hma), animal (n.) “animal”, animāl-is, animāl-ium, tribūnal (n.) “court of law”, tribūnāl-is, tribūnāl-ium, etc. with the exception of sāl (m.) “salt”, sal-is, sal-um; in -ale, -ar, -are, -ur like rōbur (n.) “oak-tree”, rōbor-is, rōbor-um, fulgur (n.) “flash of lightning”, fulgur-is, fulgur-um, etc. but with the exception of turtur (m.) “turtle-dove”, turtur-is, turtur-um, and uultur (m.) “vulture”, uultur-is, uultur-um; in -us like corpus (n.) “body”, corpor-is, corpor-um, tempus (n.) “time”, tempor-is, tempor-um, pecus (n.) “flock”, pecor-is, pecor-um, etc. with the exceptions of lepus (m.) “hare”, lepor-is, lepor-um and pecus (f.) “pet”, pecud-is, pecud-um; also lac (n.) “milk”, lact-is, lact-um, and caput (n.) “head”, capit-is, capit-um.  + 
-d. Fourth and fifth declension + 
-These two declensions don’t concern many nouns, but any very much used and usual nouns. The fourth declension is defined by a Nominative in -us for the masculine or feminine nouns or in -ū for the neuters, and by a Genitive in -ūs, which is common to all the nouns. This Genitive thus distinguishes the words of the fourth declension from the ones of the second declension. +Some lexemes present specific alternations in word-final position, //i.e.// most of the time in nominative; so, /kapot-/ is an allomorph of //capit-// in //caput// (n.) “head” (= /kapot-ø/, phonetically realized [kaput] with the neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /t/), //capit-is, capit-um////senek-// of //sen-// in //senex// (m.) “old man”, //sen-is, sen-um////femur// of //femin-// in //femur// (n.) “thigh of human being”, //femin-is, femin-um////iecur// of //iecinor-// in //iecur// (n.) “liver”, //iecinor-is, iecinor-um//; and //iter// of //itiner-// in //iter// (n.) “line of travel”, //itiner-is, itiner-um//. But, since, besides the genitives //feminis// and //iecinoris//, there are genitives like //femoris// and //iecoris//, it is better if we see //femur// and //iecur// as phonetic realizations of /femor/ and /iekor/ because the same neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /r/ or /t/ as before the final apicodental /s/ of //tempus, corpus//, etc. Then, it becomes possible to say that 1) //femur, femor-is, femor-um// was a secondary regularization of the declension //femur, femin-is, femin-um//, which seemed strange, and //femen//, attested at least by Ampelius (30,2) in the second century AD, is another way to regulate; and 2) the nominative of //iter// and //iecur// can be described by the erasing of the segment /in/ from their signifier: //iter// corresponding to //it(in)er//, and //iecur//, phonetic realization of /iekor/, to //iec(in)or//
 +The morphological alternation between //onus// (n.) “burden” and //oner-is, oner-um// is actually an alternation between /onos/, the second /o/ of which is phonetically realized [u] before an apicodental //s//, and /onis-is/, the phoneme /s/ of which is phonetically realized [r] because the rhotacismus, and the phoneme /i/ is opened before the [r], because the neutralization of the opposition /i/ ~ /e/ before [r]. 
 + 
 + 
 +**Grammars indicate some other irregular nouns** of the third declension: 
 + 
 + 
 +The noun //uīs//, the ablative of which is //// and the accusative //uim//, has a plural “formed on analogy of mores”, //i. e.// as if //uī-s// was //*uīs-Ø////*uīs-is// and hence with the rhotacismus //*uīr-is//, and the plural //uīr-ēs, -īum//
 + 
 +//carō, carn-is, carn-ium//, with the Nominative /ō ← (n)/ instead /ō ← (in)/.  The Genitive Plural //-ium// is the only one known for //carō//, whereas the lexemes in /ō ← (in)/ have normally //-um// as Genitive Plural (cf. //uirgō// “maiden”, //uirgin-is, uirgin-um////homō// “man”, //homin-is, homin-um////imāgō// “image”, //imāgin-is, imāgin-um////similitūdō// “ressemblance”, //similitūdin-is, similitūdin-um//, etc.), which could justify the educational explanation by the difference between parasyllabic and unparasyllabic words! But the explanation is immediately invalidated by the unparasyllabic word //nix// (f.) “snow”, //niu-is, niu-ium//, which has two allomorphs: /niu/, and /nik/ before consonant. The genitive plural //niu-ium//, is, according to the database of “itinera electronica”, found 13 times by 7 writers in 12 books. 
