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 22:39]
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 380: Ligne 384:
 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//. 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//.
  
-LA MISE EN PAGE DE LA SUITE DU TEXTE N'A PAS ETE ENCORE REPRISE +//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. 
-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).  +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.  +**Gender in the third declension** 
-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.+ 
 + 
 +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.
  
    
-d. Fourth and fifth declension +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. 
-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. + 
 +  
 +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 421: 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.]]