DOCSLIB.ORG

CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAS LX 522 Syntax I Describing the grammatical CAS LX 522 system n Our goal is to describe the systematic Syntax I grammatical knowledge that people have. n To describe how words can be combined (and how they cannot be combined) into Week 2a. Categories sentences requires classification of words into different groups that each share syntactic properties, the syntactic categories. Grammatical categories Nouns n Nouns generally are used to refer to something, n A grammatical category is a class of expressions a person, an object, an abstract idea. which share a common set of grammatical properties. n Nouns can often have a plural. n But: sheep, deer n But: furniture n Some that we know when we see: n But: policy decisions n frog, utensil, liberty: noun n The distinction between singular and plural is a n jump, know, donate: verb grammatical distinction. The difference between n smooth, intense, magenta, likely: adjective dog and cat is a difference of content, whereas n rapidly, halfheartedly, effectively, well: adverb the difference between dog and dogs is n on, under, aboard: preposition predictable if you know what dog means. Predictable things are part of the grammar. Inflectional morphology Verbs n Morphology like the plural -s in English n Verbs carry inflectional morphology that that marks a grammatical property is reflect tense and aspectual properties. inflectional morphology. BASE PERF PAST PRES PROG sew sewn sewed sews sewing go gone went goes going n In a sense, these markings reflect meaning. speak spoken spoke speaks speaking see seen saw sees seeing come came comes coming wait waited waits waiting meet met meets meeting cut cuts cutting 1 Derivational morphology and Derivational morphology category n Inflectional morphology is distinguished from n Derivational morphology often seems to be derivational morphology, which can be seen as sensitive to category and can change words from changing or adding to meaning. one category to another. n noun Æ adjective: ish, like, esque n un: tie, untie. n verb Æ noun: er, n iN: possible, impossible, regular, irregular, tolerable, n adjective/adverb adjective/adverb: iN, un intolerable Æ n adjective Æ noun: ness n re: retie, rewrite. n … n The point is: we need to recognize categories of n This is still at a fairly intuitive level, of course… words to adequately describe/explain language. Sharing properties Distribution n There are a number of morphological n One of the best definitional characteristics hints (but they are not completely reliable, of a syntactic category is its distribution. due to irregularity): n In general, you can substitute something n nouns can have a plural (+s, usually) with another thing of the same syntactic n verbs inflect for 3sg agreement (usually) category. n verbs inflect for tense/aspect: ing, en/ed. n Obvious is an adjective. n adjectives can often be emphasized with very, n It is obvious that Pat likes Tracy. as can adverbs. n It is likely that Pat likes Tracy. n adverbs often end in ly. n So, likely is also an adjective. Distribution Lexical and functional n They have no noun. n Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs: These are lexical categories. They carry significant and n They can verb. arbitrary meaning, and they are open-class (new n They are adjective. ones can be invented). n But not all words are of this kind (except maybe n Very adverb, very adjective. on telegrams). n so long as it makes sense (e.g., with gradable n Telegram: Ancient form of instant messaging. adjectives; #they are very absent) n Sentences are held together by little “function n Right preposition words” as well. These are the functional categories. n right over the house 2 Lexical and functional Determiners n Functional categories are more like the syntactic n Determiners generally come before a noun, and “glue” of a sentence, concerned more with come in a few different types. grammatical properties. n Articles: the, an. n Determiners: the, a(n) n Quantificational determiners: some, most n Quantifiers (determiners): some, every n Interrogative determiner: which n Demonstratives: that, this, those n Demonstratives: that, this n Possessive pronouns: my, your n Possessive pronouns: my, your, their n Any old pronouns: you, him, they n These types are similar to… and different n Infinitival to from… one another. For now, we’ll lump them