Re: YAEPT: uu/ii (< Quick Latin pronunciation question)

Oops. I confused myself midway through my own sentence. Thanks,
Andreas. Yes, the tempus etc. examples were supposed to be for the
N/A/V identity, and the commonality of the -a plural; I'm not quite
sure why I said all singular neuter nouns ended in -um. My bad!

Eugene

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
>
>> Quoting Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM, caeruleancentaur
>> > <caeruleancentaur@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In the first declension, overwhelmingly feminine, there are a few
>> > > masculine words, e.g., "poeta," poet.  The plural is the normal -ae of
>> > > the first declension, "poetae," not the -i of the second.
>> > >
>> > > By analogy, wouldn't the hypothetical plural of "virus," even though
>> > > neuter, be the "viri" of the second declension?  Why would a third
>> > > declension ending, "vira," be introduced?
>> > >
>> >
>> > There is an overriding rule in Latin that all neuter nominatives,
>> > accusatives and vocatives end in -um in the singular and -a in the
>> > plural, whichever declension pattern they belong to. Hence oppidum,
>> > oppida; tempus, tempora; opus, opera; animal, animalia; etc.
>>
>> As Eugene's own examples show, there is no such rule in the singular (further
>> counterexamples: cornu, pl cornua; nomen, pl nomina; systema, pl systemata).
>> The
>> rule for the plural is nevertheless accurate.
>
> I should add that whatever unreasonable shape the neuter nominative singular
> takes, the accusative and vocative singular are always identical to it. Perhaps
> this was what Eugene meant to say?
>
>
> --
> Andreas Johansson
>