Early Latin – Morphology, Part 2
CC Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Pezzini, Giuseppe
This lecture focuses on the nominal inflection and categories of Early Latin.
 Hello and welcome to our second presentation on early Latin morphology. My name is Beppe Pezzini and I teach and research on early Latin language and literature at the University of San Andes. In this presentation I will first talk about nominal inflection. Nominal inflection, we may say, is the addition of suffixes or endings to nominal roots and stems to create forms of the same word with distinct grammatical meaning. I will first talk today about the partence of inflection of nouns, also known as declensions or pronouns, and then of adjectives, also known as classes. Finally in this presentation I will also consider the formation of adverbs. This cannot be properly described as a nominal inflection, but in some sense it is analogous in many respects, as you will see. Let us start with inflection of nouns. In early Latin, suffixes can be added to nouns to express a combination of grammatical meanings, above all number and case, but in some cases also gender. In early Latin there are two numbers, singular and plural, but there are also some very few vestiges of an old dual which we can see for instance in the form amber. Singular forms can also be used sometimes in a collective or generic sense, like romanus, meaning the Romans, and there are also some plural forms that have singular meaning, the so-called pluralia tantum, like castra, the camp. None of these in a way have more for syntactic consequences. Cases instead express the grammatical function of the word in the syntax of the phrase Enclose. Early Latin preserves seven of the eight securely reconstructible cases of proto-Andeo-European, that is nominative, vocative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and with some restrictions locative. Only the instrumental case of proto-Andeo-European has been merged with the ablative, but there are some vestiges of this even in early Latin, as in the form quickum. As in most Andeo-European languages, early Latin had three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter. Five patterns of inflection, or declensions, are traditionally recognized for Latin, distinguished according to the characteristic morpheme. The first declension is characterized by the morpheme A, which is found in most forms of the stem, as you can see in the table over there. This was originally a feminine morpheme, and most of the words of the first declension are indeed feminine nouns, but there are several exceptions, like for instance the masculine noun agricola, which means farmer, but even these forms most likely derived originally from a personalization of feminine absuts, like agricola, meaning originally not farmer, but fieldwork. In this slide you can see the table of the declension for the different cases and the different numbers. Many of the endings following the A, the case endings, will be found again in other declensions. I can point your attention for instance to the typical M of the accusative, the length and vowel of the ablative, or the room ending of the genitive plural. As you can see in the table, for some particular cases more than one form is attested. This is because the morphology of early Latin is much less uniform than in the artificial grammar codified for classical Latin. Variants of the same form are often attested, sometimes even in the same author, possibly with a different diaconic origin, and quite often with a different synchronic stylization. For instance, for the genitive singular, four forms or even five, six, seven forms are attested. First the form AS, second the form AE as two syllables, then I as a monosyllable as a diphthong, AE finally as a monotongue as well. AS is the oldest form, which is preserved in early Latin only in fossilized formulas. For instance, we find it in the expression pater familias, familias being an old genitive. Then we have the form I, this labyrinth, which is a secondary form which was created by analogy with a genitive ending of the second declation, the form E, which was taken from the second declation and moved to the first. This kind of form is medically reconstructed in plotters. First stage, we may say, is the form I monosyllabic. This derives from a former form from AE, this labyrinth, by a normal standard process of phonological deduction, the monothongue organization. This I is the standard spelling attested in early description and presently was the form also used by plotters, suggested by some medical and orthographical considerations. Finally, we also have the form I monosyllabic adiphthong, which is a natural development of monosyllabic I. This form is first attested in description about the 180 BC. So we see how great is the variety of forms in this particular period, but it's more than that, because there are also other forms attested for the genitive singular, that is the forms I's, the form I, and the form E, which is a monothongue organization of the form I. I put these forms in the brackets because they are really rarely attested in descriptions, but they would have presumably used in