Three of those are actually Italian.
What's a Fourth Declension? The same as a proto-Celtic s-stem?
On Latin phrases and the plural of casus belli
- Thread starter Cerberus™
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What's a Fourth Declension? The same as a proto-Celtic s-stem?
The fourth declension doesn't look like the Old Irish s-stem, mainly because it's always neuter while casus is masculine.
s-stem:
the ' is used to denote lenition, "n-" nasalisation. Usually cases ending in "-m" in Latin nasalise in Old Irish, while a case ending in a vowel in Latin causes lenition in Old Irish.
s-stem:
Code:
nom glenn n-, glinne'
gen glinne, glinne n-
dat glinn', glinnib
acc glenn n-, glinne'the ' is used to denote lenition, "n-" nasalisation. Usually cases ending in "-m" in Latin nasalise in Old Irish, while a case ending in a vowel in Latin causes lenition in Old Irish.
exempli gratia, vide infra, poco sostenuto, allegretto, allegro ma non troppo, in extenso, vide supra.
o: My male intuition tells me that these 3 red ones are Italian, right?
"Casus belli" can be either "cause of war" or "causes of war", while "casus bellorum" is "causes (or cause) of wars".
No, Sir, no. Spoken German as well as written German uses 4 cases. We lost a number of them over the millenia, but you would have a hard time speaking grammatically correct German with less then the 4 cases. Sometimes, admittedly, the forms of different cases are identical. But still they all exist and are required in spoken as well as in written language.
Overall, I support the OP. The attempts of "casi bellorum" etc. make me cringe. BTW, I have heard a good number of English speakers recently pronounce "etc" as something only faintly similar to "et cetera". I have not come to the point where I have to correct them, yet....
I probably won't, because I will always remember the immortal words: "Quidquid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem!" or to put it into plain language:"it's just not worth the hassle."
And there Kerry defends truth and justice, and is indeed right. And German is not even the only one. We Croats are especially silly, and we added a 7th case, just for the giggles, apparently.
Well, Virgil is not the worst example one could set for oneself.
Ubik, who I believe had part in creating MM, told me the same; it was supposedly a well-know quote or description on maps.
For starters, a list of words meaning "dick" according to my dictionary:
muto
palus
sopio
verpa ("skinned dick")
- "Quidquid" is better written without the space.
- The subjunctive "sit" is a Grecism, as far as I know; in classical Latin, the "generalis", which would be in the subjunctive in Greek, should normally be in the indicative in Latin: "est".
Besides that, I second your quote!
I suppose it is perhaps not impossible, but "belli" is better, I believe, unless the word is referring to two discrete wars that can be named; but even then one might prefer the singular. Consider this example in English:
- There are several causes of draught that should be recognized and eliminated by the Mongolian government.
- In the summers of 1999 and 2008, Mongolia was hit by severe droughts; the causes of these droughts should be hidden from the public.
Only in the second example should the plural be used, because the word refers not to drought in general but to two specific instances of it. Latin is somewhat similar in this respect. Add to this the fact that tradition happens to prescribe "casus belli" as the plural.
In Latin, it is usually said there are 5 declensions, give or take a few:
- 1st ancilla, gen. ancillae (a-declension, 99% feminine)
- 2nd servus/forum, gen. servi/fori (u/o-declension, 95% masculine/neuter)
- 3rd rex, gen. regis (mixed or consonant-declension, all genders)
- 4th casus/cornu, gen. casus/cornus (u-declension, 90% masculine/neuter)
- 5th pernicies, gen. perniciei (e-declension, 95% feminine)
- turris, gen. turris (i-group, by some called a separate declension, but usually taken with the 3rd)
The 4th declension is actually more or less a group of words from the 3rd declension whose stem happens to end on u. The endings from the 3rd declension can still be easily recognized:
- Singular:
casu-s (s is a common nominative ending)
casu-is < casus (u-i contract to u)
casu-i
casu-em < casum (u-e contract to u)
casu-e < casu
- Plural:
casu-es < casus
casu-um
casu-ibus < casibus (u-i somehow contract to i)
casu-es < casus
casu-ibus < casibus
Last edited:
This may be the case, but it should be recognized then that grammatically correct sentences are a distinct minority as compared to the total of sentences formed. Most sentences actually formed are in fact grammatically incorrect (while perfectly comprehensible, hence servicable).
The social function of correct grammar is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the well-educated from the plebs. Which I support wholeheartedly, by the way.
The trouble, for all us bad Latin students, was simply we got stuck on the 3rds. (Both conjugations & declensions). I've asked several Latin teachers why they don't just skip the thirds, got to the 4th (n & v) and 5th (n only), so people will get them down as easily as the 1st & 2nd, which everyone can handle. Then go to the hard ones.
I never got a real answer, beyond that it's always done that way.
I never got a real answer, beyond that it's always done that way.
The reason is that the 3rd is much more important, because it is much more frequent.
I sometimes even advise students to just skip 4th and 5th if they are in a hurry for an exam and have more important grammar stuff to learn...
About the reason why they are numbered as they are, my guess would be that the Romans assigned those numbers to declensions and conjugations; I don't really know, though.
I sometimes even advise students to just skip 4th and 5th if they are in a hurry for an exam and have more important grammar stuff to learn...
About the reason why they are numbered as they are, my guess would be that the Romans assigned those numbers to declensions and conjugations; I don't really know, though.
Last edited:
Ah, that's not like an s-stem in Celtic, then. An s-stem looks like a common or garden o-stem but then declines weirdly.
This thread makes me wonder what the god(s) of linguistics were thinking when they made agglutinating/fusional languages.
I feel it's a bit moot since the term itself seems to be one of those fossilized Latin idioms used in modern language.
Also, an adjective without a noun (forget what it's called) can be translated as the ____ ones/things, so it could also mean Great Things of the World. Sounds a bit awkward in English, but IIRC, this is acceptable in Latin.
Last edited:
It would be acceptable, though it wouldn't be a very logical title then. However, the author told us it comes from "magna c(h)arta mundi", large map of the world.
In most cases, you'd get bashed for Pokemon references, but this is a Latin geek thread, so I think you're safe.