Hello All,
I am still trudging though D’Ooge, and I have a question about how he introduces the noun in it’s declensions.
He introduces, Nom, Gen, Acc, Dat…
That’s as far as I’ve got. The order seems weird to me, because in Greek we learned it…Nom, Gen, Dat, Acc.
Just checking to make sure that D’Ooge’s way is the common way before I make my noun charts.
In Wheelock, it is Nom, Gen, Dat, Acc, Abl. Doesn’t seem like the order would make much difference though.
Rhuiden
I disagree. I find the American manner of ordering the cases in declensions to be the optimum by far:
Nominative
Genitive
Dative
Accusative
Ablative
It has a wondrous logic, worthy of the Romans. The nominative as the principle is obvious. The genitive is the secondary form listed in dictionaries, just as it should be, for it along with the nominative lets you know virtually all that is necessary to understand the noun. The final placement of the accusative and ablative cases makes a great deal of sense, for they both take prepositions, whereas the dative case does not. Indeed, the ablative, I believe, may take more prepositions than the accusative. The ablative is also the most complex and, to us, perhaps the most alien of all the cases, considering its variety of usages and prepositions. Moreover, separating the dative and ablative by the accusative is very helpful, since the dative and ablative are very often the same, and the pattern of the repetition always feels more reasonable and comprehensible and easier to memorize as it is above.
Though I would be very curious to learn how the Romans organized their grammatica.
Thanks Lucus 
I appreciate your replies, they are always so well worded and thought out. You must learn Greek, so that you can be a boon to our Greek boards as well!
I thought that the arrangement was suspect (to my Greek eyes anyhow), thatnks for the info…off to make my noun charts now!
saluete Luce, Kopio, et alii
Here is a bit from Donati Ars Minor:
casus nominum quot sunt? sex. qui? > nominatiuus genetiuus datiuus accusatiuus uocatiuus ablatiuus> . per hos omnium generum nomina pronomina participia declinantur hoc modo: magister nomen appellatiuum generis masculini numeri singularis figurae simplicis casus nominatiui et uocatiui, quod declinabitur sic: nominatiuo hic magister, genetiuo huius magistri, datiuo huic magistro, accusatiuo hunc magistrum, , ablatiuo ab hoc magistro; et pluraliter nominatiuo hi magistri, genetiuo horum magistrorum, datiuo his magistris, accusatiuo hos magistros, uocatiuo o magistri, ablatiuo ab his magistris . . .
And so on through the declinations.
So, as you can see he lists the cases in the same order as Lucus said. Except that he inserts the vocative between the accusative and the ablative.
Strangely enough, he takes the “2nd” declension first, then musa of the “1st”, then scamnum of the 2nd. Then felix and sacerdos of the 3rd declension.
Donatus lived about AD 330. So classical grammarians may have other orderings.
Nihil laboris est, amice! No problem!
I appreciate your replies, they are always so well worded and thought out. You must learn Greek, so that you can be a boon to our Greek boards as well!
You are very kind, my friend; thank you for the compliment. I hope that I soon shall be tackling the great Hellenistic tongue very soon.
I thought that the arrangement was suspect (to my Greek eyes anyhow), thatnks for the info…off to make my noun charts now!
Age! 
Salue ad te quoque, amans!
So, as you can see he lists the cases in the same order as Lucus said. Except that he inserts the vocative between the accusative and the ablative.
That’s fascinating; that’s actually exactly the manner in which Italians order their cases in declensions, with the vocative between the accusative and the ablative in just the same way. How curious. Thanks for finding that!
Strangely enough, he takes the “2nd” declension first, then musa of the “1st”, then scamnum of the 2nd. Then felix and sacerdos of the 3rd declension.
That’s interesting; that’s exactly how the genders of I/II declension adjectives are ordered, no? As in laudatus, -a, -um. Maybe he was just doing the masculine first, then the feminine, then the neuter, out of Roman habit? Modern Germans, who also have all three genders in their language, list pronouns (for example) by masculine, feminine, then neuter in the same fashion; maybe it’s a universal trend.
As for the vocative after the accusative…maybe he is simply following Greek declensions? I didn’t mention vocative, but usually you learn…nom, gen, dat, acc, voc in Greek. There is so little Vocative in Koine (NT anyways) that it’s almost not even worth mentioning. Koine does a lot of Nom for Voc instead. Plus…vocative is so blatantly obvious, you don’t even really have to learn it (IMHO)
Now ablative…the dative can function sort of like the ablative in Greek, I believe…but I haven’t hit that chapter yet in D’Ooge, so I am speaking from ignorance.
