1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: DigiCat
- Kategorie: Fremdsprachen
- Sprache: Englisch
In "New Latin Grammar," Charles E. Bennett meticulously crafts a comprehensive resource for students and scholars of Latin. This work is characterized by its systematic approach, blending precise grammatical rules with practical examples, all while maintaining clarity and scholarly rigor. Bennett's text is a response to the evolving needs of Latin education in the early 20th century, where the emphasis on linguistic structure became paramount amid a backdrop of shifting pedagogical methods. By intertwining traditional elements with innovative practices, Bennett's grammar stands as both a pedagogical guide and a scholarly reference, solidifying its place in academic discourse. Charles E. Bennett, an esteemed classicist and a professor at the University of Georgia, dedicates his intellectual pursuits to the revival and teaching of classical languages. Influenced by his extensive experience in academia and the growing interest in Latin studies, Bennett aimed to make Latin more accessible and engaging for contemporary learners. His expertise and passionate commitment to classical education informed this grammar, ensuring a resource that is not only instructive but also rich in historical context and linguistic heritage. For anyone embarking on the journey of learning Latin or seeking to deepen their understanding of the language's grammatical foundations, Bennett's "New Latin Grammar" is an indispensable tool. This scholarly work not only equips readers with essential linguistic knowledge but also bridges the gap between classical and modern understandings of Latin. Its enduring relevance makes it a must-have for educators, students, and enthusiasts of the classical world. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
New Latin Grammar
Table of Contents
Introduction
This book wrestles with the paradox of making an ancient, richly idiomatic language fully teachable through clear, orderly rules. New Latin Grammar by Charles E. Bennett is a pedagogical reference that distills Latin into a practical system for learners and teachers. Composed in the early twentieth century, it belongs to a long tradition of concise grammars meant for schools and colleges, where Latin was a foundational discipline. The work’s setting is the classroom and the private study desk, not the lecture hall of conjecture: it favors what can be taught, practiced, and retained. Bennett’s aim is exactness without intimidation, utility without compromise.
Readers encounter a methodical, quietly confident voice that explains forms and constructions with pared-down clarity. The style is economical rather than florid, organized to move from definition to illustration and then to practical consequence. Sections are arranged for quick consultation yet support sustained study, allowing the learner to build competence in incremental steps. Throughout, the tone remains calm, precise, and instructional, reflecting a teacher’s sensibility shaped by long experience. The result is a reading experience more akin to mastering a craft than following a narrative, guided by firm signposts and an insistence on accuracy at every turn.
At its core, the grammar explores how order emerges from variety: how a language of poets, historians, and orators can be reduced to principles without losing nuance. Bennett foregrounds the interplay of rule and exception, the way endings signal relationships, and the choices that syntax makes possible. He respects evidence and usage while insisting on definitional clarity, encouraging the reader to see Latin as a coherent system rather than a list of prohibitions. The recurring themes are precision, economy, and applicability, each serving the larger goal of enabling readers to recognize patterns, reason carefully, and translate with accountable confidence.
The book also belongs to a specific educational moment, when concise, trustworthy grammars were essential tools for secondary schools and universities. In that context, New Latin Grammar functions as a compact repository of consensus, bringing together standard terms and practices so teachers and students could work from a common base. Its pages reflect an ethic of preparedness: clear formulations that support classroom exercise, examination, and continued reading. Without indulging in academic display, it offers a steady benchmark that helped stabilize expectations about what it meant to know Latin, and it does so by privileging consistency, transparency, and replicable results.
For contemporary readers, the book remains valuable not only as a guide to Latin but as a training ground for disciplined thought. Its insistence on explicit definitions and testable claims models habits essential to careful reading, argument, and translation. Students can use it to clarify forms and constructions; instructors can rely on it to frame lessons; autodidacts can measure progress against a reliable standard. Beyond Latin, the work sharpens linguistic awareness applicable to other languages and fields. It shows how structure supports meaning, and how patient analysis, step by step, can make a complex system intelligible and usable.
Approached cover to cover, the grammar offers a gradual ascent; consulted selectively, it supplies swift, authoritative answers. Its organization encourages cross-referencing, so readers can connect a rule in one area with an example in another, building a web of understanding that grows more resilient with use. The prose avoids ornament and distraction, favoring examples that clarify rather than impress. This is a workshop, not a gallery: a place to learn procedures, test them, and return again. The cumulative effect is empowerment, as the learner moves from dependency on notes to the confidence of independent judgment.
In the end, New Latin Grammar endures because it keeps faith with both sides of its calling: fidelity to the language’s depth and fidelity to the learner’s need for clarity. It neither sentimentalizes the past nor simplifies it beyond recognition; instead, it organizes what matters and presents it in a form that invites mastery. In an age that often prizes speed over depth, Bennett offers steadiness and precision. The book’s promise is modest and profound: with patient attention, the patterns of Latin become graspable. That promise still holds, and it continues to reward those who accept its discipline.
Synopsis
Charles E. Bennett’s New Latin Grammar presents a compact, systematic account of classical Latin designed for both classroom use and ready reference. The work proceeds from elementary features to more complex structures, making each topic self-contained yet carefully cross-referenced. Bennett emphasizes established norms of classical usage while acknowledging notable variations, aiming to give learners clear rules supported by representative examples. The arrangement privileges economy and consistency: paradigms are set out succinctly, definitions are kept sharp, and exceptions are flagged without digression. As a result, the opening chapters frame the book’s method—build mastery through orderly presentation, cumulative review, and practical applicability.
An initial section on letters, sounds, and writing establishes the phonological and orthographic basis of the language. Bennett treats the Latin alphabet, the values of vowels and diphthongs, and the behavior of consonants, attending to quantity, syllable division, and accent. He notes how vowel length conditions rhythm and morphology, and how conventions of i and u versus later j and v bear on reading and transcription. The treatment of elision, enclitics, and common orthographic practices prepares readers to decode forms accurately and to understand why spellings vary across editions. This foundation underpins subsequent chapters on inflection and syntactic behavior.
The treatment of inflection opens with nouns and adjectives, setting out the five declensions, gender assignments, and case endings in a consistent paradigm format. Bennett links forms to function, showing how case values interact with prepositions and typical constructions, while reserving fuller syntactic discussion for later sections. Adjectival agreement, comparison of adjectives and adverbs, and numerals are handled with the same economy, with irregular and defective patterns carefully distinguished. Pronouns receive special attention because of their frequency and idiomatic behavior; personal, demonstrative, relative, interrogative, and indefinite types are organized to highlight stems, pronominal adjectives, and common points of confusion.
Verbal morphology occupies a central span of the book, covering conjugational classes, principal parts, and the system of voices and moods. Bennett presents the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative across the tense system, relating the present, perfect, and supine stems to formation rules. Deponent and semi-deponent verbs, defective and impersonal forms, and periphrastic constructions are clearly differentiated. The non-finite forms—infinitives, participles, the gerund and gerundive, and the supines—are introduced with their morphological patterns and core values. Throughout, attention to voice, aspect, and temporal reference lays the groundwork for the later account of sequence of tenses and clause integration.
The syntactic chapters begin with case usage and agreement, translating paradigms into practical reading knowledge. Bennett surveys the functions of the genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and locative, linking them to verb government, adjectives, and prepositions. He treats apposition, partitive constructions, and the concord of adjectives, participles, and relative clauses, while noting how word order serves emphasis rather than rigid positioning. Distinctions between literal and idiomatic rendering are highlighted to forestall common misinterpretations. The discussion balances general rules with frequent constructions, guiding readers to recognize how meaning is conveyed by inflectional relationships more than by fixed syntagms.
