Template talk:la-decl-2nd

Organization
Out of curiosity, why was the vocative added between the accusative and ablative? Medellia 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As opposed to where? —Stephen 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always understood it to be accusative - ablative - vocative, with the vocative being last of all cases (except, perhaps for locative if/when it's included on a declension chart - but I must say that I can't recall an instance of the locative being present). Medellia 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I consulted Latin grammar references I have with me: vocative last (3) ablative last (2) omission of vocative (1), which is fairly inconclusive. Medellia 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen tables that included only nom-gen-dat-acc (in various orders, but usually that one) Sometimes I've seen the vocative added following the acc OR seen the ablative added following the acc, but offhand I'm not sure I've seen BOTH included anytime that I can recall.  In any case, I think the original sets of templates were copied from the Latin Wiktionary, so it may be an artifact of how they chose to do things (which may follow the model used in textbooks witten in some language besides English).  But this is all speculative. --EncycloPetey 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia presents them in nom-voc-acc-gen-dat-abl order, to further complicate things. Medellia 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia shows several different orders in various places. The order that I have placed our template is the traditional order I learned fifty years ago. It’s the same order as we learned for Greek, but with ablative added at the end. —Stephen 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dug out my old textbook, "A Latin Grammar" by Charles E. Bennett, Goldwin Smith Professor of Latin in Cornell University, copyright 1908. It uses the same order that I put in the templates. —Stephen 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had likewise consulted Bennett; my concern is that my more modern textbooks have taken up the acc-abl-voc order. Perhaps this might be something to bring up at Wiktionary_talk:About_Latin? Medellia 05:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen that too. I forget which one, but one of the major currently available introductions to Latin uses that format. --EncycloPetey 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vocative Singular???
In a Latin 2nd declension noun, shouldn't nouns ending in -ius (in the nominative) become -i in the vocative singular? I tried to fix this but didn't get anywhere...

-A Latin student
 * Yes. There is a separate template for that:, although looking at it, I'm not sure that template is completely correct. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this currently stand? Should the -ius template be used in its present form? Note that there are also no links to the noun forms. Caladon 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The template should be used as-is, for now. All the LAtin declension templates are due for an overhaul, and that's something I've set aside time this summer to do. --EncycloPetey 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)