Re: Order of cases

Ray wrote:

>Darn it - I forgot novelties like the "Cambridge Latin Course" when I
>wrote my mail about the 'history of the order of cases'. I stopped in the
>mid 20th century. After that came the Cambridge course. IIRC the original
>version of the course put the cases in the order: NOM, ACC, DAT, GEN, ABL
>and called them the A-Form, B-Form, C-Form, D-Form & E-Form. The order was
>determined as far as I could see by the order in which they were explained
>in the course. The new names were meant to make it 'easier' because it was
>thought the traditional names put pupils off.
[snip]

>The course was eventually revised and the traditional names re-instated.
>Also it must have become apparent that in Latin it is more sensible to
>keep the Dative & Ablative together, so the order given became NOM, ACC,
>DAT, ABL, GEN as Christian gives above. I remember thinking at the time
>"Why didn't they stick the GEN back in between the the NOM+ACC and the DAT+
>ABL, as it had been for more than half a century in Britain?"
I teach the Cambridge Latin Course, and it's the same ol' NGDAAb
order that I teethed on. Mind you, it's the "North American Third
Edition". Perhaps UK editions are formatted differently.

Kou