Subsequent sections develop complex syntax, especially the use of moods in main and subordinate clauses. Bennett explains independent subjunctives and their shades of meaning, then turns to purpose, result, characteristic, temporal, causal, and concessive clauses, with clear signaling of typical markers. Conditional sentences are sorted by nature and likelihood, and their verb forms are analyzed with care. Indirect statement, questions, and commands are presented alongside the sequence of tenses and the adjustments required in reported discourse. Attention to particles, connectives, and negatives rounds out the account, showing how clause linkage and modality structure Latin argument and narration.
The volume concludes with treatment of word formation and prosody, equipping readers to see patterns beyond isolated forms. Derivational processes, compounding, and common prefixes and suffixes are outlined to explain families of vocabulary and nuances of register. Prosody addresses syllable weight, vowel quantity, elision, and the analysis of standard meters, enabling principled scansion of verse. In its totality, New Latin Grammar offers a durable framework for understanding how Latin encodes meaning. Its scope, clarity, and organization make it a practical resource for study and consultation, supporting accurate interpretation and careful composition in classical Latin without relying on extraneous commentary.
Historical Context
New Latin Grammar emerged in the United States when classical studies anchored secondary and collegiate curricula. Between the late nineteenth century and the Progressive Era, Latin was a common entrance requirement at many American colleges, and teachers needed reliable, uniform references. The College Entrance Examination Board, founded in 1900, began regular Latin examinations that encouraged standardization. Scholarly networks such as the American Philological Association supported professional norms and exchange. At Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, Charles E. Bennett taught Latin within a research-oriented environment that prized philological rigor, positioning him to synthesize scholarship and pedagogy for a broad audience of students and instructors.
American classical philology at this time drew heavily on German models, emphasizing systematic description of sounds, morphology, and syntax. The influence of the Neogrammarians, comparative Indo-European linguistics, and epigraphic discoveries encouraged grammars that reconciled school needs with advances in historical study. Universities adopted seminars and source-based methods previously cultivated in Leipzig, Berlin, and Bonn. In the United States, this methodological shift reached teachers through graduate training, journals, and summer institutes. The resulting expectations - clarity of rules, attention to exceptions, and careful citation of authorities - shaped the reference works assigned to students and informed the structure of Bennett's manuals and classroom guidance.
Charles Edwin Bennett (1858–1925) built his career as a Latinist at Cornell University, where he taught for decades and prepared widely used instructional texts. His New Latin Grammar, first published in 1908, presented forms and syntax in a compact, teachable format while reflecting current scholarship. He also produced specialized research, notably Syntax of Early Latin (published in parts between 1910 and 1914), which drew on Plautus, Terence, and inscriptional evidence. This dual profile, as classroom author and professional scholar, situated Bennett to bridge the needs of secondary schools and colleges, ensuring his grammar responded both to examinations and to advances in philology.
Latin instruction in the United States around 1900 was largely organized around the grammar-translation method, with composition exercises and selected readings from Caesar, Cicero, and Vergil. The College Entrance Examination Board published syllabi and past papers that fixed expectations for forms, syntax topics, and vocabulary. New Latin Grammar aligned with these requirements but sought greater precision and consistency than many predecessors. It offered unified statements of case usage, subordinate clauses, and sequence of tenses, and clarified accent, quantity, and prosody. Its accessible arrangement and cross-referencing made it convenient as both a teaching backbone and a desk reference for examinations.
The Progressive Era brought rapid growth of public high schools and a push for measurable standards. The Carnegie Foundation’s unit system, adopted in the first decade of the twentieth century, defined secondary coursework by time and content, encouraging uniform sequences in Latin. Regional teacher organizations, including the Classical Association of the Middle West and South (founded 1904), promoted shared curricula and materials. In this climate, a concise, authoritative grammar could serve thousands of classrooms with consistent terminology. Bennett’s work met that demand, consolidating terminology and examples so that teachers and students across states prepared for comparable assessments and collegiate expectations.
Debates over Latin pedagogy intensified during these years. Some educators advocated reading-based or "direct" methods that minimized formal rule learning, while many colleges maintained composition and grammatical analysis as the core. Teacher journals reported on trial programs, but entrance examinations and established textbooks kept grammar-translation dominant. New Latin Grammar fit the prevailing approach, organizing morphology and syntax for ready consultation and providing brief, exemplified rules rather than extended theoretical discussion. By foregrounding what students were most frequently tested on, the book reflected the practical constraints of classrooms shaped by time limits, recitation formats, and externally imposed assessment standards.
Standardization also extended to pronunciation and verse. Late nineteenth-century recommendations by professional bodies promoted a "Roman" pronunciation of Latin in American classrooms, replacing various Anglicized traditions. Philologists stressed the importance of vowel quantity and accent for understanding meter, especially in Vergilian hexameters and lyric forms. Bennett's grammar codified these topics in succinct sections on sounds, quantity, accent, and prosody, aligning classroom practice with scholarly consensus. The treatment supported oral reading and scansion that matched current research, while remaining sufficiently compact for school use, an approach that helped unify performances and recitations across institutions following similar examination rubrics.
New Latin Grammar thus embodies the early twentieth-century American effort to reconcile rigorous philology with mass education. It consolidates rules and terminology consistent with university research and the testing regimes that governed school progress and college admission. By privileging classical authors and standard usage, it mirrors the canon that examinations and curricula endorsed, while offering concise notes that reduce disputes to manageable guidance. The book's durability in classrooms owes to that balance: it channels contemporary scholarship into stable pedagogy, serving as a practical tool that reflects the priorities and institutional structures of its era rather than critiquing them at length.
New Latin Grammar
PREFACE.
The present work is a revision of that published in 1908[1q]. No radical alterations have been introduced, although a number of minor changes will be noted. I have added an Introduction on the origin and development of the Latin language, which it is hoped will prove interesting and instructive to the more ambitious pupil. At the end of the book will be found an Index to the Sources of the Illustrative Examples cited in the Syntax.
C.E.B.
ITHACA, NEW YORK, May 4, 1918
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The present book is a revision of my Latin Grammar originally published in 1895. Wherever greater accuracy or precision of statement seemed possible, I have endeavored to secure this. The rules for syllable division have been changed and made to conform to the prevailing practice of the Romans themselves. In the Perfect Subjunctive Active, the endings -īs, -īmus, -ītis are now marked long. The theory of vowel length before the suffixes -gnus, -gna, -gnum, and also before j, has been discarded. In the Syntax I have recognized a special category of Ablative of Association, and have abandoned the original doctrine as to the force of tenses in the Prohibitive.
Apart from the foregoing, only minor and unessential modifications have been introduced. In its main lines the work remains unchanged.
ITHACA, NEW YORK, October 16, 1907.
FROM THE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The object of this book is to present the essential facts of Latin grammar in a direct and simple manner, and within the smallest compass consistent with scholarly standards. While intended primarily for the secondary school, it has not neglected the needs of the college student, and aims to furnish such grammatical information as is ordinarily required in undergraduate courses.
The experience of foreign educators in recent years has tended to restrict the size of school-grammars of Latin, and has demanded an incorporation of the main principles of the language in compact manuals of 250 pages. Within the past decade, several grammars of this scope have appeared abroad which have amply met the most exacting demands.