 + 
 + 
 +The other words quoted among the irregular nouns of the third declension, like //os// (n.) “bone”, //oss-is, oss-ium////sū-s// (m. and f.) “swine”, //su-is, su-um////grū-s , gru-is, gru-um////bō-s// (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, //bou-is, bo-um////Iuppiter// (m.) “Jupiter”, (//Iūpiter//), //Iouis//, are all regular, if we know the rules of the Latin phonological system. The lexeme //os// shows the simplification of the group [ss] in word-final position. If we admit a signifier /su:/ for //sū-s, su-is, su-um//, only the usual Ablative Plural and Dative Plural //-bus// in //sū-bus//, which the grammars give as usual, is irregular. But //su-ibus// seems more classical: it is found in Var., //L. L.// 5,110, Cic., //fin.// 5,38 and Plin., //nat.// 8,213, whereas //sū-bus// is attested by Var., //Men.// 127, and Lucr. 5,90, and //su-bus// by Lucr. 6,974 and 977 (probably by analogy of //su-is////su-ī////su-em//, where the long phoneme /u:/ is phonologically abbreviated before a vowel). As for //grū-s, gru-is, gru-um//, it is totally regular, since its ablative plural is only //gru-ibus//. As for the lexeme //bō-s// (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, //bou-is, bo-um//, it is regular, if we admit that the phonemes /ou/ are phonologically realized [o:] before a consonant, and [ow] before vowel; but before the vowel //u//, /bou-um/, which is phonetically realized [bowum], is spelled //boum//, with only one //u// (cf. Niedermann, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, //Neutralisation consonantique en latin//, 2005, 146-147., p. 104-105)).  
 + 
 + 
 +**Gender in the third declension** 
 + 
 + 
 +Masculine are the nouns in //-tor//, like //orātor// (m.) “orator”, //orātōr-is, orātor-um////imperātor// (m.) “commanding officer, general”, //imperātōr-is, imperātōr-um////mercātor// (m.) “merchant”, //mercātōr-is, mercātōr-um//, etc. 
 + 
 +  
 +Feminine are the nouns in //-tio//, and //-tas// realization of /ta:ts/, like //natio// (f.) “people”, //natiōn-is, natiōn-um////rātio// (f.) “reason”, //rātiōn-is, rāortiōn-um////cīuitā-s// (f.) “city”, //cīuitāt-is, cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium////aetā-s// (f.) “period or time of life”, //aetāt-is, aetāt-um// and //aetat-ium//, etc. 
 + 
 +  
 +Neuter are the nouns in //men, min-is// like: //nōmen// (n.) “name”, //flumen, fulmen//, etc.; in        //-ma, -matis, -al// like //pŏēma// (n.) “poem”, //pŏēmātis, pŏēmātum// (gr. //Πoíημα//), //animal// (n.) “animal”, //animāl-is, animāl-ium////tribūnal// (n.) “court of law”, //tribūnāl-is, tribūnāl-ium//, etc. with the exception of //sāl// (m.) “salt”, //sal-is, sal-um//; in //-ale, -ar, -are, -ur// like //rōbur// (n.) “oak-tree”, //rōbor-is, rōbor-um////fulgur// (n.) “flash of lightning”, //fulgur-is, fulgur-um//, etc. but with the exception of //turtur// (m.) “turtle-dove”, //turtur-is, turtur-um//, and //uultur// (m.) “vulture”, //uultur-is, uultur-um//; in //-us// like //corpus// (n.) “body”, //corpor-is, corpor-um////tempus// (n.) “time”, //tempor-is, tempor-um////pecus// (n.) “flock”, //pecor-is, pecor-um//, etc. with the exceptions of //lepus// (m.) “hare”, //lepor-is, lepor-um// and //pecus// (f.) “pet”, //pecud-is, pecud-um//; also //lac// (n.) “milk”, //lact-is, lact-um//, and //caput// (n.) “head”, //capit-is, capit-um//
 + 
 +  
 +   *** 3.4. Fourth and fifth declension** 
 + 
 + 
 +These two declensions don’t concern many nouns, but any very much used and usual nouns. The fourth declension is defined by a Nominative in //-us// for the masculine or feminine nouns or in //// for the neuters, and by a Genitive in //-ūs//, which is common to all the nouns. This Genitive thus distinguishes the words of the fourth declension from the ones of the second declension.  
