>third nom neut sing 0
>third acc neut sing 0
>third nom mas sing 0
>third nom fem sing 0
>secnd nom neut plur a
>first nom fem sing a
>third acc neut plur a
>third nom neut plur a
>secnd acc neut plur a
>first abl fem sing a-
>first gen fem plur a-rum
>first acc fem plur a-s
>first dat fem sing ae
>first gen fem sing ae
>first nom fem plur ae
>first acc fem sing am
>third abl neut sing e
>third abl mas sing e
>third abl fem sing e
>fifth abl fem sing e-
>fifth abl fem plur e-bus
>fifth dat fem plur e-bus
>fifth gen fem sing e-i
>fifth dat fem sing e-i
>fifth gen fem plur e-rum
>third acc mas plur e-s
>third acc fem plur e-s
>fifth acc fem plur e-s
>third nom fem plur e-s
>fifth nom fem plur e-s
>third nom mas plur e-s
>fifth nom fem sing e-s
>fifth acc fem sing em
>third acc fem sing em
>third acc mas sing em
>secnd nom mas plur i-
>third dat neut sing i-
>secnd gen mas sing i-
>third dat mas sing i-
>secnd gen neut sing i-
>third dat fem sing i-
>secnd dat mas plur i-s
>secnd dat neut plur i-s
>first dat fem plur i-s
>secnd abl neut plur i-s
>secnd abl mas plur i-s
>first abl fem plur i-s
>third dat mas plur ibus
>third abl neut plur ibus
>third dat neut plur ibus
>fourth abl mas plur ibus
>fourth dat mas plur ibus
>third dat fem plur ibus
>third abl fem plur ibus
>third abl mas plur ibus
>third gen neut sing is
>third gen mas sing is
>third gen fem sing is
>secnd abl neut sing o-
>secnd dat mas sing o-
>secnd dat neut sing o-
>secnd abl mas sing o-
>secnd gen neut plur o-rum
>secnd gen mas plur o-rum
>secnd acc mas plur o-s
>fourth abl mas sing u-
>fourth acc mas plur u-s
>fourth gen mas sing u-s
>fourth nom mas plur u-s
>fourth dat mas sing ui-
>secnd acc neut sing um
>third gen neut plur um
>third gen fem plur um
>secnd nom neut sing um
>secnd acc mas sing um
>third gen mas plur um
>fourth acc mas sing um
>fourth nom mas sing us
>secnd nom mas sing us
>fourth gen mas plur uum
>
>This may not be chaos but it is a loss of definition, a move
>toward uniformity where distinctions are lost that had
>been preserved in earlier case systems.
I am not altogether sure what the whole point of this exercise is. I will
grant there is more than enough ambiguity in the (classical) Latin
case-ending system, but it is not nearly so great as the forms listed
superficially would seem to indicate.
(1) One fact worth noting here is that traditional Latin grammar
destinguishes the five declensions marked here as "third," secnd," "first,"
etc., although there is in fact considerably more uniformity of
case-endings across the five declensions. While Greek and Latin both
designate the A-declension as "first," the O-declension as "second," yet
Greek lumps consonant-stems of several different types along with U-stems
and W-stems and assorted stems that have contract-type endings because of
lost digamma, sigma, or iota consonant, Latin has a distinct declension for
U-stems ("fourth") and another for E-stems ("fifth") but the number of
important nouns in the fourth and fifth declensions is fewer than the
fingers of two hands, as most of the U-stems of older Latin have gone over
into the second declension and most of the E-stems of older Latin have gone
over into the first declension. Greek third-declension nouns are a
considerably more complex conglomerate than the supposed common genitive
singular in -OS would make it appear.
(2) Latin A-stems are all declined according to the same pattern, whether
masculine or feminine; Greek A-stems have five different patterns depending
on whether an original long-A has become H or not or whether a noun is
masculine or feminine, or whether the stem is a short-A that lengthens into
H and forms a genitive and dative singular in -HS and Hi respectively while
retaining the short-A in the nominative and accusative.
(3) If one ignores the vowel preceding the endings, it will be seen that
uniformity of Latin case-endings is considerably greater than Clay's list
makes it seem to be:
(a) all masculine and feminine accusative singulars--of all
declensions-- end in -M
(b) all masculine and feminine accusative plurals--of all declensions--
end in long-vowel + S (originally short vowel + NS)
(c) all genitive plurals of all genders and in all declensions end in
-UM; this has been expanded in long-vowel forms to -RUM by using
what was originally a pronominal ending for the nouns
(d) neuter singular nouns (of whatever declension) are identical in
the
nominative and accusative, whatever they may be--EXACTLY AS IN
GREEK;
(e) neuter plural nouns (of whatever declension) are identical in the
nominative and accusative, and they all end in short-A (this was
originally true in Greek also, but contraction of E + A into
long-A and shift of that into H has resulted in a duality of neuter
plural forms in Greek.
(f) 3rd declension masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have become
standardized to the extent that nominative and accusative plurals
are identical (always long-ES). The movement in this direction is
evident in Greek 3rd declension nouns, but it hasn't gone as far
as in Latin.
(g) Dative and Ablative plurals in the first and second declensions end
uniformly in long-IS. While it's not always the case, it is most
often a preposition that really distinguishes usage; dative and
ablative plurals in the third, fourth, and fifth declensions end
uniformly in -BUS, no matter what the preceding vowel is.
(h) Apart from the -AE of the first and the long-O of the second, the
dative singular in Latin nouns is regularly long-I, no matter what
the preceding vowel or consonant may have been (and originally the
-AE was A+long-I and the long-O was O=long-I).
What I'm suggesting here is that it would have been possible to
classify
the Latin case-endings in a much simpler list than the traditional one
handed down by the classical grammarians. On the other hand, I rather
think that the traditional scheme of three declensions handed down by
classical grammarians for Greek disguises a much more complex system
than that in Latin, despite the fact that one more case (the ablative)
survives in Latin. The primary reason for this is that the PIE conso-
nants have survived more or less intact in Latin, while the loss of
intervocalic digamma, -S-, and -Y- have opened hiatus and led to a
plethora of contracted endings that a student must become
accustomed to.
(4) There's another factor related to what I've just mentioned that
complicates the picture of standardization of case-endings and other
morphological features of both languages, and that is the discrepancy
between the language as written and the language as pronounced. (I taught
French once to a lady who had lived in Paris for 20 years and could speak
the language but couldn't read or write it because the written language
poorly reflects the spoken language). Egyptian papyri indicate that many of
the case-endings we are used to differentiating in Koine Greek were not so
clearly differentiated in the spoken language (anyone who reads and speaks
modern Greek, or who reads Biblical Greek in the modern pronunciation is
well aware of this): -OI is not pronounced differently from -H or -EI or
-Hi; -AI is not pronounced differently from -E, hence -AIS is not
pronounced differently from -ES; -HS is not pronounced differently from -US
or -OIS, to mention just a few points. It's not exactly clear at what point
these identities of pronunciation were actualized but it was probably
before the composition of the last book of the NT. We've had numerous
occasions to note that there's a common confusion of hHMEIS and hUMEIS in
the MSS because both were pronounced "ee-mees." All of which means that
Greek case-endings on paper are not necessarily the same as Greek
case-endings as were heard when spoken.
Clay may have had something far different in mind by suggesting this
comparison of the "relative chaos" of case-endings in Latin and Koine
Greek. All I wanted to do was to point out some of the factors that make
Latin case-endings simpler than his list suggests and some of the factors
that make Greek case-endings more complex than they might appear if a
similar list were drawn up.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/