The publication in this country of a grammar of similar plan and scope seems fully justified at the present time, as all recent editions of classic texts summarize in introductions the special idioms of grammar and style peculiar to individual authors. This makes it feasible to dispense with the enumeration of many minutiae of usage which would otherwise demand consideration in a student's grammar.
In the chapter on Prosody, I have designedly omitted all special treatment of the lyric metres of Horace and Catullus, as well as of the measures of the comic poets. Our standard editions of these authors all give such thorough consideration to versification that repetition in a separate place seems superfluous.
ITHACA, NEW YORK, December 15, 1894.
PART I.
SOUNDS, ACCENT, QUANTITY, ETC.
The Alphabet
Classification of Sounds
Sounds of the Letters
Syllables
Quantity
Accent
Vowel Changes
Consonant Changes
Peculiarities of Orthography
PART II.
INFLECTIONS.
CHAPTER I.—Declension.
A. NOUNS.
Gender of Nouns
Number
Cases
The Five Declensions
First Declension
Second Declension
Third Declension
Fourth Declension
Fifth Declension
Defective Nouns
B. ADJECTIVES.
Adjectives of the First and Second Declensions
Adjectives of the Third Declension
Comparison of Adjectives
Formation and Comparison of Adverbs
Numerals
C. PRONOUNS.
Personal Pronouns
Reflexive Pronouns
Possessive Pronouns
Demonstrative Pronouns
The Intensive Pronoun
The Relative Pronoun
Interrogative Pronouns
Indefinite Pronouns
Pronominal Adjectives
CHAPTER II.—Conjugation.
Verb Stems
The Four Conjugations
Conjugation of Sum
First Conjugation
Second Conjugation
Third Conjugation
Fourth Conjugation
Verbs in -iō of the Third Conjugation
Deponent Verbs
Semi-Deponents
Periphrastic Conjugation
Peculiarities of Conjugation
Formation of the Verb Stems
List of the Most Important Verbs with Principal Parts
Irregular Verbs
Defective Verbs
Impersonal Verbs
PART III.
PARTICLES.
Adverbs
Prepositions
Interjections
PART IV.
WORD FORMATION.
I. DERIVATIVES.
Nouns
Adjectives
Verbs
Adverbs
II. COMPOUNDS.
Examples of Compounds
PART V.
SYNTAX.
CHAPTER I.—Sentences.
Classification of Sentences
Form of Interrogative Sentences
Subject and Predicate
Simple and Compound Sentences
CHAPTER II.—Syntax of Nouns.
Subject
Predicate Nouns
Appositives
The Nominative
The Accusative
The Dative
The Genitive
The Ablative
The Locative
CHAPTER III.—Syntax of Adjectives.
Agreement of Adjectives
Adjectives used Substantively
Adjectives with the Force of Adverbs
Comparatives and Superlatives
Other Peculiarities
CHAPTER IV.—Syntax of Pronouns.
Personal Pronouns
Possessive Pronouns
Reflexive Pronouns
Reciprocal Pronouns
Demonstrative Pronouns
Relative Pronouns
Indefinite Pronouns
Pronominal Adjectives
CHAPTER V.—Syntax of Verbs.
Agreement of Verbs
Voices
Tenses
— Of the Indicative
— Of the Subjunctive
— Of the Infinitive
Moods
— In Independent Sentences
— — Volitive Subjunctive
— — Optative Subjunctive
— — Potential Subjunctive
— — Imperative
— In Dependent Clauses
— — Clauses of Purpose
— — Clauses of Characteristic
— — Clauses of Result
— — Causal Clauses
— — Temporal Clauses
— — — Introduced by Postquam, Ut, Ubi, etc.
— — — Cum-Clauses
— — — Introduced by Antequam and Priusquam
— — — Introduced by Dum, Dōnec, Quoad
— — Substantive Clauses
— — — Developed from the Volitive
— — — Developed from the Optative
— — — Of Result
— — — After nōn dubito, etc.
— — — Introduced by Quod
— — — Indirect Questions
— — Conditional Sentences
— — Use of Sī, Nisi, Sīn
— — Conditional Clauses of Comparison
— — Concessive Clauses
— — Adversative Clauses with Quamvīs, Quamquam, etc.
— — Clauses of Wish and Proviso
— — Relative Clauses
— — Indirect Discourse
— — — Moods in Indirect Discourse
— — — Tenses in Indirect Discourse
— — — Conditional Sentences in Indirect Discourse
— — Implied Indirect Discourse
— — Subjunctive by Attraction
Noun and Adjective Forms of the Verb
— Infinitive
— Participles
— Gerund
— Supine
CHAPTER VI.—Particles.
Coördinate Conjunctions
Adverbs
CHAPTER VII.—Word-Order and Sentence-Structure.
Word-Order
Sentence-Structure
CHAPTER VIII.—Hints on Latin Style.
Nouns
Adjectives
Pronouns
Verbs
The Cases
PART VI.
PROSODY.
Quantity of Vowels and Syllables
Verse-Structure
The Dactylic Hexameter
The Dactylic Pentameter
Iambic Measures
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE GRAMMAR.
I. Roman Calendar
II. Roman Names
III. Figures of Syntax and Rhetoric
Index to the Illustrative Examples Cited in the Syntax
Index to the Principal Parts of Latin Verbs
General Index
Footnotes
INTRODUCTION.
THE LATIN LANGUAGE.
1. The Indo-European Family of Languages.—Latin belongs to one group of a large family of languages, known as Indo-European.[1] This Indo-European family of languages embraces the following groups:
ASIATIC MEMBERS OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.
a. The Sanskrit, spoken in ancient India. Of this there were several stages, the oldest of which is the Vedic, or language of the Vedic Hymns. These Hymns are the oldest literary productions known to us among all the branches of the Indo-European family. A conservative estimate places them as far back as 1500 B.C. Some scholars have even set them more than a thousand years earlier than this, i.e. anterior to 2500 B.C.
The Sanskrit, in modified form, has always continued to be spoken in India, and is represented to-day by a large number of dialects descended from the ancient Sanskrit, and spoken by millions of people.
b. The Iranian, spoken in ancient Persia, and closely related to the Sanskrit. There were two main branches of the Iranian group, viz. the Old Persian and the Avestan. The Old Persian was the official language of the court, and appears in a number of so-called cuneiform[2] inscriptions, the earliest of which date from the time of Darius I (sixth century B.C.). The other branch of the Iranian, the Avestan,[3] is the language of the Avesta or sacred books of the Parsees, the followers of Zoroaster, founder of the religion of the fire-worshippers. Portions of these sacred books may have been composed as early as 1000 B.C.
Modern Persian is a living representative of the old Iranian speech. It has naturally been much modified by time, particularly through the introduction of many words from the Arabic.
c. The Armenian, spoken in Armenia, the district near the Black Sea and Caucasus Mountains. This is closely related to the Iranian, and was formerly classified under that group. It is now recognized as entitled to independent rank. The earliest literary productions of the Armenian language date from the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era. To this period belong the translation of the Scriptures and the old Armenian Chronicle. The Armenian is still a living language, though spoken in widely separated districts, owing to the scattered locations in which the Armenians are found to-day.
d. The Tokharian. This language, only recently discovered and identified as Indo-European, was spoken in the districts east of the Caspian Sea (modern Turkestan). While in some respects closely related to the three Asiatic branches of the Indo-European family already considered, in others it shows close relationship to the European members of the family. The literature of the Tokharian, so far as it has been brought to light, consists mainly of translations from the Sanskrit sacred writings, and dates from the seventh century of our era.
