Dictionary noun descriptions

I’m a bit embarrassed to ask this, but, my dictionary lists some nouns as “plural” after giving the usual nominative and genitive singular of the noun in the entry. Does this mean that the singular declensions work as plural? Another question I have is, do proper nouns ordinarily have plural declensions?

I’m trying a method where you learn all of the declensions and conjugations before doing anything else. I started with the Wheelock vocab, but got bored and started getting nouns from my Cassell’s dictionary. Now I’m slowing myself down worrying about this plural business. Every study session seems to get half lost in things like this.

Could you provide an example? I have Cassell’s but can’t recall ever seeing what you’ve described.

As for proper nouns, many cities and towns, such as Athenae and Tarquinii, are plurale tantum words, i.e. grammatically plural but singular in meaning. Names of persons can be pluralized by regular declension if the need arises. Caesares, referring to the imperial title, is the most salient example.

Salve RDH and welcome // gratus tuus adventus

No, I wouldn’t imagine so (not having seen the source). // Non significat, ut opinor (fonte minimè viso).

William Whitaker does this sort of thing in his Words program:

It lets you search for theoretical forms,—forms that are not used in practice.
It’s just a searching device or the result of computer-indexing methods.

Sic facit Guillielmus Whitaker in programmate suo (anglicè) Words enim, ut inveniantur formae theoreticae (seu formales) non aliter usae. Ferè est dolus inquisitionis vel ordinatralium rationum eventus.

I’m no Latin “expert,” but I think you’re referring to, e.g., the following:

  1. copia, -ae, f.: “plenty, abundance” (sg.); “troops” (pl.)
  2. littera, -ae, f.: “letter (of alphabet)”; “literature, epistle” (pl.)

where the noun in the singular has a different meaning than the noun in the plural? For instance, Cassell’s gives the following entry for ops, opis (f.):

ops> , opis, f., plur., > opes> , -um…

Where, for instance, ops generally means “aid, help, support, assistance” or “power, might, strength, influence,” and so forth in the singular, but more often means “wealth, riches, resources, might, power” in the plural?

Yes! I think that’s it, that last example using “letter” and “letters”. Thanks! I’m still a bit confused about proper nouns, but I’m going to go over the replies more carefully before asking. This site’s a really good idea; there’s always some little stumbling block like this that can derail a study session, if there’s no one to ask.

My last response might have been too hasty (except in saying thanks for the answers, and giving my opinion of the site). Here’s an example from my dictionary:

accusatrix -icis f. a female accuser: PL.

accusatrix -icis f. a female accuser: PL.

PL. = word found in the works of Plautus (the dramatist) // vocabulum apud Plautum fabularum scriptorem invenitur

So, it was a dumb question; but I’m glad I won’t have to worry about it any longer. Thanks for the answer.

Personally, I thought it was a good question. It’s not obvious that “: PL.” doesn’t mean “(pl.)” and your question definitely applies to the Whitaker example above.

Ego equidem eam bonam quaestionem habeo. Non clarum est quod “PL.” numerum pluralis non significet. Et aptissimè ad exemplum quidem apud Whitaker tua quaestio pertinet.

I’ll take this opportunity to ask a question about notation in Whitaker’s Words.

Hîc mihi accidit dubia ponere de notatione programmatis Whitaker.

I’ve used this program forever, but I’ve never figured out what the brackets mean “[XXHCO]”

Semper programmate hoc utor, sed quid parentheses significent numquam invenio.

Salve thesaure

Amazing. I had no idea those information files existed (probably because I never looked). I didn’t know there was so much extra information embedded in the program.

There are many inaccuracies (the task is just too huge) but many good things.
Sunt multa errata (pensum nimis onerosum est) at multa bona.