 + 
 The following table shows the different morphological segments of the fourth declension: The following table shows the different morphological segments of the fourth declension:
- + PLURAL + PLURAL 
-NOM. exercit-us exercit-ūs corn-ū corn-ua 
-VOC. exercit-us exercit-ūs corn-ū corn-ua 
-GEN. exercit-ūs exercit-uum corn-ūs corn-uum 
-DAT. exercit-uī (ū) exercit-ibus corn-ū corn-ibus 
-ABL. exercit-ū exercit-ibus corn-ū corn-ibus 
-ACC. exercit-um exercit-ūs corn-ū corn-ua 
  
-Some lexemes show allomorphs of case-endings; lacus, -ūs (m.) “lake”, arc-us, -ūs (m.) “bow”, and quercus, -ūs (f.) “oak-tree” have -ubus as segments of Ablative Plural and Dative Plural. The lexeme domus, -ūs (f.) “house” hesitates between the fourth declension and the second declension. It has all the casus-forms of the fourth declension, but some of the second declension are preferred and more usual: it is the Genitive and Ablative: dom-ī and dom-ō (including the Genitive traditionally called the locative: dom-ī), and the Accusative Plural and Genitive Plural: dom-ōs and dom-ōrum. + 
-Most nouns of the fourth declension are masculine, like: exercitus, -ūs (m.) “army”, senātus, -ūs (m.) “senate”, fluctus, -ūs “billow”, magistrātus, -ūs “magistrate”, artus, -ūs “joint”, etc. but a few nouns are feminine, like: mān-us, -ūs (f.) “hand”, tribus, -ūs (f.) “tribe”, portic-us, -ūs (f.) “portico”, querc-us, -ūs (f.) “oak-tree”, and the plural tantum: id-ūs, -uum (f.) “the 15th (or 13th) day of the month”.  +^ ^ ^ + PLURAL ^  ^ + PLURAL |  
-There are only four neuters: corn-ū, -ūs (n.) “horn”, genū, -ūs (n.) “knee”, uer-ū, -ūs (n.) “spit”, and pec-ū, -ūs “farm animals”, which moreover varies between the fourth and third declension (cf. pecus, pecor-is, pecor-um (n.) “flock”). +^NOM. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua| 
-The fifth declension concerns even fewer nouns than the fourth; they are all feminine (rē-s, -ī (f.) “thing”, spēs, -ī (f.) “hope”, speciēs, ī (f.) “visual appearance”, fidē-s, -ī (f.) “trust”), except merīdiē-s, -ī (m.) “midday, noon” and diē-s, -ī (m.) “day”, which, however, sometimes is feminine, especially in phrases indicating a fixed time and when it means  time in general, like constitūtā diē “on a set day” or longa diēs “a long time”.  +^VOC. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua| 
-Several nouns vary between the fifth and the first declension: like māteriē-s, -ī (f.) and māteri-a, -ae “material”, saeuitiē-s, -ī (f.) and saeuiti-a -ae “savageness”. The genitive and dative in e-ī of these words are rarely found.   +^GEN. |exercit-ūs | exercit-uum | corn-ūs |corn-uum| 
-Other words vary between the fifth and the third declension: like requiē-s, requiēt-is “rest” with acc. requi-em, and ablative requi-ē, plēbē-s, ¬ī (f.) and pleb-s, b-is “common people” with genitive plēbī in tribūn-us plēb-ī and dative plēbe-i, famēs “hunger” with genitive fam-is and ablative fam-ē.                                                              +^DAT. |exercit-uī (ū) | exercit-ibus | corn-ū | corn-ibus| 
 +^ABL. |exercit-ū | exercit-ibus |corn-ū | corn-ibus| 
 +^ACC. |exercit-um | exercit-ūs| corn-ū| corn-ua| 
 + 
 + 
 +Some lexemes show allomorphs of case-endings; //lacus, -ūs// (m.) “lake”, //arc-us, -ūs// (m.) “bow”, and //quercus, -ūs// (f.) “oak-tree” have //-ubus// as segments of Ablative Plural and Dative Plural. The lexeme //domus, -ūs// (f.) “house” hesitates between the fourth declension and the second declension. It has all the casus-forms of the fourth declension, but some of the second declension are preferred and more usual: it is the Genitive and Ablative: //dom-ī// and //dom-ō// (including the Genitive traditionally called the locative: //dom-ī//), and the Accusative Plural and Genitive Plural: //dom-ōs// and //dom-ōrum//. 