EUROPEAN MEMBERS OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.
e. The Greek. The Greeks had apparently long been settled in Greece and Asia Minor as far back as 1500 B.C. Probably they arrived in these districts much earlier. The earliest literary productions are the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer, which very likely go back to the ninth century B.C. From the sixth century B.C. on, Greek literature is continuous. Modern Greek, when we consider its distance in time from antiquity, is remarkably similar to the classical Greek of the fourth and fifth centuries B.C.
f. The Italic Group. The Italic Group embraces the Umbrian, spoken in the northern part of the Italian peninsula (in ancient Umbria); the Latin, spoken in the central part (in Latium); the Oscan, spoken in the southern part (in Samnium, Campania, Lucania, etc.). Besides these, there were a number of minor dialects, such as the Marsian, Volscian, etc. Of all these (barring the Latin), there are no remains except a few scanty inscriptions. Latin literature begins shortly after 250 B.C. in the works of Livius Andronicus[1], Naevius, and Plautus, although a few brief inscriptions are found belonging to a much earlier period.
g. The Celtic. In the earliest historical times of which we have any record, the Celts occupied extensive portions of northern Italy, as well as certain areas in central Europe; but after the second century B.C., they are found only in Gaul and the British Isles. Among the chief languages belonging to the Celtic group are the Gallic, spoken in ancient Gaul; the Breton, still spoken in the modern French province of Brittany; the Irish, which is still extensively spoken in Ireland among the common people, the Welsh; and the Gaelic of the Scotch Highlanders.
h. The Teutonic. The Teutonic group is very extensive. Its earliest representative is the Gothic, preserved for us in the translation of the scriptures by the Gothic Bishop Ulfilas (about 375 A.D.). Other languages belonging to this group are the Old Norse, once spoken in Scandinavia, and from which are descended the modern Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish; German; Dutch; Anglo-Saxon, from which is descended the modern English.
i. The Balto-Slavic. The languages of this group belong to eastern Europe. The Baltic division of the group embraces the Lithuanian and Lettic, spoken to-day by the people living on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea. The earliest literary productions of these languages date from the sixteenth century. The Slavic division comprises a large number of languages, the most important of which are the Russian, the Bulgarian, the Serbian, the Bohemian, the Polish. All of these were late in developing a literature, the earliest to do so being the Old Bulgarian, in which we find a translation of the Bible dating from the ninth century.
j. The Albanian, spoken in Albania and parts of Greece, Italy, and Sicily. This is most nearly related to the Balto-Slavic group, and is characterized by the very large proportion of words borrowed from Latin, Turkish, Greek, and Slavic. Its literature does not begin till the seventeenth century.
2. Home of the Indo-European Family.—Despite the many outward differences of the various languages of the foregoing groups, a careful examination of their structure and vocabulary demonstrates their intimate relationship and proves overwhelmingly their descent from a common parent. We must believe, therefore, that at one time there existed a homogeneous clan or tribe of people speaking a language from which all the above enumerated languages are descended. The precise location of the home of this ancient tribe cannot be determined. For a long time it was assumed that it was in central Asia north of the Himalaya Mountains, but this view has long been rejected as untenable. It arose from the exaggerated importance attached for a long while to Sanskrit. The great antiquity of the earliest literary remains of the Sanskrit (the Vedic Hymns) suggested that the inhabitants of India were geographically close to the original seat of the Indo-European Family. Hence the home was sought in the elevated plateau to the north. To-day it is thought that central or southeastern Europe is much more likely to have been the cradle of the Indo-European parent-speech, though anything like a logical demonstration of so difficult a problem can hardly be expected.
As to the size and extent of the original tribe whence the Indo-European languages have sprung, we can only speculate. It probably was not large, and very likely formed a compact racial and linguistic unit for centuries, possibly for thousands of years.
The time at which Indo-European unity ceased and the various individual languages began their separate existence, is likewise shrouded in obscurity. When we consider that the separate existence of the Sanskrit may antedate 2500 B.C., it may well be believed that people speaking the Indo-European parent-speech belonged to a period as far back as 5000 B.C., or possibly earlier.
3. Stages in the Development of the Latin Language.—The earliest remains of the Latin language are found in certain very archaic inscriptions. The oldest of these belong to the sixth and seventh centuries B.C. Roman literature does not begin till several centuries later, viz. shortly after the middle of the third century B.C. We may recognize the following clearly marked periods of the language and literature:
a. The Preliterary Period, from the earliest times down to 240 B.C., when Livius Andronicus brought out his first play. For this period our knowledge of Latin depends almost exclusively upon the scanty inscriptions that have survived from this remote time. Few of these are of any length.
b. The Archaic Period, from Livius Andronicus (240 B.C.) to Cicero (81 B.C.). Even in this age the language had already become highly developed as a medium of expression. In the hands of certain gifted writers it had even become a vehicle of power and beauty. In its simplicity, however, it naturally marks a contrast with the more finished diction of later days. To this period belong:
Livius Andronicus, about 275-204 B.C. (Translation of Homer's Odyssey; Tragedies).
Plautus, about 250-184 B.C. (Comedies).
Naevius, about 270-199 B.C. ("Punic War"; Comedies).
Ennius, 239-169 B.C. ("Annals"; Tragedies).
Terence, about 190-159 B.C. (Comedies).
Lucilius, 180-103 B.C. (Satires).
Pacuvius, 220-about 130 B.C. (Tragedies).
Accius, 170-about 85 B.C. (Tragedies).
c. The Golden Age, from Cicero (81 B.C.) to the death of Augustus (14 A.D.). In this period the language, especially in the hands of Cicero, reaches a high degree of stylistic perfection. Its vocabulary, however, has not yet attained its greatest fullness and range. Traces of the diction of the Archaic Period are often noticed, especially in the poets, who naturally sought their effects by reverting to the speech of olden times. Literature reached its culmination in this epoch, especially in the great poets of the Augustan Age. The following writers belong here:
Lucretius, about 95-55 B.C. (Poem on Epicurean Philosophy).
Catullus, 87-about 54 B.C. (Poet).
Cicero, 106-43 B.C. (Orations; Rhetorical Works; Philosophical Works; Letters).
Caesar, 102-44 B.C. (Commentaries on Gallic and Civil Wars),
Sallust, 86-36 B.C. (Historian).
Nepos, about 100-about 30 B.C. (Historian).
Virgil, 70-19 B.C. ("Aeneid"; "Georgics"; "Bucolics").
Horace, 65-8 B.C. (Odes; Satires, Epistles).
Tibullus, about 54-19 B.C. (Poet).
Propertius, about 50-about 15 B.C. (Poet).
Ovid, 43 B.C.-17 A.D. ("Metamorphoses" and other poems).
Livy. 59 B.C.-17 A.D. (Historian).
d. The Silver Latinity, from the death of Augustus (14 A.D.) to the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 A.D.), This period is marked by a certain reaction against the excessive precision of the previous age. It had become the practice to pay too much attention to standardized forms of expression, and to leave too little play to the individual writer. In the healthy reaction against this formalism, greater freedom of expression now manifests itself. We note also the introduction of idioms from the colloquial language, along with many poetical words and usages. The following authors deserve mention:
Phaedrus, flourished about 40 A.D. (Fables in Verse)
Velleius Paterculus, flourished about 30 A.D. (Historian).