n Auxiliaries/Modals: have, be, do, can, should together. n Complementizers: that, for, if Determiners v. adjectives Determiners v. adjectives n Can we lump determiners together with n The big fluffy pink rabbit adjectives? Maybe we could have a simpler n The my rabbit theory of categories if we just put determiners n The that rabbit and adjectives together. n Every my rabbit n They both come before nouns (in English) n To properly describe the distribution of these n They both seem to “modify” the noun. elements, we really need to separate them into n Tall building. two classes. Lumping them together will not n That building. give us a simpler descriptive system. n n A building. Determiners cannot co-occur with other determiners, and must precede any adjectives. n My building. n Adjectives can occur with other adjectives. Regarding chairs and furniture Pronouns n Nouns can be broken up into two classes, the n Pronouns differ from nouns in a couple of mass nouns that refer to “stuff” and the count ways, and should be considered a nouns that refer to things we can count. Furniture is a mass noun, chair is a count noun. functional category. n The use of determiners is sensitive to this n The pronouns of English express person, difference. What are you looking for? *Chair, *fancy number, and gender (3rd person). chair, a chair, that chair, furniture, fancy furniture. n 1st person: I, me, we, us n It seems that in a fragment response, you need to have a determiner if you’re going to use a count n 2nd person: you noun. An adjective won’t do, hence adjectives n 3rd person: he, she, him, her, they, them, it can’t be the same as determiners. 3 Case Auxiliaries and modals n Pronouns differ from regular nouns in that n Different from verbs: have, be, do, will, can, might. they give an indication of their function in n In questions, auxiliaries “invert” with the subject, verbs don’t. the sentence. They are marked for case. n Will you leave? Can you leave? Do you leave often? *Leave you often? n Subject: he, she, I, they n Auxiliaries occur before not, verbs don’t. n Non-subject: him, her, me, them n You will not leave. You did not leave. *You left not. n You and it do not vary regardless of n Notice the extra do: “do-support”. function, but they could hardly be of a n Auxiliaries are responsible for things like tense, mood, modality, aspect, voice. Grammatical different category that I/me, they/them. things. Infinitival to Infinitival to like a modal? n I like to go to the movies. n To and modals (can, might, should) seem to appear in the same place (between the subject and a bare verb form). n Kind of looks like a preposition, but it’s not. Prepositions take nouns, to as a P has n I like that John can pick up his dry-cleaning. a kind of contentful meaning (endpoint of n I’d like for John to pick up his dry-cleaning. a path). Infinitival to takes (bare) verbs only, means nothing (apart from “untensed”). I (a.k.a. INFL) Complementizers n This whole class of functional elements (modals, n Pat will leave. to, auxiliaries) seem to be responsible for tense n I heard that Pat will leave. (and subject agreement, as we’ll discuss). n I wonder if Pat will leave. n These are the things reflected by the verbal inflectional morphology. n I am anxious for Pat to leave. n These elements seem to behave basically alike, so we’ll suppose they are of a single category, I n It is perfectly possible to embed a sentence inside (for Inflection). another one. When we do this, it is indicated n In many languages, infinitives are marked with with a complementizer (introducing a complement a special inflectional ending, not unlike finite clause). verbs. So, we might take to to be marking a special kind of tense: untensed (non-finite). 4 The P for v. the C for The D that v. the C that n For is of course a preposition (I looked for n Same kind of thing holds for that. you for three hours), but not when it is n I like that movie. introducing clauses. n I heard that the movie involved guinea pigs. n He headed right for the back row. n *He’d like right for the class to be over. n Sometimes you can replace for clauses n *He expressed interest in the class to be over. with that clauses. n Who would you vote for in the primary? n It is important that Pat votes. n *Who are you anxious for to win the primary? n It is important for Pat to vote. So… [A labeled ] [N brackets ] n Lexical categories: n A common way of indicating the syntactic n N: noun A: adjective Adv: adverb categories of words is by using labeled brackets, putting [brackets] around the word and marking n V: verb P: preposition the first one with a syntactic category label. n Functional categories: n [N Pat] [I is] [A anxious] [C for] [N Tracy] n I: inflection/aux/modal D: determiner [I to] [V win] [D the] [N election] [P in] n C: complementizer PRN: Pronoun [N November] [Adv decisively].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Latin Nouns 1. Noun Entries – Chapter 3, LFCA Example
