Talk:iugerum

Incorrect plural forms in the Latin declension
Not sure if the plural is correct. I think it follows the third declension in the plural.


 * Right you are; good catch. The word's declension is treated in detail by:
 * , “Iugeribus, nicht jugere.” in Rheiniſches Muſeum für Philologie, new series, volume III (1845), : Publishing house of Johann David Sauerländer, eds. and, pages 609– 612
 * Unfortunately, that's in German, so it'll take me a while to eke out the details (I can't speak the language). Once I've done that, however, I'll rejig the declension table accordingly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the book this is said:
 * In modern grammar books the declension of iugerum is poorly mentioned. (Just my humble opionion: Stupid modern grammar books which too often are incomplete or wrong...)
 * huius iugeris was finally removed, but ab hoc iugere is still said to be poetic or also common. But "we" don't know anything about this form, except that according to Plinius bad grammarians made it up. As it seems that the form iugere was not used by Romans, but invented by bad grammarians or with other words language inventors, the dated form his iugeris should rather not be mentioned in school grammar books.
 * In some dictionaries there are the forms hoc iuger and hoc iugus, which were invented by grammarians because of the dative iugeribus.
 * -eXplodit (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the précis. I'd kinda forgotten about this. I've created a custom template for this word and applied it to and ; does that look alright to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we add something like "Usage notes: Varro once has iugeris"? (IMHO it's not a reason to use this form, but it's still nice to know.) -eXplodit (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Could we source that quotation first, please? Right now, it's unclear whether Varro used as a dative plural or as an ablative plural, and if he only used it once, he surely can't have used it as both… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Also: He could have used both forms at the one place - but I doubt that, too.) That should refer to "De re rustica" or "Rerum rusticarum" or in English "On Farming".
 * Well, the declension implies that it would be both as dative and ablative plural is the same in the 2nd and the 3rd declension. But ok, it's more precise to mention which form Varro used, and then to mention that this does imply the other form, like "Varro once used the dative [or: ablative] plural iugeris - which does also imply ablative [or: dative] plural iugeris".
 * Irregular forms mentioned in Georges' dictionary:
 * dative & ablative plural iugeris - Varro r. r. 1, 10
 * syncopic plural iugra - Corp. inscr. Lat. 1, 200, 14 u. 25.
 * nominative singular iūgerus - Gromat. vet. p. 246, 2; 339, 18; 354, 2 u. 10.
 * nominative singular iūger - Pompeii comm. (V) 193, 3.
 * PS: This book mentions gen.sg. jugeris, abl.sg. jugere, gen.pl. jugerorum & jugerûm [that is a contraction of a second declension genitive with signum contractions and is different from third declension jugerum], dat.&abl. pl. jugeris. This and the book above might imply that those "bad" forms were used in New Latin. If they were used, then they should be mentioned too, maybe with something like "New Latin declension" above the table.
 * -eXplodit (talk) 00:17 & PS 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tracked down Varro's use and quoted it at Citations:iugerum; by my interpretation, that is an ablative plural. I want to verify the existence of those other forms before I add them to the table. I think "Corp. inscr. Lat." refers to the , which I've never figured out how to cite. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one could add dative iugeris and change "¹Once only, in:" into something like "¹ Ablative - which also implies the dative - once only, in:".
 * I'm ok with first tracking down those forms. And IMHO it would even be okay - or maybe even preferable - to mention those old forms in "another way".
 * In modern times a single usage would often just be considered an error. So in the same way one could label Varro's iugeris an error.
 * Regarding the template: There could be more second–third-declension hybrid neuter words - but without an additional dative/ablative in -is. So it might be easier to mention uncommon exeptions below the template (like at Adverb) - or one would need many more templates which would just be used for a few words.
 * IMHO in the template the information is missing that Varro's ablative iugeris implies the dative iugeris.
 * -eXplodit (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Any Classical use is traditionally deemed authoritative vis-à-vis the Latin idiom; I am very hesitant to declare a Classical author's use an error without very good reason. Re other second–third-declension hybrids, please name them, otherwise we'd be complicating matters unnecessarily based on unempirical speculation. It is true that in almost every given declension the dative plural and ablative plural forms are identical; however, that is, strictly speaking, a theoretical extrapolation, and one that we are not warranted to apply in the case of an irregular noun like . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it an error too, but I could understand it, if others (prescriptivist) would call it that way.
 * I can't name one, so ok. (vas is also a hybrid, but third-second declension. Older grammar books mention "heterogenea" and "heteroclita", but heteroclita might rather be a hyperonym for hybrid words.)
 * And when we use some hypothetical wording? Like "Once only, in: [source]. NB. Usually this would imply dative plural iugeris." ["usually this would" is something different than "this does".]
 * -eXplodit (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * -eXplodit (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)