Mixing
Plural in 4th declension
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an e or i in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).
The main exemption in Latin is words like manus in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened but I don't know if this has anything to do with it.)
morphologia plural phonology old-latin
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an e or i in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).
The main exemption in Latin is words like manus in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened but I don't know if this has anything to do with it.)
morphologia plural phonology old-latin
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an e or i in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).
The main exemption in Latin is words like manus in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened but I don't know if this has anything to do with it.)
morphologia plural phonology old-latin
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an e or i in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).
The main exemption in Latin is words like manus in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened but I don't know if this has anything to do with it.)
morphologia plural phonology old-latin
morphologia plural phonology old-latin
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 3 hours ago
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
asked 4 hours ago
David Robinson
1212
1212
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
David Robinson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago
1
1
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas. The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been *-ows and *-ewes respectively. The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed). At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.
A note on terminology: Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard "umlaut" as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas "slenderization" refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic cat /kat/ (sg) vs cait /kat'/ (pl).
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas. The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been *-ows and *-ewes respectively. The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed). At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.
A note on terminology: Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard "umlaut" as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas "slenderization" refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic cat /kat/ (sg) vs cait /kat'/ (pl).
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas. The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been *-ows and *-ewes respectively. The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed). At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.
A note on terminology: Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard "umlaut" as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas "slenderization" refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic cat /kat/ (sg) vs cait /kat'/ (pl).
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas. The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been *-ows and *-ewes respectively. The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed). At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.
A note on terminology: Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard "umlaut" as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas "slenderization" refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic cat /kat/ (sg) vs cait /kat'/ (pl).
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas. The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been *-ows and *-ewes respectively. The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed). At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.
A note on terminology: Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard "umlaut" as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas "slenderization" refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic cat /kat/ (sg) vs cait /kat'/ (pl).
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
answered 1 hour ago
varro
2,7581212
2,7581212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
David Robinson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
David Robinson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
David Robinson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
David Robinson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7369%2fplural-in-4th-declension%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Never heard of “slenderization†in linguistics.
– Alex B.
3 hours ago
@alexb Yes different linguists use different terms. That is the term in Goidelic linguistics. It is a really big thing in Old Irish, Modern Irish and Scots Gaelic where they have the same rule including the gender distinction. The rule is also found in Old English, Old Norse and Greek. I used that term because it is the least ambiguous and because I don't know if there is an agreed term in Latin or what it is. (Please advise.)
– David Robinson
3 hours ago
I think you're confused about what palatalization and umlaut mean -- these are phenomena that can be caused by front vowels in some languages (though not Classical Latin), but having a front vowel in an ending doesn't in itself imply them.
– TKR
40 mins ago