    Session A3: Introduction to Latin Nouns 1. Noun entries – Chapter 3, LFCA When a Latin noun is listed in a dictionary it provides three pieces of information: The nominative singular, the genitive singular, and the gender. The first form, called nominative (from Latin nömen, name) is the means used to list, or name, words in a dictionary. The second form, the genitive (from Latin genus, origin, kind or family), is used to find the stem of the noun and to determine the declension, or noun family to which it belongs. To find the stem of a noun, simply look at the genitive singular form and remove the ending –ae. The final abbreviation is a reference to the noun’s gender, since it is not always evident by the noun’s endings. Example: fëmina, fëminae, f. woman stem = fëmin/ae 2. Declensions – Chapters 3 – 10, LFCA Just as verbs are divided up into families or groups called conjugations, so also nouns are divided up into groups that share similar characteristics and behavior patterns. A declension is a group of nouns that share a common set of inflected endings, which we call case endings (more on case later). The genitive reveals the declension or family of nouns from which a word originates. Just as the infinitive is different for each conjugation, the genitive singular is unique to each declension. 1 st declension mënsa, mënsae 2 nd declension lüdus, lüdï ager, agrï dönum, dönï 3 rd declension vöx, vöcis nübës, nübis corpus, corporis 4 th declension adventus, adventüs cornü, cornüs 5 th declension fidës, fideï Practice: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • RELATIONAL NOUNS, PRONOUNS, and Resumptionw Relational Nouns, Such As Neighbour, Mother, and Rumour, Present a Challenge to Synt
    Linguistics and Philosophy (2005) 28:375–446 Ó Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-2656-7 ASH ASUDEH RELATIONAL NOUNS, PRONOUNS, AND RESUMPTIONw ABSTRACT. This paper presents a variable-free analysis of relational nouns in Glue Semantics, within a Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) architecture. Rela- tional nouns and resumptive pronouns are bound using the usual binding mecha- nisms of LFG. Special attention is paid to the bound readings of relational nouns, how these interact with genitives and obliques, and their behaviour with respect to scope, crossover and reconstruction. I consider a puzzle that arises regarding rela- tional nouns and resumptive pronouns, given that relational nouns can have bound readings and resumptive pronouns are just a specific instance of bound pronouns. The puzzle is: why is it impossible for bound implicit arguments of relational nouns to be resumptive? The puzzle is highlighted by a well-known variety of variable-free semantics, where pronouns and relational noun phrases are identical both in category and (base) type. I show that the puzzle also arises for an established variable-based theory. I present an analysis of resumptive pronouns that crucially treats resumptives in terms of the resource logic linear logic that underlies Glue Semantics: a resumptive pronoun is a perfectly ordinary pronoun that constitutes a surplus resource; this surplus resource requires the presence of a resumptive-licensing resource consumer, a manager resource. Manager resources properly distinguish between resumptive pronouns and bound relational nouns based on differences between them at the level of semantic structure. The resumptive puzzle is thus solved. The paper closes by considering the solution in light of the hypothesis of direct compositionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 1 : Basic Categorial Syntax 1 of 27 Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax 1. The Task of Grammar ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Artificial versus Natural Languages ....................................................................................... 