the spoken language, although with a lower register, regional or sub-stardon ring. You can see from the table that also an optional variant is attested for the additive singular, the form AD with the original ending DE. This is attested in a line of the porous navios. This form, AD, like just like the genitive I two syllables, was probably obsolete in early speech and had in writing a high archaizing stylization. Different forms may be attested in the same author, but not all of them, as I said many times by now, have the same stylization. For the plural, very briefly I will only note the variants A's and I's, which is related to the standard change in early Latin, which is the monothongue organization of A. This started in the early period, but was not completed until later times, and in fact we are pretty sure that Ossisera himself may have used this form. There are also optional variants for other forms, but I don't have much time, so I think it's time to move on. Second equation is characterized by an original automatic vowel and can be divided in three subclasses. The first, which includes usually masculine and sometimes feminine nouns, has a nominative ending in Oss and a vocative ending in E. The second subclass, which also includes masculine nouns, has a nominative and vocative ending in R, to which the other endings are attached. These forms in R derive themselves from a regular syncope of an original Oss ending after R, as we can see for instance in the form Vesper, which comes from Vesperos, with syncope of the final syllable. The third subclass includes neutral nouns and is characterized by the ending M for singular nominative and accusative, and the ending A, short A, for the plural. This ending are also found in other declensions, as we will see. Also for the second declension, early Latin features optional variants, which however, as the one we discussed before, are quite often different stylization, both synchronically and diachronically. For instance, the old ending of the nominative Oss, which in descriptions is normally found without the S as O, is relatively common, but it's quite clear or seems to be clear that this form in Oss or O was already stylized as an archaizing form in the early period. In fact, forms in Oss, the standard form we also found in classical Latin, are already tested at the very beginning of the early period, and were probably well established by Plotostime. Another example is the original ending of the genitive in Oum, instead of Orum, which is a test in early Latin, but is normally restricted to a small set of terms, as a kind of fossilized feature, for instance in genitive plural nostrum, or in the form deum for the Orum, or sometimes it's also found in other forms, but seems to be associated with either emphatic or archaizing speech. And I can give you an example from my author, the author I work on, who is Terence, and in Terence we do find a few cases of this old genitive in Oum, but they seem to be typical of the speech of all men, which in Terence are characterized by archaizing and old-fashioned speech. I can now move to the third declension, which derives from the merging of two originally different groups, announced with a consonant stem and announced with an E stem. The first group, which you can see in that table over there, includes nouns ending in a range of different consonants. The nominative form was originally formed by the form word root in consonant followed by the final S. We can see that for instance in the form ems, where we have the word root he em, meaning winter, followed by the final S. The same word root is also found then in the genitive. However, this kind of consonant cluster, consonant and final S, often appears in early Latin in a different form, which underwent phonological changes or reduction. So for instance, for the form console, consulis, the nominative is not consuls, with the word root followed by a S, because the consonant cluster L, S is simplified. There are many different cases of this time, so since there has been this kind of phonological changes, if you want to reconstruct what is a stem form, it's always better to start from the genitive. So to give you another example, if you want to know what is in early Latin the world stem for the noun milis, militis, solgia, we wouldn't start from a nominative milis, which has undergone a phonological reduction, but we will start with the genitive for militis. The root stem militis is the one to which all the other endings are then attached. The table in the slide shows an overview of the endings of the second declension for both the masculine feminine and the neuter forms. I have excluded the locative because it's not so well attested for the third declension. Optional variants are attested in early Latin also for the third declension, as you can see in the table. Also in the case of the nominative. To give you an example for the nominative, for instance, for the nominative of the noun lacte, originally, which means milk, we do find the old form lacte, the full form with the ending E, but we also find the more classical form lach with syncope of final syllable. There are also many different prosodical