Latin (short educational program)

fly-km
please tell us about the accents in words with two roots:
Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Arthropoda. It turned out that many people say ColeOptera, but ArthropOda.

And another reading of Brongniartia, for example: in fr. t is unreadable, so it is tempting to divide by Brongniar+tia and read the first one as a French word, and then add -tia: it turns out Brongniar. But Smetia (from fam. Smet) is read as Smetiya. I.e. what should I do?

ColeOptera, HemIptera (it would be better to forget this word completely), ArthrOpoda are traditionally pronounced according to the rules of grammar. And to correctly pronounce words such as Brongniartia, Stalia, etc., you need to know their etymology. Here it is the same as with diarese: there is no sign, but the word is read as if it exists. Without knowing the origin of the word by grammatical rules, you can not do here, you can not get away from it.

fly-km
please tell us about the accents in words with two roots:
Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Arthropoda. It turned out that many people say ColeOptera, but ArthropOda.

and they read it correctly, because pus, podos is a Greek root and is read according to tradition...
as already mentioned, in Latin, the rules of stress are quite complex and are based, as in Greek, on the principle of longitude or shortness of syllables.
see above.
by the evening I'll post notes on declensions...

I'm in the process of....

But why do you think that beginners should learn to read syllables exactly as you are taught to do?

And why is it like you?

 
And as for the reports, you yourself, Mon Cher, recently advocated learning Latin from serious textbooks and not from some semi-professional reports. Well, I gave you links to two textbooks. What else?

I still do. But the main provisions could be selected for you, as a specialist, and posted on the forum. Thank you for the links, but I will read as I have learned, the humpback grave will fix it.

 
we lived modestly

I assume this is intentionally written?

Actually, I have a question, as a specialist, is it possible to talk about the presence of dialects or adverbs in modern Latin, for example, among doctors and biologists?

This post was edited by Sergeich - 08/22/2007 11: 41

And why is it like you?

I still do. But the main provisions could be selected for you, as a specialist, and posted on the forum.

I'm not an expert. And the main provisions of these textbooks can be identified by anyone who has completed 5 classes. There is nothing complicated about them.

  
I assume this is intentionally written?

No, it's not intentional. You can consider it a typo or, if you really want, a mistake.

  
Actually, I have a question, as a specialist, is it possible to talk about the presence of dialects or adverbs in modern Latin, for example, among doctors and biologists?

Once again, I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. You don't speak Latin or even read it properly. You only pronounce words according to some poorly or well-learned rules of the same type of manuals.

This post was edited by Tentator - 08/22/2007 12: 00

And why is it like you?

I was taught exactly the same rules as you are.

fly-km

so the Tentator option about ArtrOpoda is not correct? If I may, I will list a few names in which I have heard different accents
Foraminifera
Porifera
Gastrotricha
Buccinum

Sergeich
Dialects and dialects in modern Latin are not and cannot be, since there are no native speakers, different "variants" do not have their own area, etc.

BuccInum
PorIfera(?)
ForaminIfera
Gastrotricha(?)

dialects in this sense are jargon....

This post was edited by fly-km-08/22/2007 15: 44

fly-km

so the Tentator option about ArtrOpoda is not correct? If I may, I will list a few names in which I have heard different accents
Foraminifera
Porifera
Gastrotricha
Buccinum

You can find the word Arthropoda here: http://graecolatini.narod.ru/student/bio_02.html , and you can put the accent yourself.

Here, again, foaming at the mouth, they are trying to prove us, such tongue-tied ignoramuses, that we are wrong.
And Sergey and I are quite right to defend our point of view. Because you have received academic knowledge (if you want, take it as a show - off, if you want-no). Just note, alas. Tentator, no one wants to argue with you.
If you want, I will also tell you a parable: We have 4 departments of internal medicine in MMA, and, accordingly, 4 schools or different points of view. In addition, at my department (No. 4) there were 2-3 camps of teachers who interpreted the diagnosis of "bronchial asthma"in different ways. Some said that it does not exist, there is a bronchial obstructive syndrome with different etiologies. Others - that it is a clear disease that has a place and code in the international classification of diseases. Still others (more precisely, the third) claimed, in general, that there is no bronchial asthma, there is no cardiac asthma, but there is just asthma. And, so, one of the teachers reasoned that there is such a diagnosis in the classification, and sometimes you can't make a clear diagnosis, the treatment is one, depending on the indications and contraindications, etc.

What am I talking about? To the fact that you don't need to prove that you are right and that's all. A demonstration of steepness is not necessary here. No one needs it. Organize what you think you know best (if that's the case, of course).