 + 
 + 
 +Most nouns of the fourth declension are masculine, like: //exercitus, -ūs// (m.) “army”, //senātus, -ūs// (m.) “senate”, //fluctus, -ūs// “billow”, //magistrātus, -ūs// “magistrate”, //artus, -ūs// “joint”, etc. but a few nouns are feminine, like: //mān-us, -ūs// (f.) “hand”, //tribus, -ūs// (f.) “tribe”, //portic-us, -ūs// (f.) “portico”, //querc-us, -ūs// (f.) “oak-tree”, and the plural tantum: //id-ūs, -uum// (f.) “the 15th (or 13th) day of the month”.  
 +There are only four neuters: //corn-ū, -ūs// (n.) “horn”, //genū, -ūs// (n.) “knee”, //uer-ū, -ūs// (n.) “spit”, and //pec-ū, -ūs// “farm animals”, which moreover varies between the fourth and third declension (cf. //pecus, pecor-is, pecor-um// (n.) “flock”). 
 + 
 + 
 +The fifth declension concerns even fewer nouns than the fourth; they are all feminine (//rē-s, -ī// (f.) “thing”, //spēs, -ī// (f.) “hope”, //speciēs, ī// (f.) “visual appearance”, //fidē-s, -ī// (f.) “trust”), except //merīdiē-s, -ī// (m.) “midday, noon” and //diē-s, -ī// (m.) “day”, which, however, sometimes is feminine, especially in phrases indicating a fixed time and when it means  time in general, like //constitūtā diē// “on a set day” or //longa diēs// “a long time”. 
 + 
 +  
 +Several nouns vary between the fifth and the first declension: like //māteriē-s, -ī// (f.) and //māteri-a, -ae// “material”, //saeuitiē-s, -ī// (f.) and //saeuiti-a -ae// “savageness”. The genitive and dative in //e-ī// of these words are rarely found.  
 + 
 +  
 +Other words vary between the fifth and the third declension: like //requiē-s, requiēt-is// “rest” with acc. //requi-em//, and ablative //requi-ē////plēbē-s, ī// (f.) and //pleb-s, b-is// “common people” with genitive //plēbī// in //tribūn-us plēb-ī// and dative //plēbe-i////famēs// “hunger” with genitive //fam-is// and ablative //fam-ē//. 
 + 
 +                                                              
 Morphological segments of the fifth declension are shown in the following table for the two nouns which alone are declined throughout: Morphological segments of the fifth declension are shown in the following table for the two nouns which alone are declined throughout:
- + Pl. + Pl. 