You mean that the Greek dative can function like the Latin ablative at times? Yes, from what I know of Greek that makes sense. Greek grammar reminds me an aweful lot of German grammar, actually, just in having the nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative, and I bet there are dative prepositions too in Greek? Ah, good ol’ German … I’ll have to study you again this fall.
Anyway, if you have any specific ablative questions, please ask when they occur!
As a matter of fact…Greek does have dative prepositions. The chief one being PROS, which denotes (oftentimes) to, toward, or with
surely the most common one in europe, i hope, is:
nom, acc, gen, dat, abl.
Lucus Eques, why is your “american”?
I’m Dutch, and I learned nom, gen, dat, acc, abl (with the vocative mentioned separately for the 2nd decl.).
This German site (http://www.univie.ac.at/latein/lerg/frames.htm##1=http:/) uses the nom, gen, order too.
So not all of Europe uses nom, acc. etc.
Ingrid
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. If you mean to ask, why do I say that the Nom/Gen/Dat/Acc/Abl sequence is American, the reason is because this pattern is found universally in American textbooks and universities (though I’m sure there are exceptions — as common as the occasional “frilly” American who spells “color” with a ‘u’ 
), whereas I knew there to be some European versions which differ.
Where do you come from yourself, Ioannes?
I am from Norway, and my norwegian textbooks (although I gone over to Lingua Latina) use the nom, (voc), acc, gen, dat, abl. pattern. And even in my Hans Ørberg’s books (Lingua Latina per se illustrata) the pattern is the same. I got a collection of fables by cambridge, too, and the pattern is the same. I have somewhat been taught that nom, voc, acc, gen, dat, abl is the proper classical case pattern.
Yes, I was just about to mention that, that our good friend the Dane Hans Ørberg also composes his declensions in the same fashion; perhaps this pattern is generally more northern European, even Scandinavian? Personally, whenever I see it in Lingua Latina it drives me nuts; but thankfully I’ve already memorized all the declensions so it doesn’t bother me that much.
I got a collection of fables by cambridge, too, and the pattern is the same. I have somewhat been taught that nom, voc, acc, gen, dat, abl is the proper classical case pattern.
Well, according to amans, it seems the Romans preferred the “Italo-American” way of organizing the declensions. In my humble opinion, I then would regard the N/G/D/A/Ab pattern to be the “proper classical” pattern.
In Italy we use the same order as in Netherland and Germany
Possibly, does most Europe do so?
Rgds
Misopogon
Although, many romans did hopefully without the patterns, don’t you think?
Yes, I am suprised to see it varies so much in Europe (and the other continents). And it seems like you a right; the pattern i mention could be a typical pattern exclusively for nothern Europe, perhaps only Scandinavia, even though it sounds a bit odd.
Perhaps I could mail Hans himself?
I don’t think Hans invented it . My 1858 Madvig grammar (i.e. translated and edited by a Dutch schoolmaster) has the nom, acc order; all my other grammars, written originally by Dutch schoolmasters have nom, gen, etc. Madvig was Danish, I believe.
Anyway, the nom, acc, etc. order used in Scandinavia is not a new one…
Ingrid
I really hope I didn’t give you the impression I thought so:) But he might know what is the most common one among scandinavians, and why it’s like that.
Haha, how’s your Danish?
Give it a shot: orberg@lingua-latina.dk He looks like a nice feller from the pictures I googled
I’d love to see other Roman grammarians’ views on this. Perhaps they could confirm the theory, Luke. However, I haven’t been able to track down anything earlier than Donatus. I would really like to know if the works of other Roman grammarians survive. I wonder where one might find a chronology of Roman grammarians?
I do think, however, that Donatus (circa 330 AD) was very influential on later writers. Found this from a German site:
Phocas: De nomine et verbo. Priscianus: Institutio de nomine, pronomine, et verbo; (Pseudo-) Flavius Caper: De orthographia et latinitate verborum. Agroecius: De orthographia et proprietate et differentia sermonis. Aelius Donatus: [Ars Maior P.2-3] De octo partibus orationis et de barbarismo. Maurus Servius Honoratus: Commentarius in artem Donati
Donatus might prove an interesting read though. There’s an online version of Ars Minor at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/don.html