2 3. Recursion ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. Category-Governed Grammars .............................................................................................. 3 5. Example Grammar – A Tiny Fragment of English ................................................................. 4 6. Type-Governed (Categorial) Grammars ................................................................................. 5 7. Recursive Definition of Types ............................................................................................... 7 8. Examples of Types................................................................................................................. 7 9. First Rule of Composition ...................................................................................................... 8 10. Examples of Type-Categorial Analysis .................................................................................. 8 11. Quantifiers and Quantifier-Phrases ...................................................................................... 10 12. Compound Nouns
    [Show full text]
  • Adjective in Old English
    Adjective in Old English Adjective in Old English had five grammatical categories: three dependent grammatical categories, i.e forms of agreement of the adjective with the noun it modified – number, gender and case; definiteness – indefiniteness and degrees of comparison. Adjectives had three genders and two numbers. The category of case in adjectives differed from that of nouns: in addition to the four cases of nouns they had one more case, Instrumental. It was used when the adjective served as an attribute to a noun in the Dat. case expressing an instrumental meaning. Weak and Strong Declension Most adjectives in OE could be declined in two ways: according to the weak and to the strong declension. The formal differences between the declensions, as well as their origin, were similar to those of the noun declensions. The strong and weak declensions arose due to the use of several stem-forming suffixes in PG: vocalic a-, o-, u- and i- and consonantal n-. Accordingly, there developed sets of endings of the strong declension mainly coinciding with the endings of a-stems of nouns for adjectives in the Masc. and Neut. and of o-stems – in the Fem. Some endings in the strong declension of adjectives have no parallels in the noun paradigms; they are similar to the endings of pronouns: -um for Dat. sg, -ne for Acc. Sg Masc., [r] in some Fem. and pl endings. Therefore the strong declension of adjectives is sometimes called the ‘pronominal’ declension. As for the weak declension, it uses the same markers as n-stems of nouns except that in the Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Variation in English Quantified Noun Phrases with All, Whole, Both and Half
    Syntactic variation in English quantified noun phrases with all, whole, both and half Acta Wexionensia Nr 38/2004 Humaniora Syntactic variation in English quantified noun phrases with all, whole, both and half Maria Estling Vannestål Växjö University Press Abstract Estling Vannestål, Maria, 2004. Syntactic variation in English quantified noun phrases with all, whole, both and half, Acta Wexionensia nr 38/2004. ISSN: 1404-4307, ISBN: 91-7636-406-2. Written in English. The overall aim of the present study is to investigate syntactic variation in certain Present-day English noun phrase types including the quantifiers all, whole, both and half (e.g. a half hour vs. half an hour). More specific research questions concerns the overall frequency distribution of the variants, how they are distrib- uted across regions and media and what linguistic factors influence the choice of variant. The study is based on corpus material comprising three newspapers from 1995 (The Independent, The New York Times and The Sydney Morning Herald) and two spoken corpora (the dialogue component of the BNC and the Longman Spoken American Corpus). The book presents a number of previously not discussed issues with respect to all, whole, both and half. The study of distribution shows that one form often predominated greatly over the other(s) and that there were several cases of re- gional variation. A number of linguistic factors further seem to be involved for each of the variables analysed, such as the syntactic function of the noun phrase and the presence of certain elements in the NP or its near co-text.