-NOM. rē-s rē-s diē-s diē-s 
-GEN. re-ī rē-s die-ī diē-s 
-DAT. re-ī rē-rum die-ī diē-rum 
-ABL. rē-Ø rē-bus diē-Ø diē-bus 
-ACC. re-m rē-bus die-m diē-bus 
  
  
 +^ ^ ^+ Pl. ^  ^+ Pl.|
 +^NOM.| rē-s | rē-s | diē-s | diē-s|
 +^GEN. | re-ī | rē-s | die-ī | diē-s|
 +^DAT.| re-ī | rē-rum | die-ī | diē-rum|
 +^ABL. | rē-Ø | rē-bus| diē-Ø | diē-bus|
 +^ACC. | re-m | rē-bus | die-m | diē-bus|
  
  
Ligne 378: Ligne 450:
  
  
-The genitive was, in the archaic period, in -s, like diēs (in Ennius, ann. 413), but also at the classical time, according to Gellius (IX, 14), who cites Cicero (Sest., 28: poenas illius diesand even Vergil (georg. 1,208: dies somnique horas). Thus he concludes that “the Ancients declined ‘haec facies, huius facies’, which is now said faciei because of the grammatical analogy” (IX14,2).  But “early, as in the first declension, the segment ī replaced the -s, which gave diēī and faciēī” (according to Ernout, 19533, p. 69) (cf. Vergil Aen., 9,156: nunc adeo, melior quoniām pārs/āctă dĭ/ēī), and Plautus (Mil. 103: māgnā/ĭ rē/ī pūb/lĭcā/ī grā/tĭā). Then, the vowel ē becomes short before another vowel, and “ei is become ī in the first half of the 2nd century BC, after it has been through an ệ” (according to Niedermann, 19533, p. 58). Gellius note that this evolution is attested by Vergil (Aen. 1,636: munera laetitiamque dii “the gifts and the delight of the day”). And he adds that “some not very well informed persons read dei, because they refuse this unusual form” (IX, 14,8). He concludes thus that “the Ancients declined also dies dii, like fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxurii, acies acii” (IX, 14,9), which he proves by giving a long list of examples, one of which in Cicero (Sext. Rosc. 131: pernicii causa “in order to destroy”). The three forms of the Genitive segment, which actually appeared at different times, coexist in classical Latin, since they are found both in Cicero and in Vergil. But Gellius points out that “C. Caesar, in  the second book De analogia, thinks that huius die and huius specie must be said” (IX, 14,25), and says that he found the genitive die in an excellent manuscript of Sallustus’ Jugurtha (Sall., Iug. 97: uix decima parte die relicua “while only the tenth part of the day still remained”). There were therefore four forms of Genitive, at least for the word diē-s: an archaic form diē-s, the usual form diē-ī or die-ī, and some perhaps progressive forms diī and die.           + 
-The Dative of the fifth declension, which is in -ei or -ē, is rare, because in prose and spoken language, the usual dative (and genitive) of the type māteriē-s was materi-ae. And according to Gellius, “in the dative, the purists didn’t say faciei¸ but facie” (IX, 14,21). Unlike the genitive, the final -ei seems always monosyllabic in the ancient poets  except Lucrecius, who alone uses a dissyllabic dative rēī like the genitive (cf. Lucr. 1,688 and 2,236).      + 
-The Nominative Plural is very rare, except for diē-s and rē-s; there are only some examples of faciē-s, spēciē-s and spē-s, among which, beside the expected nominative plural spē-s (Plaut., Rud. 1145), we find the nominative spēr-ēs , which was treated as if it was from the third declension, and was thus analyzed like /spēs-ēs/, which became, because of the rhotacismus, spērēs. +The genitive was, in the archaic period, in //-s//, like //diēs// (in Ennius, //ann.// 413), but also at the classical time, according to Gellius (IX, 14), who cites Cicero 
-In genitive plural and dative-ablative plural, we found actually only diē-rum rē-rum and diē-bus rē-bus. Priscianus quotes a genitive faciē-rum (Gr. lat. II, 368 K) which was said to have been used by Cato, but Cicero says that if specierum and speciebus could exist in Latin, he himself could not use them, because they have no declension (Top. 2,30); and Quintilianus did not know “what spes will do in plural” (1,6,26).+ 
 +    *  Cicero, //Sest.//, 28: //poenas illius dies// 
 + 
 +and even Vergil 
 + 
 +    *  Vergil, //georg.// 1,208: //dies somnique horas//. 
 + 
 + 
 +Thus he concludes that "the Ancients declined"... 
 + 
 + 
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,2 : //Sic enim pleraque aetas veterum declinavit:  //haec facies, huius facies//,quod nunc propter rationem grammaticam "faciei" dicitur.// \\ ... which is now said //faciei// because of the grammatical analogy”.  
 +  
 +  But according to Ernout, 
 +   
 + 
 +    * Ernout, 1953((Cf. Touratier//Système des consonnes//2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p69 : //early, as in the first declension, the segment //ī// replaced the //-s//, which gave //"diēī"// and //"faciēī"// 
 +  
 +  
 +(cf. Vergil //Aen.//, 9,156: //nunc adeo, melior quoniām pārs/āctă dĭ/ēī//, and Plautus //Mil.// 103: //māgnā/ĭ rē/ī pūb/lĭcā/ī grā/tĭā//). Then, the vowel //ē// becomes short before another vowel, and according to Niedermann,  
 + 
 +    * Niedermann 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p. 58 : //"//ei//" is become "//ī//" in the first half of the 2nd century BC, after it has been through an "//ệ//” 
 +  
 + Gellius note that this evolution is attested by Vergil  
 + 
 +    * Vergil //Aen.// 1,636: //munera laetitiamque dii//  \\  “the gifts and the delight of the day”.   
