Sunday, April 21, 2024

30.03.24: the third declension [2]

I won’t pull any punches; this takes a long time and, at times, involves “pure” learning of new vocabulary as you go along, but, as I’ll go on to show, there are some ways of making the learning easier.

[1] Third declension nouns have a variety of nominative singular endings. Here are some completely random examples but they are all common words:

  • arbor: tree
  • canis: dog
  • caput: head
  • cor: heart
  • corpus: body
  • lac: milk
  • lēx: law
  • mīles: soldier
  • mōns : mountain
  • nox: night

[2] The nouns in this declension can be any gender. If a 3rd declension noun refers to a male or a role traditionally associated with males, it will be masculine. Similarly, a female or a role traditionally performed by a female will be feminine:

masculine

  • frāter: brother
  • gladiātor: gladiator
  • pater: father
  • rēx: king

feminine

  • māter: mother
  • obstētrīx: midwife
  • soror: sister
  • uxor: wife

However, with inanimate nouns, a 3rd declension can be any gender:

  • pēs [masculine]: foot
  • frōns [feminine]: forehead
  • ōs [neuter]: mouth

But knowing the gender is of far less importance than the next point.

Remember the MGM lion: ars grātia artis

[3] 1st and 2nd declension nouns do not change when endings are added, for example:

puell¦a

puell¦am

puell¦ae

etc

All you are doing is adding the endings to the stem of the noun:

hort¦us > hort¦um, hort¦ōs, hort¦īs etc. The stem itself doesn’t change.

However, the stem of many 3rd declension nouns will change. But this is not as random as it first appears. We’ll begin with one example:

rēx: king

> Reg¦em interficiunt: they kill the king.

So, there’s clearly a stem change: rēx > stem rēg-

[images #1 and #2]

First important point: once again, there’s a “domino” effect. If you know the stem change, you can add the endings. The tables are posted for reference but the key point that you get from the tables at this stage is that the stem change – if there is one – is the same throughout.

Look at prīnceps (chief) and tempus (time) in the table and see how they change.

Don’t be concerned about learning all the endings yet.

But how do you learn these stem changes in the first place? See the next post for the second important point.

 





30.03.24: derivatives of 3rd declension nouns

Here are some English derivatives from Latin 3rd declension nouns

  1. judicial review [La. iūdex: judge]
  2. child custody [La. custōs: guard]
  3. nocturnal animals [La. nox: night]
  4. nocturnal animals [La. animal]
  5. cordial greetings [La. cor: heart]
  6. prosperity [La. prosperitās: success; prosperity]
  7. corporal punishment [La. corpus: body]
  8. pedestrian crossing [La. pēs: foot]
  9. labour law [La: labor: work]
  10. capital cities [La. caput: head]

 










 





30.03.24: third declension; art for the sake of art

[i] ārs ¦ [ii] grātiā ¦ [iii] artis

art [nominative] ¦ for the sake ¦ of art [genitive]

ārs: a third declension noun

Nominative: ārs

Genitive: ar¦ is

You can see there’s a change in the stem of the noun before the ending -is added.

So, the MGM lion is telling you a key principal of the 3rd declension:

Many 3rd declension nouns change the stem. And while you cannot always predict what that stem change will be, there are many where you can, because you already knew that stem change: it’s in the English noun art.

 

 

29.03.24: the locative case

Some features of Latin grammar are far more important than others. This one is fairly minor, but still needs to be recognised and known.

When young learners are becoming familiar with, for example, plurals, they will normally start with friend(s), house(s), pen(s) and so on. Then, as youngsters, they will generally and unquestioningly learn man > men (Anglo-Saxon menn), sheep > sheep (Anglo-Saxon: sċēp; singular and plural) child > children (Anglo-Saxon ċildru ) i.e. these nouns come from a different declension pattern in Old English and have retained their plural forms. A five-year-old, however, isn’t that concerned about why ‘child’ becomes ‘children’, but you may be curious about why he said Hustoniae habitō in the video.

Hustoniae habitō: I live in Houston

When we say in a place or on a place in Latin, we use in + ablative:

In argentāriā labōrō. I work in a bank.

Liber meus in mēnsā est. My book is on the table.

Mārcus in hortō sedet. Marcus is sitting in the garden.

However, the form being used in the video is the locative case. This case did exist in Latin but finally merged with the ablative although, in some instances, an old locative case ending still appears. If you look up the tables of nouns in, for example, wiktionary, no locative form will be listed unless the noun in question has one.

