Appendix talk:Latin third declension

greek-based declension
I've added a few greek-based declension patterns to this and the first declension page. Could someone please check them for correctness, and possibly add more? --Vladisdead 15:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

A few sources: Excluding proper nouns, there seem to be around 4-5 types of declensions of greek nouns as part of Latin's 3rd declension: There are 3 declension variants: 1. more like Greek declension; 2. influenced by Latin's second declension and 3. changed to masculine words like Latin's second declension (e.g. cētus, -i, m. from cētos, -us, n. = (τό) κῆτος). Examples: --03:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) & 21:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC) &c.
 * Grammar books:
 * [archive.org/stream/allengreenoughsn00alleiala#page/34/mode/2up Allen and Greenough: New Latin grammar for schools and colleges, p.35f.]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=zesIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA10 Lewis Marcus: A Latin grammar, p.10f.]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=yu9YAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA104 Ausführliche lateinische Grammatik für die oberen Klassen gelehrter Schulen]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=ObFEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA11 Johann Baptist Weyh: Ausführliche Zusammenstellung der Deklinations-Abweichungen ...] & [books.google.de/books?id=XZlEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA19 Ausführliche Zusammenstellung ...] -- vowel lengths are missing
 * [books.google.de/books?id=bEfqFw2R8L8C&pg=PA34 John William Donaldson: A Complete Latin Grammar for the Use of Students]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=iSwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA128 Latium restitutum, seu Latina lingua in veterem restituta splendorem]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=reRfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA112]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=e0E_Jp7gxOwC&pg=PA51]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=s95FAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA70]&[books.google.de/books?id=TCpeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA70] = E. J. A. Seyferts auf Geschichte und Kritik gegründete lateinische Sprachlehre (3. Theil, 2. Cursus; 1800)
 * Dictionaries:
 * [www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059 Lewis & Short: A Latin Dictionary]
 * [www.zeno.org/Georges-1913 Karl Ernst Georges (1806–1895): Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch]
 * [de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/latein-deutsch pons]
 * [books.google.de/books?id=SJRQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA529] (see melos)
 * 1. in -ō, like ēchō, -ūs, f.:
 * Gen. sg. -ûs, all other singular cases -ô. Plural isn't mentioned in the sources above, thus should be regular (e.g. êchês in nom.pl.)
 * echo is said to be in 3rd declension - not in 4 as it's here at Wiktionary.
 * Georges mentions acc. sg as -ōn for êchô.
 * Like Dîdô it might also be -onis, -onî, -onem, -one (gen., dat., acc., abl. sg.).
 * Maybe some of these words were addopted like Latin words in -o, -onis, f.
 * 2. chaos, epos, melos - n.:
 * It's commonly said that some cases are missing or were missing in antique times.
 * 3. chelys (f.):
 * It is similar to the variant that is similar to i-stem declension (see below), but often without i, e.g.: acc.sg. as -n instead of -in added to chely-, or acc.sg. as -yn instead of -in added to chel-.
 * Instead of e.g. -ibus in dat.&abl. pl. it might also be chelybus (Lewis Marcus).
 * Somewhere forms like chelin instead of chelyn were mentioned.
 * 4. Like i-declension:
 * Vowel lengths: Gen. sg.: In older English works (A&G, L&S) it is -eōs instead of -eos. Allen & Greenough and Lewis & Short have -eōs; Lewis Marcus, Georges, Pons have -eos. As Georges and Pons are newer than A&G and L&S, it seems more reliable (cf. stēlla in contrary to stella).
 * Examples: haeresis, basis (acc. pl. also -e͡is and accourding to Lewis Marcus with other irregular forms), tigris (gen. sg. -is), poēsis (poësis)
 * 5. Like consonantic declension:
 * ‡¹ (especially) by words with gen. sg. in dis it is also dos
 * ‡² a) Accourding to Lewis Marcus some words have the ending is resp. -isi and -ibus, e.g. heroisi from heros. b) Weyh writes that dat. pl. can be -si and -sin (example: ethesi), and Georges and Lewis & Short have abl. pl. ethesin of ēthos. "herosi" can be found, it's e.g. in [books.google.de/books?id=sGMTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA265 Prisciani Caesariensis Grammatici Opera] ("non herosi [...] herosi"). c) ἥρως is like herosi[n] in dat. pl. Thus -si[n] in dat. and abl. pl. makes sense, but heroisi seems wrong. -- Maybe pure Greek declensions (in singular and plural) + (old) transcription into Latin should be added, so one can see what might be possible. (?)
 * ‡³ (at least )some words have -es and -ēs/-as
 * Words of neuter gender have forms of the 3rd and of the 2nd declension in plural. Well, poēma/poëma has those forms, but that could also be an exception.
 * hērōs, adamās (also adamāns), lebēs (Greek-like acc. pl. with -es and -as)
 * lampas (Greek-like acc. pl. with -es and -as), tigris (-idis; having the forms of tigris, -is in gen. sg. and nom., gen., dat. and abl. pl.), delphīn (also delphīs)
 * pēlamys, chlamys
 * crāter, āēr
 * poēma (poëma), n.