variants, which are all related to shortening of final vowels, which is one of the most important phonological changes of early Latin, which I discussed, if you remember, a couple of classes ago. To give you an example, in early Latin we do find both the form soror with the original long O, soror, but quite often we also find the reduced shortened form soror with a final O. The next tables in the next two slides show the overview of nouns in the E stem. In this stem we have for the nominative this ending is, which however in some cases appears in a different form, either with R or with L, and this is because forms originally ending in eris or ale are normally found syncopated. So for instance we do not find normally the form animal le with the final e, but we find a syncopated for animal. Optional variants are also tested for this class of the third declension. I can note in particular the variant forms for the accusative singular m plural, so we find either m or m and in the plural is or s. There are also some variant forms in the case of the accusative singular, which in some cases appears with the expected form e with a long e, but we also have cases of the old form ending in final d, which we have already seen also for the other declensions, and in some cases we also find an analogical form in final short e, which derives from analogy with the first class of the third declension. In this class one should also include a number of words ending in long s, as you can see, deriving from an original a. An example of this is the noun kaides. Time is running short and I will have to discuss the other topics at a greater speed. The fourth declension is characterized by the morphym u, as you can see in the table, whereas the fifth declension is characterized by the morphym e, a long e. You can see a simplified overview of both declensions in these two tables. As you can see from these tables there are many optional variants also for this class. Here I will only note that in early Latin there are in fact very few nouns belonging to these declensions, and in several cases there are fourth declension and fifth declension nouns that are also tested or perhaps mainly attested with endings of other declensions. For instance, to give you an example from Plotus, in Plotus nouns of the fourth declation are in almost all cases found with a genitive in a, e, as you can see from the table there in the brackets. I will also say that in early Latin in general the very common noun, Dormus, which in classical Latin takes endings of the fourth declation, in fact is usually found in early Latin with second declation endings. There are a few exceptions but in general the endings are those of the second declations. Let us move now to the inflection of adjectives, which will require a few words from me since it is essentially based on nominal inflection. There are two classes of adjectives in early Latin. The first class includes adjectives that have different endings for all three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine neuter forms follow the ending system of the second declension. So for instance we have bonus and bonum and altus and altum. Feminine forms instead follow the ending system of the second declension like porna and alta. In the second class there seems to be already a distinction for some types of adjectives between masculine, feminine and neuter forms. Just to give you an example from the from akre we seems to find akre masculine, akre is feminine and akre neuter. I said it seems that we still it seems that we find it because in fact there is a kind of trend of standardization for this kind of process. In plotters for instance we do find cases in which akre seems to be used as a feminine, not very not very clear, but we also find cases in which akre seems to be used as a masculine. At the end of the period through Terence and Lucille instead this tripartition between masculine and feminine neuter form seems to be established. But there are some many other adjectives for which this tripartition of gender is not established and we do find a form like Lenis for both the masculine, the feminine and Lenis only for the neuter. In some classes of adjectives of this second class we do find instead only one form for both the three genders like Felix for the masculine, feminine and neuter. As you could already guess adjectives of this class are form according to the ending system of the third declension. Akre, akre, akre, akre, Felix, Felix is in this case. I still need to talk about the inflection of pronouns. This is a very complex topic because many pronouns in early Latin given the high occurrence have developed a quite idiosyncratic paradigm. In this slide I've given you a sample of a very common pronoun which somehow illustrates the main features of the declension of pronouns, in particular I can note the generative in ills, the negative in e. As you can see the main difference for the nominal inflection is that there's a kind of margin between different declensions found from noun. As you can see even just from this table which gives you an overview only of one single pronoun there were in early Latin optional variants also of pronouns and in