Lucan, 39-65 A.D. (Poem on the Civil War).
Seneca, about 1-65 A.D. (Tragedies; Philosophical Works).
Pliny the Elder, 23-79 A.D. ("Natural History").
Pliny the Younger, 62-about 115 A.D. ("Letters").
Martial, about 45-about 104 A.D. (Epigrams).
Quintilian, about 35-about 100 A.D. (Treatise on Oratory and Education).
Tacitus, about 55-about 118 A.D. (Historian).
Juvenal, about 55-about 135 A.D. (Satirist).
Suetonius, about 73-about 118 A.D. ("Lives of the Twelve Caesars").
Minucius Felix, flourished about 160 A.D. (First Christian Apologist).
Apuleius, 125-about 200 A.D. ("Metamorphoses," or "Golden Ass").
e. The Archaizing Period. This period is characterized by a conscious imitation of the Archaic Period of the second and first centuries B.C.; it overlaps the preceding period, and is of importance from a linguistic rather than from a literary point of view. Of writers who manifest the archaizing tendency most conspicuously may be mentioned Fronto[2], from whose hand we have a collection of letters addressed to the Emperors Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius; also Aulus Gellius, author of the "Attic Nights[3]." Both of these writers flourished in the second half of the second century A.D.
f. The Period of the Decline, from 180 to the close of literary activity in the sixth century A.D. This period is characterized by rapid and radical alterations in the language. The features of the conversational idiom of the lower strata of society invade the literature, while in the remote provinces, such as Gaul, Spain, Africa, the language suffers from the incorporation of local peculiarities. Representative writers of this period are:
Tertullian, about 160-about 240 A.D. (Christian Writer).
Cyprian, about 200-258 A.D. (Christian Writer).
Lactantius, flourished about 300 A.D. (Defense of Christianity).
Ausonius, about 310-about 395 A.D. (Poet).
Jerome, 340-420 A.D. (Translator of the Scriptures).
Ambrose, about 340-397 (Christian Father).
Augustine, 354-430 (Christian Father—"City of God").
Prudentius, flourished 400 A.D. (Christian Poet).
Claudian, flourished 400 A.D. (Poet).
Boëthius, about 480-524 A.D. ("Consolation of Philosophy ").
4. Subsequent History of the Latin Language.—After the sixth century A.D. Latin divides into two entirely different streams. One of these is the literary language maintained in courts, in the Church, and among scholars. This was no longer the language of people in general, and as time went on, became more and more artificial. The other stream is the colloquial idiom of the common people, which developed ultimately in the provinces into the modern so-called Romance idioms. These are the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Provençal (spoken in Provence, i.e. southeastern France), the Rhaeto-Romance[4] (spoken in the Canton of the Grisons in Switzerland), and the Roumanian, spoken in modern Roumania and adjacent districts. All these Romance languages bear the same relation to the Latin as the different groups of the Indo-European family of languages bear to the parent speech.
PART I.
SOUNDS, ACCENT, QUANTITY.
THE ALPHABET.
1. The Latin Alphabet is the same as the English, except that the Latin has no w[2q].
1. K occurs only in Kalendae and a few other words; y and z were introduced from the Greek about 50 B.C., and occur only in foreign words—chiefly Greek.
2. With the Romans, who regularly employed only capitals, I served both as vowel and consonant; so also V. For us, however, it is more convenient to distinguish the vowel and consonant sounds, and to write i and u for the former, j and v for the latter. Yet some scholars prefer to employ i and u in the function of consonants as well as vowels.
CLASSIFICATION OF SOUNDS.
2. 1. The Vowels are a, e, i, o, u, y. The other letters are Consonants. The Diphthongs are ae, oe, ei, au, eu, ui.
2. Consonants are further subdivided into Mutes, Liquids, Nasals, and Spirants.
3. The Mutes are p, t, c, k, q; b, d, g; ph, th, ch. Of these,—
a) p, t, c, k, q are voiceless,[4]i.e. sounded without voice or vibration of the vocal cords.
b) b, d, g are voiced,[5]i.e. sounded with vibration of the vocal cords.
c) ph, th, ch are aspirates. These are confined almost exclusively to words derived from the Greek, and were equivalent to p + h, t + h, c + h, i.e. to the corresponding voiceless mutes with a following breath, as in Eng. loop-hole, hot-house, block-house.
4. The Mutes admit of classification also as
Labials,
p
,
b
,
ph
.
Dentals (or Linguals),
t
,
d
,
th
.
Gutturals (or Palatals),
c
,
k
,
q
,
g
,
ch
.
5. The Liquids are l, r. These sounds were voiced.
6. The Nasals are m, n. These were voiced. Besides its ordinary sound, n, when followed by a guttural mute also had another sound,—that of ng in sing,—the so-called nadulterīnum; as,—
anceps, double, pronounced angceps.
7. The Spirants (sometimes called Fricatives) are f, s, h. These were voiceless.
8. The Semivowels are j and v. These were voiced.
9. Double Consonants are x and z. Of these, x was equivalent to cs, while the equivalence of z is uncertain. See § 3, 3.
10. The following table will indicate the relations of the consonant sounds:—
V
OICELESS
.
V
OICED
.
A
SPIRATES
.
p
,
b
,
ph
,
(Labials).
Mutes,
t
,
d
,
th
,
(Dentals).
c
,
k
,
q
,
g
,
ch
,
(Gutturals).
Liquids,
l
,
r
,
Nasals,
m
,
n
,
f
,
(Labial).
Spirants,
s
,
(Dental).
h
,
(Guttural).
Semivowels,
j
,
v
.
a. The Double Consonants, x and z, being compound sounds, do not admit of classification in the above table.
SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.
3. The following pronunciation (often called Roman) is substantially that employed by the Romans at the height of their civilization; i.e., roughly, from 50 B.C. to 50 A.D.
1. Vowels.
ā
as in
father
;
ă
as in the first syllable
ahá
;
ē
as in
they
;
ĕ
as in
met
;
ī
as in
machine
;
ĭ
as in
pin
;
ō
as in
note
;
ŏ
as in
obey
,
melody
;
ū
as in
rude
;
ŭ
as in
put
;
y
like French
u
, German
ü
.
2. Diphthongs.
ae
like
ai
in
aisle
;
oe
like
oi
in
oil
;
ei
as in
rein
;
au
like
ow
in
how
;
eu
with its two elements,
ĕ
and
ŭ
, pronounced in rapid succession;
ui
occurs almost exclusively in
cui
and
huic
. These words may be pronounced as though written
kwee
and
wheek
.
3. Consonants.
b, d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, qu are pronounced as in English, except that bs, bt are pronounced ps, pt.
c is always pronounced as k.
t is always a plain t, never with the sound of sh as in Eng. oration.
g always as in get; when ngu precedes a vowel, gu has the sound of gw, as in anguis, languidus.
j has the sound of y as in yet.
r was probably slightly trilled with the tip of the tongue.
s always voiceless as in sin; in suādeō, suāvis, suēscō, and in compounds and derivatives of these words, su has the sound of sw.
v like w.
x always like ks; never like Eng. gz or z.
z uncertain in sound; possibly like Eng. zd, possibly like z. The latter sound is recommended.
The aspirates ph, ch, th were pronounced very nearly like our stressed Eng. p, c, t—so nearly so, that, for practical purposes, the latter sounds suffice.