i-stem declension
As the word turris, -is f (a tower) has two variants of declension (acc. sing. turrim and turrem; abl. sing. turrī and turre), it doesn't seem to be a very good example of the declension for i-stem nouns. There is nothing wrong with using a more "regular" word of this type, like vulpes or nox... Obakeneko 02:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Um... vulpes and nox are the irregular words—if you're looking for examples of the i-stems.  Turris is a pure third-declension i-stem—in which those variants you mention appear to be rather common—while nox is mixed third-declension i-stem, showing forms of both i-stem and consonant stem, or, put another way, are "imparisyllaba with parisyllaba endings.".

Pons is using turris, turris, f. and has: Usually, I'd doubt that a dictionary would use an irregular or bad example for anything (except as an counter-example for something). -IP, 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Singular: acc. im, abl. -ī
 * Plural: acc. -īs (-ēs)

case ordering
The order of declensions given on this page is different than on Wikipedia's Latin Declensions page. As this page is cited at the top of that page as a source of "simple paradigms", it might be easier for students to have them in the same order. Is there a particular reason for the order given here? 193.55.52.3 23:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Common case ordering:


 * nominative (nom.), genitive (gen.), dative (dat.), accusative (acc.), ablative (abl.) and vocative (voc.)
 * OR

Of course nom., voc., acc. are kind of similar and so are dat. and abl., but the wp ordering should be made up = theory establishement, original research. (Though maybe US-American books might do order the cases in this unusual way, but US-Americans are known for being less intelligent.)
 * nominative (nom.), genitive (gen.), dative (dat.), accusative (acc.), vocative (voc.) and ablative (abl.) (maybe especially in older books).
 * -IP, 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Usually, Brits use the ordering Nom+Voc,Acc,Gen,Dat,Abl, while Americans use the ordering Nom,Gen,Dat,Acc,Abl,Voc. It would be advicable for wiktionary to simply provide a button allowing the reader to switch the case ordering between the two (or between the three, if we include Nom,Gen,Dat,Acc,Voc,Abl as an option).

Masculine Dative Singular
Shouldn't the ending on the third declension masculine dative singular form of homo be a long i and not a short i?


 * Hmm....that would be my impression as well, unless it's irregular or something. I'll run this past EncycloPetey, our resident Latin guru.  Expect a correction within a day or two.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The page was using a subst'ed old template; I have substituted the (corrected) current template. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stems
Maybe it's a good idea to clarify what is meant by "consonant stems" and "i-stems". Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do something about it. Feel free to revert. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Original site text was ok the way it was
What was written before was correct from a spoken language perspective rather than grammatical language use.

Which portion of the definition are you listing that is incorrect? The original post was well-described great.

Definitely interested in learning which word, in particular, may have been translated incorrectly. The original post was on point. 2600:6C56:4C00:CF0:1151:B87A:B864:FFA1 05:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: lūmināre n (genitive lūmināris) The link sent me here under this definition: didn't realize it was connected to another whole page. Guess the links need to be redirected for this page on

lūmināre n (genitive lūmināris)

Thanks ☺️ TRUTHEOLOGIAN (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

suggestion
for highly technical pages such as this, perhaps we should add a "use" section that explains when this would be used? This could be useful for those who want to know what classifies as one, similar to the "noun" and "verb" categories. Allaoii (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)