fact indeed many of them. So for instance for ipsa we find two nominatives ipsa and ipsus, we find two kinds of accusative ipsum and ills, with one of them with analogy and we also find prosodic variants like the genitive ipsus is find either as ipsius with a long e or ipsius with a sort of synesthesis of e and o. Finally a few words on the adverbial system. In early Latin adverbs are formed in many different ways but one can identify we may say two main classes of adverbs that have a kind of regular inflection. These are the adverbs in e, a long e and adverbs in ita. Adverbs in e normally derive from adjectives of the first class for instance from the adjective doctus or longus we have the adverbs doctor and longer. Adverbs in ita instead normally derive from adjectives of the second class for instance from the adjective lennis we have the arbor lenita. I said normally because in fact there are many cases in which this rule that you see in the slide is not respected. I'll give you some example from plotus we have amicita from amicus we don't find it as amicain in plotus but if we find it as amicita our areta is the same or sewita. All these adjectives in adverbs in ita come from corresponding adjectives of the first class. Here therefore you have another proof one of the others I've tried to give you today that early Latin morphology is not as regular a monolithic as one might think. Yet this does not mean that there are no trends of standardization also in early Latin. It's a linguistic anarchy but which is also accompanied by trans standardization trends. Indeed there are many optional variants which you have seen today which are clearly stylized they don't have the same neuter stylization. In fact some authors would avoid some of the optional forms I've discussed today and a clear example is for instance the language of my author Terence in which most of the optional variants that I've discussed today are actually not found. In fact the morphology the nominal morphology of Terence is almost as standardized as it seems to be in artificial classical Latin. Thanks for listening our next class will focus on the final part of morphology this double inflection as we say in early Latin who hobbies I go gaius
 Hello and welcome to our second presentation on early Latin morphology.  My name is Beppe Pezzini and I teach and research on early Latin language and  literature at the University of San Andes. In this presentation I will first  talk about nominal inflection. Nominal inflection, we may say, is the addition  of suffixes or endings to nominal roots and stems to create forms of the same  word with distinct grammatical meaning. I will first talk today about the  partence of inflection of nouns, also known as declensions or pronouns, and  then of adjectives, also known as classes. Finally in this presentation I will  also consider the formation of adverbs. This cannot be properly described as a  nominal inflection, but in some sense it is analogous in many respects, as you  will see. Let us start with inflection of nouns. In early Latin, suffixes can be  added to nouns to express a combination of grammatical meanings, above all number  and case, but in some cases also gender. In early Latin there are two numbers,  singular and plural, but there are also some very few vestiges of an old dual  which we can see for instance in the form amber. Singular forms can also be used  sometimes in a collective or generic sense, like romanus, meaning the  Romans, and there are also some plural forms that have singular meaning, the  so-called pluralia tantum, like castra, the camp. None of these in a way have more  for syntactic consequences. Cases instead express the grammatical function of the  word in the syntax of the phrase Enclose. Early Latin preserves seven of the eight  securely reconstructible cases of proto-Andeo-European, that is nominative,  vocative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and with some restrictions  locative. Only the instrumental case of proto-Andeo-European has been merged  with the ablative, but there are some vestiges of this even in early Latin, as in  the form quickum. As in most Andeo-European languages, early Latin had  three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter. Five patterns of inflection, or  declensions, are traditionally recognized for Latin, distinguished  according to the characteristic morpheme. The first declension is  characterized by the morpheme A, which is found in most forms of the stem, as you  can see in the table over there. This was originally a feminine morpheme, and most  of the words of the first declension are indeed feminine nouns, but there are  several exceptions, like for instance the masculine noun agricola, which means  farmer, but even these forms most likely derived originally from a  personalization of feminine absuts, like agricola, meaning originally not farmer,  but fieldwork. In this slide you can see the table of the declension for the  different cases and the different numbers. Many of the endings following the A,  the case endings, will be found again in other declensions. I can point your  attention for instance to the typical M of the accusative, the