Talk:Declension of Greek nouns in Latin

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attempting consolidation[edit]

As part of an attempt to improve this article and the project to which it belongs, I have started a consolidation attempt by referencing it as the main article in the Greek declension's section of Latin declension. I realise it also appears in this article's See also section, but I thought it may be useful both for a reader, and to decrease the orphanhood of this one. More improvements to come. Discussion most appreciated! Axciom (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations[edit]

There are no citations for any of these tables, and some of the forms given are incorrect. For example, Orpheus is two syllables in the poets, not three; neither Perseus nor Gildersleeve and Lodge record a genitive *Orpheus. The dative of Orpheus is Orphei (2 syllables) at Virg. Ecl. 4.55 and Orpheo (2 syllables) at Ovid Am. 3.9.20, but neither is recorded here. The accusative singular *Sōcratōn is completely wrong. The article therefore needs cleaning up, and references to a reliable grammar need to be added. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One might add to the questionable forms: *ēchum, ēchūs, ēchuī etc., which do not actually occur in any author on Perseus. There is no reason to suppose that the first A of Atlās is long. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagus[edit]

The word ‘pelagus’ is missing; apparently it's neuter and it has a plural in -ē. I find it strange that it takes just this one irregular ending from the Greek rather than being either completely regular with a plural in -a or mostly borrowing the Greek forms. For example, why doesn't the genetive end in -ūs like is the case for ‘echo’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plural pelagē apparently occurs only once in Latin literature (Lucretius 6.619; possibly also at Lucr. 5.35, where some texts have the genitive pelagī). The accusative singular pelagum occurs in Vitruvius. Apart from that the singular seems to go like vīrus. It's a fairly (though not entirely) poetic word, so perhaps Lucretius felt justified in using a Greek plural. It also scans more easily when it ends in a long vowel. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]