Template talk:sga-decl-o-masc
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by CodeCat in topic Nominative plural
Nominative plural
[edit]@Angr This template has a parameter for the nominative plural form, but if it's empty it defaults to the genitive singular form. None of our current entries actually use this parameter, so I wonder what nouns it's intended for? —CodeCat 23:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the acc/voc plural, is the -u part the same for all nouns of this type? And likewise, is dat plural -aib always the same, with only the part before it differing? —CodeCat 23:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are some o-stem nouns where the nominative plural is not identical to the genitive singular, though I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment. AFAIK the acc/voc plural is always the nom.sg. plus -u, and the dat plural is always the nom.sg. plus -aib. It couldn't hurt to add an optional parameter for those, just in case there are exceptions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Since you created this template, is it ok to assume that you're fine with having potentially unattested forms in the table, and also not having all attested variants of each case form in the table, the way we currently have it for verbs? —CodeCat 15:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess so. Unattested noun forms are much easier to predict that verb forms are, especially for the masculine o-stems. Obviously not every noun's vocative plural or dative dual will be attested, but you'll always know what it would be if it were. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The main variations I've seen so far are in the application of vowel affection (oi next to ui) and also in whether palatalisation is indicated by placing i before the consonant cluster. I'm not sure if the same variation occurs with u-affection too. —CodeCat 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess so. Unattested noun forms are much easier to predict that verb forms are, especially for the masculine o-stems. Obviously not every noun's vocative plural or dative dual will be attested, but you'll always know what it would be if it were. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed, for fer, the acc pl is not the nom sg + -u, there is raising (or rather, lack of lowering) in the acc pl. Same for son, where it's actually raising. From what I can tell from these two nouns is that the accusative plural stem can't be reliably derived from one particular other stem. It seems like it's always identical to one of the other stems, but not always the same one. Since the ending is -u, and the dative singular ending also had -u before, I'd say that the accusative plural stem is simply the dative singular stem with the diphthong removed: fiur > fir-. —CodeCat 21:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Though apparently in dam the diphthong stays in the accusative plural. And día has a unique form altogether. —CodeCat 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Since you created this template, is it ok to assume that you're fine with having potentially unattested forms in the table, and also not having all attested variants of each case form in the table, the way we currently have it for verbs? —CodeCat 15:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)