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

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

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

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]