This post was edited by Morozzz - 08/22/2007 18: 18

Here, again, foaming at the mouth, they are trying to prove us, such slant-tongued ignoramuses, that we are wrong.
And Sergey and I are quite right to defend our point of view. Because you have received academic knowledge (if you want, take it as a show - off, if you want-no). Just note, alas. Tentator, no one wants to argue with you.
If you want, I will also tell you a parable: We have 4 departments of internal medicine in MMA, and, accordingly, 4 schools or different points of view. In addition, at my department (No. 4) there were 2-3 camps of teachers who interpreted the diagnosis of "bronchial asthma"in different ways. Some said that it does not exist, there is a bronchial obstructive syndrome with different etiologies. Others - that it is a clear disease that has a place and code in the international classification of diseases. Still others (more precisely, the third) claimed, in general, that there is no bronchial asthma, there is no cardiac asthma, but there is just asthma. And, so, one of the teachers reasoned that there is such a diagnosis in the classification, and sometimes you can't make a clear diagnosis, the treatment is one, depending on the indications and contraindications, etc.

What am I talking about? To the fact that you don't need to prove that you are right and that's all. A demonstration of steepness is not necessary here. No one needs it. Organize what you think you know best (if that's the case, of course).

My God, how many times do I have to repeat that I am not proving anything or defending anyone's position, except for the need for a broader view of the minimum set of information about the Latin language that is mandatory for a zoologist.

Well, there are two approaches: traditional and scientific. No one forbids you to use either one or the other, and no one will reproach you for preferring one to the other (at least I defend the position that you can not reproach, and I have repeatedly written about this). But it is necessary that all "educational programs", including university ones, set out both approaches.

In general, I am tired of repeating the same thing and I stop my participation in this conversation.

My God, how many times do I have to repeat that I am not proving anything or defending anyone's position, except for the need for a broader view of the minimum set of information about the Latin language that is mandatory for a zoologist.

Well, there are two approaches: traditional and scientific. No one forbids you to use either one or the other, and no one will reproach you for preferring one to the other (at least I defend the position that you can not reproach, and I have repeatedly written about this). But it is necessary that all "educational programs", including university ones, set out both approaches.

In general, I am tired of repeating the same thing and I stop my participation in this conversation.

STATE IT, DAMN IT, STATE IT! COMPLETE IT!
One has already been stated, somewhat, but stated clearly and clearly. But we can only read in your objections - there are two approaches, there are two approaches. Then what?
Half of the people who are not familiar with Latin will not really try to dig through links and Rapidshare. Here, in the framework of one message, and FINALLY OUTLINE a DIFFERENT APPROACH!

And once again, please enlighten everyone. Do not engage in reasonableness, as in Soviet times. Now the position is this: if you don't agree, post your point of view.
No one lets you down, you want your information, and, if you want, your own cheat sheet.

But, however, none of the zoologists I know say ArthrOpoda and GastrOpoda. In Russian dictionaries, where I have seen both words, the emphasis is only on pOda. After all, we do not say antipodes.

This post was edited by Juglans - 08/22/2007 18: 53

And in my opinion "Ftahgn"!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

  Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

And this, my friends , is the third, anti-scientific approach!!!

      And this, my friends , is the third, anti-scientific approach!!!    

But how effective is it
"We have a powerful argument -" to the bunks!"

So, let's end the empty chatter, otherwise I also have a powerful argument...

      And this, my friends , is the third, anti-scientific approach!!!    

Well then that's it: In R'lyeh domi suae Cthulhus exanimis dormit et consomniavit!

STATE IT, DAMN IT, STATE IT! COMPLETE IT!
One has already been stated, somewhat, but stated clearly and clearly. But we can only read in your objections - there are two approaches, there are two approaches. Then what?

Well, if you find it very difficult not only to read a couple of chapters from the book, but also to review previous entries, then I post it.

BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH
The history of the Latin language is divided into several periods. 1) The first period, pre-literary, is the speech of the ancient Latins who lived at the beginning of the first millennium BC. 2) The second period, ancient literary, or archaic, (240 - approximately 100 BC) is characterized by non-established literary norms. The largest representatives of this period are Plautus and Terence. 3) The third period, classical "golden Latin" (approximately 100 BC-14 AD). During this period, grammatical norms finally stabilize. The language reaches its greatest expressiveness and syntactic harmony in the prose of Caesar, Cicero, Sallust, in the lyrics of Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Lucretius and Catullus. It is customary to distinguish from classical Latin the language of Roman fiction of the so-called postclassic period, which chronologically coincides with the first two centuries of our chronology (the so-called "early empire"era). Indeed, the language of prose writers and poets of this time (Seneca, Martial, Juvenal, Tacitus, Apuleius) differs significantly in the choice of stylistic means; but since the norms of the grammatical structure of the Latin language developed during the previous centuries are almost not violated, this division of the Latin language into "classical" and "postclassic" has more literary than linguistic significance. 4) As a separate period in the history of the Latin language, the so — called late Latin is distinguished, the chronological boundaries of which are the III — VI centuries-the era of the late empire and the emergence of barbarian states after its fall. The development in the future goes only in line with the vernacular colloquial language (vulgar, or areal, Latin. The history of the vernacular Latin language continues until the 9th century, when the formation of national Romance languages on its basis ends. 5) The Medieval period (7th-14th centuries) - the era of the existence of the Latin language as the common written language of Western European society, the language of the Catholic Church, science, and partly literature. The last two periods are associated with a significant impoverishment of the language and changes in language norms. 6) The revival of the norms of "golden" Latin in the era of humanism (since the 14th century) was short-lived (works by T. Mohr, E. Rotterdam, J. Bruno, Campanella, Copernicus).