Doubled letters, like ll, mm, tt, etc., should be so pronounced that both members of the combination are distinctly articulated.
SYLLABLES.
4. There are as many syllables in a Latin word as there are separate vowels and diphthongs.
In the division of words into syllables,—
1. A single consonant is joined to the following vowel; as, vo-lat, ge-rit, pe-rit, a-dest.
2. Doubled consonants, like tt, ss, etc., are always separated; as, vit-ta, mis-sus.
3. Other combinations of two or more consonants are regularly separated, and the first consonant of the combination is joined with the preceding vowel; as, ma-gis-trī, dig-nus, mōn-strum, sis-te-re.
4. An exception to Rule 3 occurs when the two consonants consist of a mute followed by l or r (pl, cl, tl; pr, cr, tr, etc.). In such cases both consonants are regularly joined to the following vowel; as, a-grī, vo-lu-cris, pa-tris, mā-tris. Yet if the l or r introduces the second part of a compound, the two consonants are separated; as, ab-rumpō, ad-lātus.
5. The double consonant x is joined to the preceding vowel; as, ax-is, tēx-ī.
QUANTITY.
5. A. Quantity of Vowels.
A vowel is long or short according to the length of time required for its pronunciation. No absolute rule can be given for determining the quantity of Latin vowels. This knowledge must be gained, in large measure, by experience; but the following principles are of aid:—
1. A vowel is long,[6]—
a) before nf or ns; as, īnfāns, īnferior, cōnsūmō, cēnseō, īnsum.
b) when the result of contraction; as, nīlum for nihilum.
2. A vowel is short,—
a) before nt, nd; as, amant, amandus. A few exceptions occur in compounds whose first member has a long vowel; as, nōndum (nōn dum).
b) before another vowel, or h; as, meus, trahō. Some exceptions occur, chiefly in proper names derived from the Greek; as, Aenēās.
B. Quantity of Syllables.
Syllables are distinguished as long or short according to the length of time required for their pronunciation.
1. A syllable is long,[7]—
a) if it contains a long vowel; as, māter, rēgnum, dīus.
b) if it contains a diphthong; as, causae, foedus.
c) if it contains a short vowel followed by x, z, or any two consonants (except a mute with l or r); as, axis, gaza, restō.
2. A syllable is short, if it contains a short vowel followed by a vowel or by a single consonant; as, mea, amat.
3. Sometimes a syllable varies in quantity, viz. when its vowel is short and is followed by a mute with l or r, i.e. by pl, cl, tl; pr, cr, tr, etc.; as, ăgrī, volŭcris.[8] Such syllables are called common. In prose they were regularly short, but in verse they might be treated as long at the option of the poet.
NOTE.—These distinctions of long and short are not arbitrary and artificial, but are purely natural. Thus, a syllable containing a short vowel followed by two consonants, as ng, is long, because such a syllable requires more time for its pronunciation; while a syllable containing a short vowel followed by one consonant is short, because it takes less time to pronounce it. In case of the common syllables, the mute and the liquid blend so easily as to produce a combination which takes no more time than a single consonant. Yet by separating the two elements (as ag-rī) the poets were able to use such syllables as long.
ACCENT.
6. 1. Words of two syllables are accented upon the first; as, tégit, mō´rem.
2. Words of more than two syllables are accented upon the penult (next to the last) if that is a long syllable, otherwise upon the antepenult (second from the last); as, amā´vī, amántis, míserum.
3. When the enclitics -que, -ne, -ve, -ce, -met, -dum are appended to words, if the syllable preceding the enclitic is long (either originally or as a result of adding the enclitic) it is accented; as, miserō´que, hominísque. But if the syllable still remains short after the enclitic has been added, it is not accented unless the word originally took the accent on the antepenult. Thus, pórtaque; but míseráque.
4. Sometimes the final -e of -ne and -ce disappears, but without affecting the accent; as, tantō´n, istī´c, illū´c.
5. In utră´que, each, and plēră´que, most, -que is not properly an enclitic; yet these words accent the penult, owing to the influence of their other cases,—utérque, utrúmque, plērúmque.
VOWEL CHANGES.[9]
7.. 1. In Compounds,
a) ĕ before a single consonant becomes ĭ; as,—
colligōfor con-legō.b) ă before a single consonant becomes ĭ: as,—
adigōfor ad-agō.c) ă before two consonants becomes ē; as,—
expersfor ex-pars.d) ae becomes ī; as,—
conquīrōfor con-quaerō.e) au becomes ū, sometimes ō; as,—
conclūdōfor con-claudō;explōdōfor ex-plaudō.2. Contraction. Concurrent vowels were frequently contracted into one long vowel. The first of the two vowels regularly prevailed; as,—
trēs
for
tre-es
;
cōpia
for
co-opia
;
mālō
for
ma(v)elō
;
cōgō
for
co-agō
;
amāstī
for
amā(v)istī
;
cōmō
for
co-emō
;
dēbeō
for
dē(h)abeō
;
jūnior
for
ju(v)enior
.
nīl
for
nihil
;
3. Parasitic Vowels. In the environment of liquids and nasals a parasitic vowel sometimes develops; as,—
vinculum for earlier vinclum.
So perīculum, saeculum.
4. Syncope. Sometimes a vowel drops out by syncope; as,—
ārdor for āridor (compare āridus);
valdē for validē (compare validus).
CONSONANT CHANGES[10]
8. 1. Rhotacism. An original s between vowels became r; as,—
arbōs, Gen. arboris (for arbosis);
genus, Gen. generis (for genesis);
dirimō (for dis-emō).
2. dt, tt, ts each give s or ss; as,—
pēnsum for pend-tum;
versum for vert-tum;
mīles for mīlet-s;
sessus for sedtus;
passus for pattus.
3. Final consonants were often omitted; as,—
cor for cord;
lac for lact.
4. Assimilation of Consonants. Consonants are often assimilated to a following sound. Thus: accurrō (adc-); aggerō (adg-); asserō (ads-); allātus (adl-); apportō (adp-); attulī (adt-); arrīdeō (adr-); afferō (adf-); occurrō (obc-); suppōnō (subp-); offerō (obf-); corruō (comr-); collātus (coml-); etc.
5. Partial Assimilation. Sometimes the assimilation is only partial. Thus:—
a) b before s or t becomes p; as,—
scrīpsī (scrīb-sī), scrīptum (scrīb-tum).
b) g before s or t becomes c; as,—
āctus (āg-tus).
c) m before a dental or guttural becomes n; as,—
eundem (eum-dem); prīnceps (prīm-ceps).
PECULIARITIES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.
9. Many words have variable orthography.
1. Sometimes the different forms belong to different periods of the language. Thus, quom, voltus, volnus, volt, etc., were the prevailing forms almost down to the Augustan age; after that, cum, vultus, vulnus, vult, etc. So optumus, maxumus, lubet, lubīdō, etc. down to about the same era; later, optimus, maximus, libet, libīdō, etc.
2. In some words the orthography varies at one and the same period of the language. Examples are exspectō, expectō; exsistō, existō; epistula, epistola; adulēscēns, adolēscēns; paulus, paullus; cottīdiē, cotīdiē; and, particularly, prepositional compounds, which often made a concession to the etymology in the spelling; as,—
ad-gerō
or
aggerō
;
ad-serō
or
asserō
;
ad-liciō
or
alliciō
;
in-lātus
or
illātus
;
ad-rogāns
or
arrogāns
;
sub-moveō
or
summoveō
;
and many others.