    [Show full text]
  • Animacy Encoding in English: Why and How
    Animacy Encoding in English: why and how Annie Zaenen Jean Carletta Gregory Garretson PARC & Stanford University HCRC-University of Edinburgh Boston University 3333 Coyote Hill Road 2, Buccleuch Place Program in Applied Linguistics Palo Alto, CA 94304] Edinburgh EH8LW, UK 96 Cummington St., [email protected] [email protected] Boston, MA 02215 [email protected] Joan Bresnan Andrew Koontz-Garboden Tatiana Nikitina CSLI-Stanford University CSLI-Stanford University CSLI-Stanford University 220, Panama Street 220, Panama Street 220, Panama Street Stanford CA 94305 Stanford CA 94305 Stanford CA 94305 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] M. Catherine O’Connor Tom Wasow Boston University CSLI-Stanford University Program in Applied Linguistics 220, Panama Street 96 Cummington St., Stanford CA 94305 Boston, MA 02215 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract of entity representation within language: the definiteness dimension is linked to the status of the We report on two recent medium-scale initiatives entity at a particular point in the discourse, the annotating present day English corpora for animacy person hierarchy depends on the participants distinctions. We discuss the relevance of animacy for within the discourse, and the animacy status is an computational linguistics, specifically generation, the annotation categories used in the two studies and the inherent characteristic of the entities referred to. interannotator reliability for one of the studies. Each of these aspects, however, orders entities on a scale that makes them more or less salient or 1 Introduction ‘accessible’ when humans use their language. It has long been known that animacy is an The importance of accessibility scales is not important category in syntactic and morphological widely recognized in computational treatments of natural language analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • September 15 & 17 Class Summary: 24.902
    September 15 & 17 class summary: 24.902 could not be replaced by depend, because depend bears the distinct feature [+ __ NP PP]. The week actually began with some unfinished business from last week, which is OK, painful detail. What is interesting to us is a constraint proposed by Chomsky on the contained in the previous summary. Then we moved on... ability of a subcategorization rule to control the environment in which it applies. 1. Preliminaries Chomsky claimed that the environment of the subcategorization rule for X makes A word often cares about its syntactic environment. A verb, for example, may reference to all and only the sisters of X. More simply still: the subcategorization property require two, one or zero complements, and (seemingly -- see below!) may specify the of X cares only about the sisters of X. syntactic category of its complement. Terminological note: As mentioned in class, a slightly different way of speaking has arisen in the field of syntax. We say that a verb like put "subcategorizes for" an NP and a • Examples: put requires NP PP, devour requiresNP, depend requires PP, eat takes an optional NP. PP. Likewise a verb like eat "subcategorizes for" an optional NP. • Chomsky's constraint has interesting implications for language acquisition. Granted (1) a. Sue put the book under the table. that a child must maintain some record of the syntactic environment in which lexical b. *Sue put the book. items occur (or else subcategorization information would not be acquired), Chomsky's c. *Sue put under the table. constraint suggests that this information is quite limited.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Inflection
    4.1 Inflection Within a lexeme-based theory of morphology, the difference between derivation and inflection is very simple. Derivation gives you new lexemes, and inflection gives you the forms of a lexeme that are determined by syntactic environment (cf. 2.1.2). But what exactly does this mean? Is there really a need for such a distinction? This section explores the answers to these questions, and in the process, goes deeper into the relation between morphology and syntax. 4.1.1 Inflection vs. derivation The first question we can ask about the distinction between inflection and derivation is whether there is any formal basis for distinguishing the two: can we tell them apart because they do different things to words? One generalization that has been made is that derivational affixes tend to occur closer to the root or stem than inflectional affixes. For example, (1) shows that the English third person singular present inflectional suffix -s occurs outside of derivational suffixes like the deadjectival -ize, and the plural ending -s follows derivational affixes including the deverbal -al: (1) a. popular-ize-s commercial-ize-s b. upheav-al-s arriv-al-s Similarly, Japanese derivational suffixes like passive -rare or causative -sase precede inflectional suffixes marking tense and aspect:1 (2) a. tabe-ru tabe-ta eat- IMP eat- PERF INFLECTION 113 ‘eats’ ‘ate’ b. tabe-rare- ru tabe-rare- ta eat - PASS-IMP eat- PASS-PERF ‘is eaten’ ‘was eaten’ c. tabe-sase- ru tabe-sase- ta eat- CAUS-IMP eat- CAUS-PERF ‘makes eat’ ‘made eat’ It is also the case that inflectional morphology does not change the meaning or grammatical category of the word that it applies to.
