Noun Stems

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

this may sound really stupid but if you form the noun stem
what is attached to it further? it may be my imagination but
after looking at this book for 9 years if you know that ARC -AE
has the noun/consonant stem ARCA there is nothing to attach
to the end of it. ARC -AE however is declined as follows:


ARCA
ARCAE
ARCAE
ARCAM
ARCA

what endings are attached to the noun stem and what are its use
besides classification?

thanks.

[Benedarius]

I must say I don't really understand what you are saying, particularly when you say "noun/consonant stem".
Arca would fully be declined as
Arca - Arcae
Arcae - Arcaarum
Arcae - Arciis
Arcam - Arcaas
Arcaa - Arciis
Arca - Arcae
Using doubled vowels for a long vowel. But you know that, so what is your question?

[adrianus]

[Noun stem]... and what are its use besides classification?

Studying word stems is a focus for linguistics in the search to understand how, and why, and to what extent, languages come into being, evolve, vary and are understood.
Studium radicum verborum est res una quam spectat scientia linguistica ità in quaerendo: ut intelligatur cur et quomodò atque quatenùs exsistant, evolvant, mutentur, comprehendantur linguae.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

so once youve formed a consonant stem like ARCA -AE: ARCA (-rum)

what is ARCA used for? i do not see any tenses being formed from it
such as present or perfect past participle. the only thing i can find
in the book im using is the fact that it helps you understand the
way the word was formed

can ARCA (consonant stem) be used in somethign like a noun declension?

or is the word ARCA just a theory of how the word is formed. i dont see
the book saying 'take ARCA and add the letters +M' or anythign to indicate
usage.

thanks.

[spiphany]

what is ARCA used for? i do not see any tenses being formed from it
such as present or perfect past participle.

Nouns do not have tenses. Neither do adjectives. Verbs do.
LEARN this. If you don't understand this basic piece of grammar, Latin will continue to make little sense to you.

[adrianus]

or is the word ARCA just a theory of how the word is formed. i dont see
the book saying 'take ARCA and add the letters +M' or anythign to indicate
usage.

Yes, it is a theory of word formation, and sometimes confusing, I think. Yes, in language learning to know the word root serves principally (exclusively?) in word classification, as you say.
De formatione verborum, contemplativa pars artis (seu theoria) est, sané. Nonnunquàm perturbat, ut habeo. Ut rectè dicis, in linguâ discendâ potissimùm (immò exceptione adhibitâ?) radicem sciri adjuvat ut vocabulum in classem describitatur.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Yes, it is a theory of word formation, and sometimes confusing, I think. Yes, in language learning to know the word root serves principally (exclusively?) in word classification, as you say.

what you are saying is that there is no spoken linguistic use for the noun stem or formation. it is a matter of
classyfying words?

thanks.

[Benedarius]

The stem, is just a way of teaching non-native speakers how to form all the other forms. Arca has the stem "arc", but yes, arc means nothing in Latin. The only reason you ever think about arc is so that you can add a, ae etc. to it to form all of its different forms. It has no other purpose.

Because English is pretty analytical at the moment, we don't really have any examples of roots. The closest thing I can think of is "establ", to which we add "ish" and any multitude of other affixes. You could think of "go" as a root, to which we add the ending nothing, nothing, s, nothing, nothing, nothing to form the present tense, but as I say, English is pretty analytical so it doesn't really work.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Arca has the stem "arc", but yes, arc means nothing in Latin. The only reason you ever think about arc is so that you can add a, ae etc. to it to form all of its different forms.

As you said you can add +AE to ARC

Can you add anything to ARCA (the consonant stem)

Thanks.

[adrianus]

My advice to you is to forget about trying to understand stems and just learn the declensions. (It's genuinely confusing to be told that noun stems only really consistently reveal themselves in the genitive plural.)
Consilium meum tibi est hoc: radicum obliviscere, et ad memoriam declinationes refer. (Verò non nimìs adjuvat ut dicetur radices solùm per terminationem genetivi casûs et pluralis numeri cohaerenter se ostendere.)