3. Compounds of jaciō were usually written ēiciō, dēiciō, adiciō, obiciō, etc., but were probably pronounced as though written adjiciō, objiciō, etc.
4. Adjectives and nouns in -quus, -quum; -vus, -vum; -uus, -uum preserved the earlier forms in -quos, -quom; -vos, -vom; -uos, -uom, down through the Ciceronian age; as, antīquos, antīquom; saevos; perpetuos; equos; servos. Similarly verbs in the 3d plural present indicative exhibit the terminations -quont, -quontur; -vont, -vontur; -uont, -uontur, for the same period; as, relinquont, loquontur; vīvont, metuont.
The older spelling, while generally followed in editions of Plautus and Terence, has not yet been adopted in our prose texts.
PART II.
INFLECTIONS.
10. The Parts of Speech in Latin are the same as in English, viz. Nouns, Adjectives, Pronouns, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, and Interjections; but the Latin has no article.
11. Of these eight parts of speech the first four are capable of Inflection, i.e. of undergoing change of form to express modifications of meaning. In case of Nouns, Adjectives, and Pronouns, this process is called Declension; in case of verbs, Conjugation.
CHAPTER I.—Declension.
A. NOUNS.
12. A Noun is the name of a person, place, thing, or quality; as, Caesar, Caesar; Rōma, Rome; penna, feather; virtūs, courage.
1. Nouns are either Proper or Common. Proper nouns are permanent names of persons or places; as, Caesar, Rōma. Other nouns are Common: as, penna, virtūs.
2. Nouns are also distinguished as Concrete or Abstract.
a) Concrete nouns are those which designate individual objects; as, mōns, mountain; pēs, foot; diēs, day; mēns, mind.
Under concrete nouns are included, also, collective nouns; as, legiō, legion; comitātus, retinue.
b) Abstract nouns designate qualities; as, cōnstantia, steadfastness; paupertās, poverty.
GENDER OF NOUNS.
13. There are three Genders,—Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter. Gender in Latin is either natural or grammatical.
Natural Gender.
14. The gender of nouns is natural when it is based upon sex. Natural gender is confined entirely to names of persons; and these are—
1. Masculine, if they denote males; as,—
nauta, sailor; agricola, farmer.
2. Feminine, if they denote females; as,—
māter, mother; rēgīna, queen.
Grammatical Gender.
15. Grammatical gender is determined not by sex, but by the general signification of the word, or the ending of its Nominative Singular. By grammatical gender, nouns denoting things or qualities are often Masculine or Feminine, simply by virtue of their signification or the ending of the Nominative Singular. The following are the general principles for determining grammatical gender:—
A. Gender determined by Signification.
1. Names of Rivers, Winds, and Months are Masculine; as,—
Sēquana, Seine; Eurus, east wind; Aprīlis, April.
2. Names of Trees, and such names of Towns and Islands as end in -us, are Feminine; as,—
quercus, oak; Corinthus, Corinth; Rhodus, Rhodes.
Other names of towns and islands follow the gender of their endings (see B, below); as,—
Delphī, n.; Leuctra, n.; Tībur, n.; Carthāgō, f.
3. Indeclinable nouns, also infinitives and phrases, are Neuter; as,—
nihil, nothing; nefās, wrong; amāre, to love.
NOTE.—Exceptions to the above principles sometimes occur; as, Allia (the river), f.
B. Gender determined by Ending of Nominative Singular.
The gender of other nouns is determined by the ending of the Nominative Singular.[11]
NOTE 1.—Common Gender. Certain nouns are sometimes Masculine, sometimes Feminine. Thus, sacerdōs may mean either priest or priestess, and is Masculine or Feminine accordingly. So also cīvis, citizen; parēns, parent; etc. The gender of such nouns is said to be common.
NOTE 2.—Names of animals usually have grammatical gender, according to the ending of the Nominative Singular, but the one form may designate either the male or female; as, ānser, m., goose or gander. So vulpēs, f., fox; aquīla, f., eagle.
NUMBER.
16. The Latin has two Numbers,—the Singular and Plural. The Singular denotes one object, the Plural, more than one.
CASES.
17. There are six Cases in Latin:—
Nominative
,
Case of Subject;
Genitive
,
Objective with
of
, or Possessive;
Dative
,
Objective with
to
or
for
;
Accusative
,
Case of Direct Object;
Vocative
,
Case of Address;
Ablative
,
Objective with
by
,
from
,
in
,
with
.
1. LOCATIVE. Vestiges of another case, the Locative (denoting place where), occur in names of towns and in a few other words.
2. OBLIQUE CASES. The Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Ablative are called Oblique Cases.
3. STEM AND CASE-ENDINGS. The different cases are formed by appending certain case-endings to a fundamental part called the Stem.[12] Thus, portam (Accusative Singular) is formed by adding the case-ending -m to the stem porta-. But in most cases the final vowel of the stem has coalesced so closely with the actual case-ending that the latter has become more or less obscured. The apparent case-ending thus resulting is called a termination.
THE FIVE DECLENSIONS.
18. There are five Declensions in Latin, distinguished from each other by the final letter of the Stem, and also by the Termination of the Genitive Singular, as follows:—
D
ECLENSION
.
F
INAL
L
ETTER OF
S
TEM
.
G
EN
. T
ERMINATION
.
First
ā
-ae
Second
ŏ
-ī
Third
ĭ
/
Some consonant
-īs
Fourth
ŭ
-ūs
Fifth
ē
-ēī
/
-ĕī
Cases alike in Form.
19. 1. The Vocative is regularly like the Nominative, except in the singular of nouns in -us of the Second Declension.
2. The Dative and Ablative Plural are always alike.
3. In Neuters the Accusative and Nominative are always alike, and in the Plural end in -ă.
4. In the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Declensions, the Accusative Plural is regularly like the Nominative.
FIRST DECLENSION.
ā-Stems.
20. Pure Latin nouns of the First Declension regularly end, in the Nominative Singular, in -ă, weakened from -ā, and are of the Feminine Gender. They are declined as follows:—
Porta
,
gate
; stem,
portā-
. SINGULAR.
C
ASES
.
M
EANINGS
.
T
ERMINATIONS
.
Nom.
port
a
a gate
(as subject)
-ă
Gen.
port
ae
of a gate
-ae
Dat.
port
ae
to
or
for a gate
-ae
Acc.
port
am
a gate
(as object)
-am
Voc.
port
a
O gate!
-ă
Abl.
port
ā
with, by, from, in a gate
-ā
PLURAL.
Nom.
port
ae
gates
(as subject)
-ae
Gen.
port
ārum
of gates
-ārum
Dat.
port
īs
to
or
for gates
-īs
Acc.
port
ās
gates
(as object)
-ās
Voc.
port
ae
O gates!
-ae
Abl.
port
īs
with, by, from, in gates
-īs
1. The Latin has no article, and porta may mean either a gate or the gate; and in the Plural, gates or the gates.
Peculiarities of Nouns of the First Declension.
21. 1. EXCEPTIONS IN GENDER. Nouns denoting males are Masculine; as, nauta, sailor; agricola, farmer; also, Hadria, Adriatic Sea.
