psilord wrote:For example, in 648: First Declension, Singular, Masculine, Nominative.
Why is there an '[face=spionic]j[/face] (none)'? What exactly does the "(none)" mean in this context? Does this mean either I'll see an [face=spionic]j[/face] or I won't?
Yes, 'none' means that there is no 'inflection' for that particular form, no case-ending. Linguists often refer to this as the 'zero' inflection. Among first declension masculine nominatives [face=spionic]A)trei/+dhj
[/face] ends in sigma; [face=spionic]ai)xmhta/
[/face] in 'none'.
psilord wrote:Another question is in 649.
Are ALL forms in the brackets rare and not needing to be memorized? Or just the ones with the footnote attached to it specifying that? I got confused when the First Declension, Dual, Masculine, Genitive (in 649) was [[face=spionic]h|in[/face]] and I thought it was rare, but then saw it plain as day in 659, implying that it was not rare at all since 659 are forms meant to be memorized.
Yes, the forms in square brackets are rare. I'm not sure why Pharr failed to bracket the feminine dual [face=spionic]h|in
[/face] in 649.
psilord wrote:Another question:
In the places where "none" is written (in 648)--excepting the case where the ablaut is specified, will I just see the appropriate word stem for that case?
Not necessarily. Aside from the changes that result from combining stem vowel and case-ending, other changes may occur. Example: Ionic tends to change long alpha into
eta. So the nominative and vocative forms of [face=spionic]boulh/
[/face] are not
psilord wrote:Another question:
In 649, what is the difference between the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Nominative and the Third Declension, Singular, Masc&Fem, Vocative? One of them is 'sigma (none)' and the other is '(sigma none)'.
I suspect this is a typo in Pharr's text.
psilord wrote:And one more question, suppose I have a First Declension, Singular, Feminine, Nominative noun, how can I tell it isn't a First Declension, Dual, Feminine, Nominative noun? How does one know the difference? By the number and person of the verb associated with the nominative noun?
For first declension feminine nouns with nominative singular in long alpha, it can be confusing because these two forms are the same. For such nouns in short alpha, it can also be confusing because they seem to change the short alpha to a long alpha in the dual. This might be apparent in scansion, but it won't be immediately obvious. But, happily, such nouns in eta seem to show long alpha in the dual.
psilord wrote:Am I correct in assuming that all declension conflicts vanish when declensions are combined with the number and person of the verbs operating on them? So far, without verbs (I'm on Lesson III/IV) it is sometimes hard to figure out the plurality of some things.
Not entirely. There are apparent exceptions to the concords in Greek. This means that the expected GRAMMATICAL agreement can be superseded by agreement according to sense or attraction.
When I first encountered the table in 648 I thought, "Great, a single statement of the many case-endings. Master it and you'll be able to derive any substantive form." The reality was quite otherwise. I don't find this table especially useful. The tables provided in 649 are far more useful.
Hope this helps.