[Nicolaus]

well, it's just a matter of learning the declensions.

there is a difference in stem between ARCA- and ARC-

ARX [ARC-] and ARCA form their dative and accusative by receiving -I and -M at the end of the stem, so the result is ARCI /ARCAI [--> ARCAE] and ARCEM / ARCAM respectively.

This is more or less how you can see they have different stems and why ARX is called a consonantal stem whereas ARCA is calles an A-stem.

Good luck!

[adrianus]

Salve Nicolaus
Sure, you are right about the following //Sanè, recta sunt sequentia quae dicis

there is a difference in stem between ARCA- and ARC-

ARX [ARC-] and ARCA form their dative and accusative by receiving -I and -M at the end of the stem, so the result is ARCI /ARCAI [--> ARCAE] and ARCEM / ARCAM respectively.

but look hard at the explanation. Why expect someone to understand that the "E" in "ARCEM" doesn't belong to the stem, but the A in ARCAM does? Why expect someone to understand that ARCAE is really ARCAI? And, worst of all, how do you explain to someone that ARX is NOT, in fact, a straightforward CONSONANT STEM but a MIXED STEM noun. In other words, it could be a consonant stem that has become a bit like an i-stem, or an i-stem that has become like a consonant stem? Because it's ARCIUM in the genitive plural (as an i-stem) and IS or ES in the accusative plural (A&G, §§70-72). Understanding takes a backseat to memorization here, I believe. Although, it is true that stem labelling is a good and proper way of labelling word classes to memorize. So I'm not really disagreeing with you deep down, Nicolaus.

Responsum autem tuum diligenter circumspice. Cur ita facilè intellegi opineris? Ut vocalis radicis terminans E litteram in ARCEM duci non oportet; A secunda autem in ARCAM vera pars radicis esse? Cur putas sequentem rem citò intellegibilem esse: quod ARCAE planè ARCAI sit? Postremmum omnium, quomodò molliter explices ARCIS nomen mixtae, non consonantis purae, radicis esse? Estne radix consonans quae adjuncta radicis per "i" quaedam assumpsit, vel estne adversum quod obtinet? ARCIUM enim casus genetivus pluraliter scribitur, quod radicem per "i" aptat. Etiam, ARCIS et ARCES orthographias pro accusativo casu pluralis numeri habes, quae comparatè ad notionem radicis alio loco per "i" et alio per consonantem sunt. (Vide Allen & Greenough, §§70-72.) Opus est intellegere; hîc autem melius est ante omnia alia ad memoriam referre, ut credo. Certè, memoriam valdè adjuvat ut species seu classes nominum per titulos radicum vocentur. Quamobrem non altissimè tecum dissentio, Nicolaus.

[Nicolaus]

Salve Adriane,

I think I agree with you: for practical reasons I teach pupils that ARX is a consonantal stem and ARCA an A-stem.
In this way I hope they can decline the words correctly and differ between them when they meet them in texts.

[adrianus]

Salve Nicolae

I wanted to do a little research on your name in Latin, Nicolaus, before settling on the vocative. I thought it might be third declension, and Nícolaus". It made me wonder was "au" a diphthong because, if it were not, then the stress would fall on the "o" because you seldom get a long vowel ("a") before another vowel ("u"). Now I see that it's second declension and not third. So surely, then, either it has an irregular stress (falling on a short penult, which isn't completely impossible) or there is a long vowel before the "us", and it's "Nicoláus", and in the vocative "Nicoláe", which is interesting, I think, just as "Amadée" is an interesting vocative. Do you know anything about your Latin name?

Ad vocativum nominis latinè tui casum sciendum, Nicolae, eum breviter investigavi. Primò, "au" litteras ut diphthongus habebam et tertiae declinationis nomen esse, ne aliter, ut putavi, accentus in secundam syllabam cecidisset, "a" longâ ante aliam vocalem ("u" videlicet hâc casu) ferè interdictâ (nisi fallor). Nunc id secundae declinationis esse repperio. Ideò, nonnè utrum in syllabam brevem et paenultimam accentus cadat (quod fieri potest, certé) an longa naturâ sit "a" vocalis in nomine isto, et eâ ratione "Nicoláe" nomen vocativo casu. Quod mihi curae est, tanquàm tenet eodem casu "Amadée". Tu ipse, Nicolae, sapisne aliquid de nomine tuo?