2. Rare Case-Endings,—
a) An old form of the Genitive Singular in -ās is preserved in the combination pater familiās, father of a family; also in māter familiās, fīlius familiās, fīlia familiās. But the regular form of the Genitive in -ae is also admissible in these expressions; as, pater familiae.
b) In poetry a Genitive in -āī also occurs; as, aulāī.
c) The Locative Singular ends in -ae; as, Rōmae, at Rome.
d) A Genitive Plural in -um instead of -ārum sometimes occurs; as, Dardanidum instead of Dardanidārum. This termination -um is not a contraction of -ārum, but represents an entirely different case-ending.
e) Instead of the regular ending -īs, we usually find -ābus in the Dative and Ablative Plural of dea, goddess, and fīlia, daughter, especially when it is important to distinguish these nouns from the corresponding forms of deus, god, and fīlius, son. A few other words sometimes have the same peculiarity; as, lībertābus (from līberta, freedwoman), equābus (mares), to avoid confusion with lībertīs (from lībertus, freedman) and equīs (from equus, horse).
Greek Nouns.
22. These end in -ē (Feminine); -ās and -ēs (Masculine). In the Plural they are declined like regular Latin nouns of the First Declension. In the Singular they are declined as follows:—
Archiās
,
Archias
.
Epitomē
,
epitome
.
Comētēs
,
comet
.
Nom.
Archi
ās
epitom
ē
comēt
ēs
Gen.
Archi
ae
epitom
ēs
comēt
ae
Dat.
Archi
ae
epitom
ae
comēt
ae
Acc.
Archi
am
(or
-ān
)
epitom
ēn
comēt
ēn
Voc.
Archi
ā
epitom
ē
comēt
ē
(or
-ă
)
Abl.
Archi
ā
epitom
ē
comēt
ē
(or
-ā
)
1. But most Greek nouns in -ē become regular Latin nouns in -a, and are declined like porta; as, grammatica, grammar; mūsica, music; rhētorica, rhetoric.
2. Some other peculiarities occur, especially in poetry.
SECOND DECLENSION.
ŏ-Stems.
23. Pure Latin nouns of the Second Declension end in -us, -er, -ir, Masculine; -um, Neuter. Originally -us in the Nominative of the Masculine was -os; and -um of the Neuters -om. So also in the Accusative.
Nouns in -us and -um are declined as follows:—
Hortus
,
garden
; stem,
hortŏ-
.
Bellum
,
war
; stem,
bellŏ-
.
SINGULAR.
T
ERMINATION
.
T
ERMINATION
.
Nom.
hort
us
-us
bell
um
-um
Gen.
hort
ī
-ī
bell
ī
-ī
Dat.
hort
ō
-ō
bell
ō
-ō
Acc.
hort
um
-um
bell
um
-um
Voc.
hort
e
-e
bell
um
-um
Abl.
hort
ō
-ō
bell
ō
-ō
PLURAL.
Nom.
hort
ī
-ī
bell
a
-a
Gen.
hort
ōrum
-ōrum
bell
ōrum
-ōrum
Dat.
hort
īs
-īs
bell
īs
-īs
Acc.
hort
ōs
-ōs
bell
a
-a
Voc.
hort
ī
-ī
bell
a
-a
Abl.
hort
īs
-īs
bell
īs
-īs
Nouns in -er and -ir are declined as follows:—
Puer
,
boy
; stem,
puerŏ-
Ager
,
field
; stem,
agrŏ-
Vir
,
man
; stem,
virŏ-
SINGULAR.
T
ERMINATION
.
Nom.
puer
ager
vir
Wanting
Gen.
puer
ī
agr
ī
vir
ī
-ī
Dat.
puer
ō
agr
ō
vir
ō
-ō
Acc.
puer
um
agr
um
vir
um
-um
Voc.
puer
ager
vir
Wanting
Abl.
puer
ō
agr
ō
vir
ō
-ō
PLURAL.
Nom.
puer
ī
agr
ī
vir
ī
-ī
Gen.
puer
ōrum
agr
ōrum
vir
ōrum
-ōrum
Dat.
puer
īs
agr
īs
vir
īs
-īs
Acc.
puer
ōs
agr
ōs
vir
ōs
-ōs
Voc.
puer
ī
agr
ī
vir
ī
-ī
Abl.
puer
īs
agr
īs
vir
īs
-īs
1. Note that in words of the type of puer and vir the final vowel of the stem has disappeared in the Nominative and Vocative Singular.
In the Nominative and Vocative Singular of ager, the stem is further modified by the development of e before r.
2. The following nouns in -er are declined like puer: adulter, adulterer; gener, son-in-law; Līber, Bacchus; socer, father-in-law; vesper, evening; and compounds in -fer and -ger, as signifer, armiger.
Nouns in -vus, -vum, -quus.
24. Nouns ending in the Nominative Singular in -vus, -vum, -quus, exhibited two types of inflection in the classical Latin,—an earlier and a later,—as follows:—
Earlier Inflection (including Caesar and Cicero).
Servos
, m.,
slave
.
Aevom
, n.,
age
.
Equos
, m.,
horse
.
SINGULAR.
Nom.
servos
aevom
equos
Gen.
servī
aevī
equī
Dat.
servō
aevō
equō
Acc.
servom
aevom
equom
Voc.
serve
aevom
eque
Abl.
servō
aevō
equō
Later inflection (after Cicero).
SINGULAR.
Nom.
servus
aevum
equus
Gen.
servī
aevī
equī
Dat.
servō
aevō
equō
Act.
servum
aevum
equum
Voc.
serve
aevum
eque
Abl.
servō
aevō
equō
1. The Plural of these nouns is regular, and always uniform.
Peculiarities of Inflection in the Second Declension.
25. 1. Proper names in -ius regularly form the Genitive Singular in -ī (instead of -iī), and the Vocative Singular in -ī (for -ie); as Vergílī, of Virgil, or O Virgil (instead of Vergiliī, Vergilie). In such words the accent stands upon the penult, even though that be short. Nouns in -ajus, -ejus form the Gen. in -aī, -eī, as Pompejus, Pompeī.
2. Nouns in -ius and -ium, until after the beginning of the reign of Augustus (31 B.C.), regularly formed the Genitive Singular in -i (instead of -iī); as,—
Nom.
ingenium
fīlius
Gen.
ingénī
fīlī
These Genitives accent the penult, even when it is short.
3. Fīlius forms the Vocative Singular in -ī (for -ie); viz. fīlī, O son!
4. Deus, god, lacks the Vocative Singular. The Plural is inflected as follows:—
Nom.
dī
(deī)
Gen.
deōrum
(deum)
Dat.
dīs
(deīs)
Acc.
deōs
Voc.
dī
(deī)
Abl.
dīs
(deīs)
5. The Locative Singular ends in -ī; as, Corinthī, at Corinth.
6. The Genitive Plural has -um, instead of -ōrum,—
a) in words denoting money and measure; as, talentum, of talents; modium, of pecks; sēstertium, of sesterces.
b) in duumvir, triumvir, decemvir; as, duumvirum.
c) sometimes in other words; as, līberum, of the children; socium, of the allies.
Exceptions to Gender in the Second Declension.
26. 1. The following nouns in -us are Feminine by exception:—
a) Names of towns, islands, trees—according to the general rule laid down in § 15, 2; also some names of countries; as Aegyptus, Egypt.
b) Five special words,—
alvus, belly;
carbasus, flax;
colus, distaff;
humus, ground;
vannus, winnowing-fan.
c) A few Greek Feminines; as,—
atomus, atom;
diphthongus, diphthong.
2. The following nouns in -us are Neuter:—