length and vowel  of the ablative, or the room ending of the genitive plural. As you can see in the  table, for some particular cases more than one form is attested. This is because  the morphology of early Latin is much less uniform than in the artificial  grammar codified for classical Latin. Variants of the same form are often  attested, sometimes even in the same author, possibly with a different  diaconic origin, and quite often with a different synchronic stylization. For  instance, for the genitive singular, four forms or even five, six, seven forms are  attested. First the form AS, second the form AE as two syllables, then I as a  monosyllable as a diphthong, AE finally as a monotongue as well. AS is the oldest  form, which is preserved in early Latin only in fossilized formulas. For instance,  we find it in the expression pater familias, familias being an old genitive.  Then we have the form I, this labyrinth, which is a secondary form which was  created by analogy with a genitive ending of the second declation, the form  E, which was taken from the second declation and moved to the first. This  kind of form is medically reconstructed in plotters. First stage, we may say, is the  form I monosyllabic. This derives from a former form from AE, this labyrinth, by a  normal standard process of phonological deduction, the monothongue organization.  This I is the standard spelling attested in early description and  presently was the form also used by plotters, suggested by some medical and  orthographical considerations. Finally, we also have the form I monosyllabic  adiphthong, which is a natural development of monosyllabic I. This form is  first attested in description about the 180 BC. So we see how great is the  variety of forms in this particular period, but it's more than that, because  there are also other forms attested for the genitive singular, that is the forms  I's, the form I, and the form E, which is a monothongue organization of the form I.  I put these forms in the brackets because they are really rarely attested  in descriptions, but they would have presumably used in the spoken language,  although with a lower register, regional or sub-stardon ring. You can see from the  table that also an optional variant is attested for the additive singular, the  form AD with the original ending DE. This is attested in a line of the  porous navios. This form, AD, like just like the genitive I two syllables, was  probably obsolete in early speech and had in writing a high archaizing  stylization. Different forms may be attested in the same author, but not all  of them, as I said many times by now, have the same stylization. For the plural,  very briefly I will only note the variants A's and I's, which is related to the  standard change in early Latin, which is the monothongue organization of A. This  started in the early period, but was not completed until later times, and in  fact we are pretty sure that Ossisera himself may have used this form. There  are also optional variants for other forms, but I don't have much time, so I  think it's time to move on. Second equation is characterized by an  original automatic vowel and can be divided in three subclasses. The first,  which includes usually masculine and sometimes feminine nouns, has a nominative  ending in Oss and a vocative ending in E. The second subclass, which also includes  masculine nouns, has a nominative and vocative ending in R, to which the other  endings are attached. These forms in R derive themselves from a regular syncope  of an original Oss ending after R, as we can see for instance in the form Vesper,  which comes from Vesperos, with syncope of the final syllable. The third subclass  includes neutral nouns and is characterized by the ending M for singular  nominative and accusative, and the ending A, short A, for the plural. This ending  are also found in other declensions, as we will see. Also for the second declension,  early Latin features optional variants, which however, as the one we discussed  before, are quite often different stylization, both synchronically and  diachronically. For instance, the old ending of the nominative Oss, which in  descriptions is normally found without the S as O, is relatively common, but it's  quite clear or seems to be clear that this form in Oss or O was already  stylized as an archaizing form in the early period. In fact, forms in Oss, the  standard form we also found in classical Latin, are already tested at the very  beginning of the early period, and were probably well established by Plotostime.  