Vide hoc situm: http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/scriptorium/Nicholas.html#intro

[Essorant]

The stem is generally the letters that are in every form of the word:

arca
arcae
arcae
arcam

etc.

[adrianus]

Salve Essorant.

Omitting the locative, say there are twelve noun forms: nom (s. and pl.), voc (s. & pl.), acc. (s. & pl.), gen. (s. & pl.), dat. (s. & pl.), abl. (s. & pl.). Forgive me because I did this list quickly and some classes (including irregulars) won't be covered, I predict.

In the first declension (A-stems), "a" is in 10 out of 12 forms.
In third declension Consonant stems, the consonant is generally in 10 out of 12 forms unambiguously.
In fourth declension (U-stems, ignoring the length), 10 out of 12 (with -ibus) 12 out of 12 (with -ubus).
In fifth declension (E-stems, long "e"), 11 out of 12 (or 12 out of 12 if you cheat and include accusative singular -em).

In the second declension (O-stems), "o" is in 4 out of 12 forms generally, and only 3 out of 12 for "-um" nouns.
In third declension pure I-stems, unambiguously (and that's a short i, remember) it is sometimes in 4 out of 12 (imber), 6 out of 12 (ignis and turris), 9 out of 12 (sedile, animal, calcar where abl. s. is unambiguous, if long),—not counting the long i of the dative singular because that applies also to consonant stems, or the long i of the ablative singular because you can as easily write "e" and the stem is a short "i", after all, except for neuters sedile, animal, calcar).


Locativo casu detracto, manent in nominis declinatione formae flexae duodecim.
Ratione et primae et tertiae per consonantem radicem et quartae et quintae declinationis, Essorant, id quod dicis generaliter pertinet.
Idem autem nec ad secundam nec tertiam per "i" in radice pertinet.
Me excusas. Hanc tabulam cursìm collocavi, ideò, metuo ne ordines vocabulorum (non minùs illum inaequalium) omiserim.

[Too messy and slavish it would have been to have to written all the above also in Latin.
Si minutias suprà deditas in sermones latinos convertissem, sic facisse nimis servile et incomptum fuisset.]

[adrianus]

Using my own software on a sample of 32847 nouns, I calculated the probability as being roughly 59% that the root letter is displayed in any inflected form. I must get out more.
Programmate meo proprio cum exemplo triginta duorum miliorum octingenti quadraginta septem nominum uso, quod littera radicis quâ in formâ flexâ invenietur, probabilitatem illius rei ut ferè undesexagesima pars calculavi. Mihi opus sit saepiùs foràs ire.

Here is the data output in HTML code that might be useful to someone.
Ecce data producta in codice HTML (linguâ hypertextûs), quae forsàn utilia alicui sint:

<TABLE BORDER=1>
<TR><TD>GENDER</TD><TD>Decl. 1</TD><TD>p/12</TD><TD>Decl. 2</TD><TD>p/12</TD><TD>Decl. 3i</TD><TD>p/12</TD><TD>Decl. 3c</TD><TD>p/12</TD><TD>Decl. 4</TD><TD>p/12</TD><TD>Decl. 5</TD><TD>p/12</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>Masc.</TD><TD>346</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>6316</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>296</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>1954</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>605</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>11</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>Fem.</TD><TD>10833</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>143</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>336</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>3486</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>11</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>Com.</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>91</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>11</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>Neuter</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>7458</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>277</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>453</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD></TD></TR>
</TABLE>

[Essorant]

Thanks, Adriane. When you lay them down like that the number of exceptions for the final letter(s) of the stem becomes much more obvious. But those are easily explained by sound changes and the like. Who needs a generalization to have no exceptions? If one or even two letters are missing or altered, nevertheless most of the stem still shows up in the form of the word.

[NuclearWarhead]

Unfortunately, statistics aren't much worth without interpretation.