 + 
 + 
 +And he adds that 
 + 
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,8 : quod inperitiores "dei" legunt ab insolentia scilicet vocis istius abhorrentes.   “some not very well informed persons read dei, because they refuse this unusual form” .  
 +  
 + 
 + He concludes thus that  
 + 
 + 
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,9 : //Sic autem "dies, dii" a veteribus declinatum est, ut "fames, fami", "pernicies, pernicii", "progenies, progenii", "luxuries, luxurii", "acies? acii// \\ “the Ancients declined also dies dii, like fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxurii, acies acii” ,  
 +  
 +  
 +which he proves by giving a long list of examples, one of which in Cicero 
 + 
 +    *  Cicero, //Sext. Rosc.// 131: //pernicii causa// \\ “in order to destroy”.  
 +  
 +The three forms of the Genitive segment, which actually appeared at different times, coexist in classical Latin, since they are found both in Cicero and in Vergil. But Gellius points out that 
 + 
 + 
 +    *  Gellius, IX, 14,25 :  //Sed C. Caesar in libro de analogia secundo "huius die" et "huius specie" dicendum putat.// \\ “C. Caesar, in  the second book De analogia, thinks that huius die and huius specie must be said” , 
 +      
 +  
 +and says that he found the genitive //die// in an excellent manuscript of Sallustus’  
 + 
 + 
 +    * Sallustus //Iug.// 97: //uix decima parte die relicua// \\  “while only the tenth part of the day still remained”.  
 +  
 +  
 +There were therefore four forms of Genitive, at least for the word //diē-s//: an archaic form //diē-s//, the usual form //diē-ī// or //die-ī//, and some perhaps progressive forms //diī// and //die//. 
 + 
 +           
 +The Dative of the fifth declension, which is in //-ei// or ////, is rare, because in prose and spoken language, the usual dative (and genitive) of the type //māteriē-s// was //materi-ae//. And according to Gellius,  
 + 
 + 
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,21 : //qui purissime locuti sunt, non "faciei", uti nunc dicitur, sed "facie" dixerunt.//  \\ “in the dative, the purists didn’t say faciei¸ but facie” .  
 +  
 +  
 +Unlike the genitive, the final //-ei// seems always monosyllabic in the ancient poets((Cf. Plaut., //Amph.// 276: //die//; 674: //re// elided; //Merc.// 300: //rei// monsyllabic; //Trin.// 757: //rei// monosyllabic; //Pers.// 193: //fide// elided; //Poen.// 890; //Trin.// 117 and 142.))   except Lucrecius, who alone uses a dissyllabic dative //rēī// like the genitive (cf. Lucr. 1,688 and 2,236). 
 + 
 +      
 +The Nominative Plural is very rare, except for //diē-s// and //rē-s//; there are only some examples of //faciē-s, spēciē-s// and //spē-s//, among which, beside the expected nominative plural //spē-s// (Plaut., Rud. 1145), we find the nominative //spēr-ēs//((Cf. Ennius, //ann.// 128 and 429.)) , which was treated as if it was from the third declension, and was thus analyzed like /spēs-ēs/, which became, because of the rhotacismus, //spērēs//. 
 + 
 + 
 +In genitive plural and dative-ablative plural, we found actually only //diē-rum rē-rum// and //diē-bus rē-bus//. Priscianus quotes a genitive //faciē-rum// (//Gr. lat.// II, 368 K) which was said to have been used by Cato, but Cicero says that if specierum and speciebus could exist in Latin, he himself could not use them, because they have no declension (//Top.// 2,30); and Quintilianus did not know “what spes will do in plural” (1,6,26). 
 + 
 + 
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +  
 + 
 +\\ 
 +[[:encyclopédie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:morphologie:The morphology_of_classical Latin|Retour au plan]] ou  
 +[[:dictionnaire: The morphology of classical latin4|Aller au § 4.]]