Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance

This list mainly cites outcomes in Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, and Sardinian (in that order). If one of these languages lacks the form in question, another nearby language may be cited in its place.

The following categories of word have been excluded:

Symbols used:
 * Personal pronouns
 * Old French nominatives
 * Italian or Romanian masculine plurals with /-i/


 * † 'archaic or obsolete'
 * ⁑ 'lacks an entry on Wiktionary'

Adjectives

 * > Spanish †

Pronouns

 * (+) >   Spanish †
 * (+) >   Spanish †
 * (+) >   Spanish †
 * (+) >   Spanish †
 * (+) >   Spanish †

Debated survivals
Some scholars have dismissed outcomes like >  on the grounds that they were remodelled, noting that the nominative /-s/ was lost along the way. Nevertheless they are left to assume a development (Late Latin [sɛ́rpes] > *[sɛ́rpe] > Spanish [sjéɾpe]) that begins with a Latin nominative. That is, the fact remains that derives from  (with an extra step) and not from the accusative. In the list that follows, cases where this is the main objection will be labelled as trivial.

Nouns ending in /as/
Trivial cases.

Abstracts in

 * > † French †⁑

Nouns ending in /oː/
Challenged on the grounds that yielded an augmentative suffix in Romance. The reasoning goes that the, for instance, could derive not from the Latin nominative but instead from the accusative  via an unattested Spanish , taken to be a form augmented with  and then 'de-augmented' as.

Animates

 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >  ⁑
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >  ⁑
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >
 * but also >

Inanimates

 * but also > †
 * but also >
 * but also > †
 * but also >
 * but also >