For instance, it is purely convention that we spell it "dominus" and not "dominos" in the nom.sg., and the statistics don't take that into account. In Archaic Latin a convention began whereby <o> in a final syllable came to mean /ō/ because there in a final syllable is no phonemic opposition between (short) /o/ and /u/. So, by this convention, one could now distinguish between the nom.sg. "dominus" and the acc.pl. "dominōs" in the o-stems. If you read Old Latin, you will see countless examples of nom.sg.s in -os.

Similarily, the lack of a stem vowel to the naked eye in the other forms is often easily explained by historical linguistics analogies, syncretisms, etc.

[Essorant]

Are there any recorded examples in Latin where the plural ending -i is -oi as in Greek?

[adrianus]

Salve SpiculumNucleare

Unfortunately, statistics aren't much worth without interpretation.

They are certainly no use if you don't look at them before requiring an explanation. Do you need help to display the HTML table, nuclearwarhead? It's no big deal, anyway, as a table,—just the number of nouns in categories of declension and gender. And "p/12" refers to the number of cases where a stem letter is unambiguous.
Verè, tabula non utilis erit nisi primò ante explicationem requirendam eam inspicias. Egesne auxilii ut tabula HTML ostenditur, SpiculumNucleare? Qualibet, res parvula est illa tabula. Modò numeri nominum declinatione genereque ordinatorum continet. Etiam "p" littera rationem numeri casuum cum radibus sine ambiguitate vocalem nominantem habentis ducit.

For instance, it is purely convention that we spell it "dominus" and not "dominos" in the nom.sg., and the statistics don't take that into account.

The way I did the sums does take that into account, NuclearWarhead, because that I class as an ambiguous case, "-um/-om", "-us/-os", "-em/-im", and the program includes it and other exotic and pre-classical instances. (Not that those are just pre-classical because -os/-us, om/um, "-em/-im" survive into classical Latin, too.) No one would normally talk in statistics but they are useful here in questioning generalizations. That's the only reason I'm offering them, and I don't say they're 100% accurate either, just suggestive and quickly done.
Verè, meus modus calculandi tales res videt, quià "-um" et "-om" sicut ambiguus casus designavi (non minùs "-us/-os", "-em/-im",— et omne horum exemplorum quoquè in aevo classico, et programma meum plus praetereà includit. Nemo qui sermone vulgo loquatur, statisticas huc et illuc injiciat. Solùm ad assertionem latam abrogandam eas hîc adhibui, nec eas undiquè accuratas clamo, magis alias res suggere possunt et citò collectae sunt.

[adrianus]

Salve Essorant

Are there any recorded examples in Latin where the plural ending -i is -oi as in Greek?

These Greek masculine or feminine 2nd declension words, rather than in "-oi", can sometimes end in "-oe" instead of "-i" in Latin in the nominative plural (according to A&G, §52d, as I read there).
Haec vocabuli graeci secundae declinationis generis masculini vel feminini nonnunquàm in "-oe" pro "-i" nominativo casu pluraliter terminantur (secundùm A&G, §52d, ut ibi legi):