Another example is the original ending of the genitive in Oum, instead of Orum,  which is a test in early Latin, but is normally restricted to a small set of  terms, as a kind of fossilized feature, for instance in genitive plural nostrum,  or in the form deum for the Orum, or sometimes it's also found in other forms,  but seems to be associated with either emphatic or archaizing speech. And I can  give you an example from my author, the author I work on, who is Terence, and in  Terence we do find a few cases of this old genitive in Oum, but they seem to be  typical of the speech of all men, which in Terence are characterized by  archaizing and old-fashioned speech. I can now move to the third declension, which  derives from the merging of two originally different groups,  announced with a consonant stem and announced with an E stem. The first group,  which you can see in that table over there, includes nouns ending in a range of  different consonants. The nominative form was originally formed by the form  word root in consonant followed by the final S. We can see that for instance in  the form ems, where we have the word root he em, meaning winter, followed by the  final S. The same word root is also found then in the genitive. However, this kind  of consonant cluster, consonant and final S, often appears in early Latin in a  different form, which underwent phonological changes or reduction. So  for instance, for the form console, consulis, the nominative is not consuls,  with the word root followed by a S, because the consonant cluster L, S is  simplified. There are many different cases of this time, so since there has  been this kind of phonological changes, if you want to reconstruct what is a stem  form, it's always better to start from the genitive. So to give you another  example, if you want to know what is in early Latin the world stem for the  noun milis, militis, solgia, we wouldn't start from a nominative milis, which has  undergone a phonological reduction, but we will start with the genitive for  militis. The root stem militis is the one to which all the other endings are then  attached. The table in the slide shows an overview of the endings of the second  declension for both the masculine feminine and the neuter forms. I have  excluded the locative because it's not so well attested for the third declension.  Optional variants are attested in early Latin also for the third declension, as  you can see in the table. Also in the case of the nominative. To give you an  example for the nominative, for instance, for the nominative of the noun lacte,  originally, which means milk, we do find the old form lacte, the full form with  the ending E, but we also find the more classical form lach with syncope of  final syllable. There are also many different prosodical variants, which are  all related to shortening of final vowels, which is one of the most important  phonological changes of early Latin, which I discussed, if you remember, a  couple of classes ago. To give you an example, in early Latin we do find both  the form soror with the original long O, soror, but quite often we also find the  reduced shortened form soror with a final O. The next tables in the next two  slides show the overview of nouns in the E stem. In this stem we have for the  nominative this ending is, which however in some cases appears in a different  form, either with R or with L, and this is because forms originally ending in  eris or ale are normally found syncopated. So for instance we do not find normally  the form animal le with the final e, but we find a syncopated for animal.  Optional variants are also tested for this class of the third declension. I can  note in particular the variant forms for the accusative singular m plural, so we  find either m or m and in the plural is or s. There are also some variant forms in  the case of the accusative singular, which in some cases appears with the  expected form e with a long e, but we also have cases of the old form ending in  final d, which we have already seen also for the other declensions, and in some  cases we also find an analogical form in final short e, which derives from  analogy with the first class of the third declension. In this class one should  also include a number of words ending in long s, as you can see, deriving from an  original a. An example of this is the noun kaides. Time is running short and I  will have to discuss the other topics at a greater speed. The fourth declension is  characterized by the morphym u, as you can see in the table, whereas the fifth  declension is characterized by the morphym e, a long e. You can see a  simplified overview of both declensions in these two tables. As you can see from  these tables there are many optional variants also for this class. Here I  will only note that in early Latin there are in fact very few nouns belonging to  these declensions, and in several cases there are fourth declension and fifth  declension nouns that are also tested or perhaps mainly attested with endings of  other declensions. For instance, to give you an example from Plotus, in Plotus  nouns of the fourth declation are in almost all cases found with a genitive in  a, e, as you can see from the table there in the brackets. I will also say that in  early Latin in general the very common noun, Dormus, which in classical Latin  takes endings of the fourth declation, in fact is usually found in early Latin  with second declation endings. There are a few exceptions but in general the  endings are those of the second declations. Let us move now to the  inflection of adjectives, which will require a few words from me since it  is essentially based on nominal inflection. There are two classes of adjectives in  early Latin. The first class includes adjectives that have different endings  for all three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine neuter forms  follow the ending system of the second declension. So for instance we have  bonus and bonum and altus and altum. Feminine forms instead follow the ending  system of the second declension like porna and alta. In the second class there  seems to be already a distinction for some types of adjectives between  masculine, feminine and neuter forms. Just to give you an example from the  from akre we seems to find akre masculine, akre is feminine and akre neuter.  