    [Show full text]
  • Number and Adjectives : the Case of Activity and Quality Nominals Delphine Beauseroy, Marie-Laurence Knittel
    Number and adjectives : the case of activity and quality nominals Delphine Beauseroy, Marie-Laurence Knittel To cite this version: Delphine Beauseroy, Marie-Laurence Knittel. Number and adjectives : the case of activity and quality nominals. 2012. hal-00418040v2 HAL Id: hal-00418040 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00418040v2 Preprint submitted on 11 Jun 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 NUMBER AND ADJECTIVES: THE CASE OF FRENCH ACTIVITY AND QUALITY NOMINALS 1. INTRODUCTION This article is dedicated to the examination of the role of Number with regards to adjective distribution in French. We focus on two kinds of abstract nouns: activity nominals and quality nominals. Both display particular behaviours with regards to adjective distribution: activity nominals need to appear as count nouns to be modified by qualifying adjectives; concerning quality nominals, they are frequently introduced by the indefinite un(e) instead of the partitive article (du / de la) when modified. Our analysis of adjectives is based on the idea that they can have two uses, which correlate with syntactic and semantic restrictions and are distinguishable on semantic grounds. Adjectives are understood either as taxonomic, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Semantic Countability1
    Eun-Joo Kwak 55 Journal of Universal Language 15-2 September 2014, 55-76 Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Semantic Countability1 2 Eun-Joo Kwak Sejong University, Korea Abstract Countability and plurality (or singularity) are basically marked in syntax or morphology, and languages adopt different strategies in the mass-count distinction and number marking: plural marking, unmarked number marking, singularization, and different uses of classifiers. Diverse patterns of grammatical strategies are observed with cross-linguistic data in this study. Based on this, it is concluded that although countability is not solely determined by the semantic properties of nouns, it is much more affected by semantics than it appears. Moreover, semantic features of nouns are useful to account for apparent idiosyncratic behaviors of nouns and sentences. Keywords: countability, plurality, countability shift, individuation, animacy, classifier * This work is supported by the Sejong University Research Grant of 2013. Eun-Joo Kwak Department of English Language and Literature, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea Phone: +82-2-3408-3633; Email: [email protected] Received August 14, 2014; Revised September 3, 2014; Accepted September 10, 2014. 56 Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Semantic Countability 1. Introduction The state of affairs in the real world may be delivered in a different way depending on the grammatical properties of languages. Nominal countability makes part of grammatical differences cross-linguistically, marked in various ways: plural (or singular) morphemes for nouns or verbs, distinct uses of determiners, and the occurrences of classifiers. Apparently, countability and plurality are mainly marked in syntax and morphology, so they may be understood as having less connection to the semantic features of nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of the Fifth Declension; Uses of the Ablative Case; and at the End of the Lesson We'll Review the Vocabulary Which You Should Memorize in This Chapter
    Chapter 22: Fifth Declension. Chapter 22 covers the following: the formation of the fifth declension; uses of the ablative case; and at the end of the lesson we'll review the vocabulary which you should memorize in this chapter. There is one important rule to remember in this chapter: fifth declension represents e-stem nouns which are for the most part feminine in gender. Fifth Declension. Hooray, hooray! Latin only has five declensions, so this is the last declension we'll study. Once you've mastered fifth declension, you've learned everything you need to know about Latin nouns in this class. Fifth declension consists of nouns characterized by -ē. This declension is a unique concoction which the Romans brewed up at one point in their history and which did not survive long. As Latin after classical antiquity began evolving into the various Romance languages, this e-stem category of nouns was conflated into other declensions and disappeared as a separate grammatical category. Here are the endings for fifth-declension nouns. Let's recite them together: -es, -ei, -ei, -em, -e; -es, -erum, -ebus, -es, -ebus. Note the dominance of -e- (often -ē-) which is, without doubt, the most significant feature of this declension, though the -ē- produces no mandatory long marks, meaning no forms are distinguished by macrons in this declension. A close look at the endings shows why it was easy for the post-classical Romans to subsume fifth declension into third, for instance. Fifth and third look a lot like each other. In fact, the majority of fifth-declension endings look like a long ē-stem with third-declension endings appended on to it.
    [Show full text]