acanos acanthos actinophoros adadunephros adipsatheos aegolios aegophthalmos aelinos alphos ampelodesmos amphicomos amphimacros amphitapos amphithalamos anapauomenos Androgeos anthericos anthropographos anthropophagos apophlegmatismos apoxyomenos aracos arrhetos asbestos aspalathos aspendios asteismos atheos aulopoios aulos autopyros avos beloacos belotocos beryllos bios botanismos branchos brenthos bromos bulbos bulimos buphthalmos cactos caestos cammaros caros cataclysmos cenchros Cerberos cervos cestos cestros chalceos characterismos chersydros chirodytos choeros chorios chrysocephalos chrysos cinaedologos cinnamolgos circos cisthos claros cliticos clivos clymenos cobios cochlos cocos Colossos coquos corchoros corytos cosmicos cosmos crataegos cremnos crobylos crocodillos crocodilos crotaphos cyamos Cypros cysthos Damascos deuteros elelisphacos enharmonicos enharmonios epitritos Euhios gorytos haliaeetos hippodromos hyacinthos Hymenaeos hypaethros lagynos leucacanthos lichanos logos lychanos monocerotos peristereos phloginos pissoceros proslambanomenos pygarg rhythmos sarcasmos schematismos scirros scolymos scorpios smaragdos sphacos sycaminos sycomoros syllogismos systylos tenesmos tetrardos tonos tragelaphos tropos trychnos tyrotarichos zmaragdos pharos Pharos Acanthon Aegaleos Egaleos Aegos barbos bendidios burgos tetraedros achilleos acinos acopos acoros aculos acylos adipsos aegonychos agnos alopecuros ampelos amphiprostylos anagtros anhydros anonymos antidotos apios aposplenos apostrophos apsyctos Arctos argyros aros asplenos astolos astrobolos atomos auginos buglossos callithrichos capnios capnos caragogos cemos cestros chalcophonos chalcophthongos chamaecissos chamaecyparissos chamaemelygos chamedyosmos chersos chryselectros chrysocanthos chrysoprasos chrysoprassos cissanthemos cissaros cissos clonos cnecus comaros Corinthos costos crataegonos crethmos crustallos crystallos cyanos cyclaminos cynoglossos cynosbatos cynospastos cyparissos cypros daucos dialectos diametros diphthongos Eosos Ephesos gnecos hyperbolaeos lageos lecythos melilotos nyctegretos opisthotonos perimetros terebenthos terebinthos topazos Tyros Abatos Abydos Acytos Adramittios Aegialos Aegilos Aegospotamos polygrammos polygonos Samos barbitos bolos chironomos chrysolithos cyperos cypiros lotos octaedros

[modus.irrealis]

Old Latin also had -oi for the nominative plural which changed to -i. See the preview at http://books.google.ca/books?id=O7z4Sl- ... #PPA243,M1 for example.

The weird thing is that the reconstructed ending for PIE is -os when it comes to noun and both Greek and Latin (but not any of the other Italic languages I believe) copied the -oi from the pronouns. I've always wondered if the developments are connected since I don't think anything similar took place in any of the other branches.

[adrianus]

Old Latin also had -oi for the nominative plural which changed to -i. See the preview at http://books.google.ca/books?id=O7z4Sl- ... #PPA243,M1 for example.

Is that not just a plausible suggestion (or a hypothesis) without direct proof? it is stated here, too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin, but I don't see any actual evidence in Wordsworth, Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin, 1874, Chapter IX ( "The O and U declensions"), §9 ("Nominative plural", pp.55-58). He imagines an earlier ending, "-ois" or "-oes". I wonder was proof subsequently uncovered.

Nonnè istud est solummodò suggestio (seu hypothesis) credibilis cuius indicia directa carent? In Wikipedia ista opinio aequè adest. Apud Wordsworth autem in fonte sequenti quae indicia vera non invenio: Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin, caput novem, sectio novem. Pristinam terminationem, "-ois" vel "-oes" enim, ille auctor imaginatur. Me rogo an aliàs aliquae indicia inventa sint.

http://ia331413.us.archive.org/1/items/fragmentsspecime00worduoft/fragmentsspecime00worduoft.pdf (Wordsworth)
http://ia341036.us.archive.org/3/items/remnantsofearlyl00alle/remnantsofearlyl00alle.pdf (secundùm Allen)

[modus.irrealis]

Interesting, thanks. I had always just assumed that it was found in the remains of Old Latin. According to Sihler, though, there is one example, where Festus quotes "poploe" = "populi", with the presumed original -oi having been classicized to -oe. You can see it as http://books.google.ca/books?id=reMAAAA ... &dq=poploe.

I was also wrong about this kind of plural being shared only by Greek and Latin. Sihler states Old Irish and the Baltic-Slavic languages also share the development.

[adrianus]

Interesting, thanks. I had always just assumed that it was found in the remains of Old Latin.

No problem. Willingly. But who knows, I might be totally wrong, for I'm a pretty unreliable witness. I just read bits and pieces and, doing that, one misses many things and sometimes you miss the big picture.
Licet. Libenter. At verum dicere, fortassè graviter erro. Etenim testis incertus sum. Solùm fragmenta dispersa lego. Sic in faciendo multa sunt quae praetereas, et potest ut prospectus tuus angustus maneat.