I said it seems that we still it seems that we find it because in fact there  is a kind of trend of standardization for this kind of process. In plotters for  instance we do find cases in which akre seems to be used as a feminine, not very  not very clear, but we also find cases in which akre seems to be used as a  masculine. At the end of the period through Terence and Lucille instead this  tripartition between masculine and feminine neuter form seems to be  established. But there are some many other adjectives for which this tripartition  of gender is not established and we do find a form like Lenis for both the  masculine, the feminine and Lenis only for the neuter. In some classes of adjectives  of this second class we do find instead only one form for both the three genders  like Felix for the masculine, feminine and neuter. As you could already guess  adjectives of this class are form according to the ending system of the  third declension. Akre, akre, akre, akre, Felix, Felix is in this case. I still  need to talk about the inflection of pronouns. This is a very complex topic  because many pronouns in early Latin given the high occurrence have developed  a quite idiosyncratic paradigm. In this slide I've given you a sample of a very  common pronoun which somehow illustrates the main features of the  declension of pronouns, in particular I can note the generative in ills, the  negative in e. As you can see the main difference for the nominal inflection is  that there's a kind of margin between different declensions found from noun. As  you can see even just from this table which gives you an overview  only of one single pronoun there were in early Latin optional variants also of  pronouns and in fact indeed many of them. So for instance for ipsa we find two  nominatives ipsa and ipsus, we find two kinds of accusative ipsum and ills, with  one of them with analogy and we also find prosodic variants like the  genitive ipsus is find either as ipsius with a long e or ipsius with a sort of  synesthesis of e and o. Finally a few words on the adverbial system. In early  Latin adverbs are formed in many different ways but one can identify we  may say two main classes of adverbs that have a kind of regular inflection. These  are the adverbs in e, a long e and adverbs in ita. Adverbs in e normally  derive from adjectives of the first class for instance from the adjective  doctus or longus we have the adverbs doctor and longer. Adverbs in ita  instead normally derive from adjectives of the second class for instance from  the adjective lennis we have the arbor lenita. I said normally because in fact  there are many cases in which this rule that you see in the slide is not  respected. I'll give you some example from plotus we have amicita from amicus  we don't find it as amicain in plotus but if we find it as amicita our  areta is the same or sewita. All these adjectives in adverbs in ita come from  corresponding adjectives of the first class. Here therefore you have another  proof one of the others I've tried to give you today that early Latin  morphology is not as regular a monolithic as one might think. Yet this  does not mean that there are no trends of standardization also in early Latin.  It's a linguistic anarchy but which is also accompanied by  trans standardization trends. Indeed there are many optional variants which  you have seen today which are clearly stylized they don't have the same  neuter stylization. In fact some authors would avoid some of the optional  forms I've discussed today and a clear example is for instance the language of  my author Terence in which most of the optional variants that I've discussed  today are actually not found. In fact the morphology the nominal morphology of  Terence is almost as standardized as it seems to be in artificial classical  Latin. Thanks for listening our next class will focus on the final part of  morphology this double inflection as we say in early Latin who hobbies  I go gaius
Early_Latin_3_0_467.png Early_Latin_3_468_1811.png Early_Latin_3_1812_8855.png Early_Latin_3_8856_11399.png Early_Latin_3_11400_14495.png Early_Latin_3_14496_15299.png Early_Latin_3_15300_15419.png Early_Latin_3_15420_15707.png Early_Latin_3_15708_16055.png Early_Latin_3_16056_17063.png Early_Latin_3_17064_17219.png Early_Latin_3_17220_17291.png Early_Latin_3_17292_17471.png Early_Latin_3_17472_17543.png Early_Latin_3_17544_18143.png Early_Latin_3_18144_18947.png Early_Latin_3_18948_19259.png Early_Latin_3_19260_20543.png Early_Latin_3_20544_24899.png Early_Latin_3_24900_25223.png Early_Latin_3_25224_26111.png Early_Latin_3_26112_29531.png Early_Latin_3_29532_30491.png Early_Latin_3_30492_31043.png