[i] There is a handful of nouns that have a locative; the examples that are most common and most quoted in grammar books are listed below, and one of them you have already seen. No preposition is used; the case ending alone conveys the idea of being at / in / on a place.

domus: house > domī: at home e.g. Mārcus domī est. Marcus is at home.

humus: ground > humī: on the ground e.g. Humī sedent. They’re sitting on the ground.

bellum: war > bellī: in battle

Valēte, iūdicēs iūstissimī, domī, bellīque, duellātōrēs optimī (Plautus) ¦ Fare ye well, at home, most upright judges, and in warfare most valiant combatants.

rūs: countryside > rūrī: in the countryside

In the video he referred to “in nātūrā” (in nature; in the natural world) but, if he’d said that he liked to go for a walk “in the countryside”: Mihi perplacet rūrī dēambulāre” i.e. rūrī has its own locative ending to express the idea.

[ii] The locative is used with the names of “cities, towns and small islands”; that’s the standard answer! With cities and towns, it’s clear:

Rōma: Rome > Rōmae [the ending is the same as the genitive singular]: in Rome; you don’t say *in Rōmā*

Lutetia: Paris > Lutetiae: in Paris

Hustonia (New Latin): Houston > Hustoniae: in Houston

Corinthus: Corinth [the ending is the same as the genitive singular] > Corinthī: in Corinth

Londinium: London > Londiniī: in London

Eborācum: York > Eborācī: in York

Brundisium: Brundisium (Brindisi) > Brundisiī: in Brundisium

Pliny writes of his uncle:

Erat Mīsēnī classemque imperiō praesēns regēbat. ¦ He was at Misenum and was personally commanding the fleet.

Some place names in Latin are plural; their locative forms are the same as the ablative and so the only point you have to remember is that they don’t use prepositions

Athenae: Athens > Athēnīs: in Athens e.g. Athēnīs nātus est. He was born in Athens.

Pompeiī: Pompeii > Pompeiīs: in Pompeii

There’s a bit more – only a bit – that needs to be talked about with regard to these, but I think that’s enough for the moment to explain why he said Hustoniae habitō in the video. The key point to remember is that when you say in a named town or city, a locative case with no preposition is used.

** What is written below is more for interest and to show that, when studying Latin, there will be points which are not absolutely clear or consistent. They’re not of crucial importance. **

How do you define a small island? It’s a neat phrase to remember that the locative is used with the names of “towns, cities and small islands”, it trips off the tongue and it trips off the page of every grammar book you pick up, most of those books tending to avoid further discussion on the matter. And when writers on Latin are avoiding discussion, that suggests not all is quite what it seems!

It’s a small point but it’s a good example of looking at the language in slightly greater depth and using the authors for reference.

Does English distinguish between large and small islands in the way that the Romans did? Britain is an island and so is Ireland, and we would say in Britain (La. in Britanniā) and in Ireland (La. in Hiberniā) i.e. large land masses with very many settlements, but when the island gets smaller – sometimes with one or very few settlements - there can be a “shift” to on e.g. on Anglesey, on Sark, on the Isle of Wight. Not every English speaker makes that shift, but at this point Latin would step in with the locative case.

Crēta: Crete > Loc. Crētae [locative]: on Crete

A large island such as Sicily with several settlements would be “in Siciliā” [ablative]:

Gāius ¦ [i] Syrācūsīs ¦ [ii] in Siciliā ¦ habitat. Gaius lives ¦ [i] in Syracuse ¦ [ii] in Sicily.

[i] Syrācūsae [pl.]: Syracuse > Locative. Syracūsīs: in Syracuse; that’s a place name and it takes a locative, full stop.

[ii] in Siciliā: not considered a small island and so in + ablative is used just like you would say “in” with any other noun

In Cicero and Plautus, however, we find:

“Rhodī [locative] enim” inquit “ego nōn fuī” (Cicero) ¦ “For I,” he says “Was not on Rhodes

Samia mihi māter fuit: ea habitābat Rhodī [locative]. (Plautus) ¦ Samia was my mother: she lived on Rhodes.

Rhodos: Rhodes > Loc. Rhodī: on Rhodes i.e. considered to be a small island and adheres to the rule.

Caesar paucōs diēs in Asiā morātus cum audīsset Pompēium Cyprī [locative] vīsum (Caesar) ¦ When Caesar, having stayed for a few days in Asia had heard that Pompeius had been seen in Cyprus.

Cyprus > Loc. Cyprī: in / on Cyprus i.e. considered (by Caesar) to be a small island.

However, did the perception of individuals vary, just like our own perceptions vary? Are all the writers consistent in what forms they use? Look at the next quotation where both are used in the same sentence, and note how Caesar wrote Cyprī but Varro writes in Cyprō.

Itaque Crētae [locative] ad Cortȳniam dīcitur platanus esse, quae folia hieme nōn āmittat, itemque in Cyprō ... [in + ablative] (Varro)

Thus near Cortynia, on Crete, there is said to be a plane tree which does not shed its leaves in winter, and another in Cyprus ... 

29.03.24: learn the 3rd declension from the lion!

Learn the 3rd declension from the MGM lion. That phrase - ars gratis artis - is the most important concept.