PRONUNCIATION (corresponding to the classical tradition highlighted in color)

Among biologists from different countries, two main variants of pronunciation of Latin names have been established. One of them, which is widely used in our country and in Western Europe, meets the standards of Latin pronunciation of late antiquity and the Middle Ages; the other option is as close as possible to the ancient model. The ancient pronunciation of Latin names is likely to be legalized as an international one.

Ae, oe -- [e]
C -- before e, i, y, ae, oe [c], in other cases [k], ch is always [x]. In Latin and Latinized Greek words, the combination sch does not reflect a separate sound and is read [cx] (Schistocerca, not Schistocerca). Schistocerca). In the classical tradition, there has always been a [k], currently best avoided.
G -- always [g]
H -- [x] with a slight breath, not pronounced in combinations of rh and th.
Ph -- [f]
I -- [i] at the beginning of the word and after the consonant, [th] after the vowel.
L -- always firmly in the classical tradition and gently in the medieval one.
Q -- is used only in the combination qu [kv], followed by a vowel. Exception: in the word quum (when) qu is pronounced [k]
S - in the classical tradition, it is always read [c]. In the medieval tradition, for some cases, especially in the position between vowels, in words of Greek origin and in the position between m, n, r and a vowel, the pronunciation [h] was established, which is not it is mandatory.
T - in the classical tradition is always [t], in the medieval tradition in some cases ti is read before the vowel [chi], but ti after s, x, t is always [ti]: ostium
In classical Latin, the letters J, U, W, Y, Z.
J -- always [th]
U -- [b]in combinations of qu, ngu before a vowel, sometimes in combinations of su before a vowel, and [y] in other cases.
Y -- always [and]
W and K are used only in names derived from modern proper names.

Pronunciation of names derived from words in modern languages. In accordance with the recommendations of several authors (e.g., Stearn, 1966), the root part of foreign-language names should be pronounced according to the rules of the source language, and the ending should be pronounced according to the rules of Latin. It is sometimes necessary to take into account the established tradition of pronunciation. So, when reading names borrowed from the French language, the final root letters are usually pronounced: Marchantia (Marchantia), Saussurea (Saussurea).

STRESS
In two-syllable words, the stress falls on the first syllable. In polysyllabic words, the stress falls on the second syllable from the end (penultimate), if it is LONG; if the penultimate syllable is short, the stress falls on the third syllable from the end, regardless of its length.
That is, to put stress, you need to determine whether the penultimate syllable is closed or open. A closed syllable ends in a consonant, it is always long and therefore stressed. Open syllables end in a vowel, and they can be both long and short.

An open penultimate syllable is LONG if 1) it contains a digraph or diphthong, 2) the last syllable begins with Z or X, 3) if the vowel is placed before two or more consonants; however, before combining one of the so-called mute (b, c, d, g, p, t) with a smooth (l or r) the vowel can remain short or be long, depending on the original brevity or longitude (look in the dictionary, long vowels are indicated by an arc above the letter, short ones by a horizontal line).

A syllable is SHORT if 1) it is followed by a vowel or two consonants, of which the first is l or r, 2) the last syllable begins with a vowel or with H, 3) the vowel is located before the combinations ch, ph, rh, th or is part of a combination with the group qu (semiliquidus).

You can determine the initial length and brevity of the second syllable from the end of a word by using some standard and frequently repeated morphological elements of words.
The most frequent long suffixes are:
-al: frontalis-frontal
-ar: articularis-articular
-an: montanus-mountain
-at: sceletizatus - skeletal
-id*: nucleoidum – nucleoid
-in: alpinus-alpine
-os: petrosus - rocky
-ur: natura-nature
* Suffix-id-derived from Greek -eidos - type, likeness, image, used in nouns that in the Russian equivalent have the ending-oid: haploid — haploidum, nucleoid-nucleoidum. However, keep in mind that in the Latin version of terms, the emphasis should fall on the suffix-id-. From the suffix-id -, which goes back to the Greek-eidos, one should distinguish the suffix-id -, which in Greek nouns indicated kinship or common origin: Magnoliidae, Magnoliidae, Liliidae, liliids.

Short suffixes:
-ic: microscopicus-microscopic
-ol: vacuola-vacuole
-ul: venticulus – ventricle

Frequent word-forming elements with a short penultimate vowel:
-cephalus (-cephala, -cephalum): Rhinocephala-rootheads (molluscs)
- cola: arenicola - sand
-dwelling-cytus: erythrocytus - erythrocyte
-dactylus (-dactyla, dactylum): adactylus - fingerless
-gamus (-gama, -gamum): polygamus - polygamous
-genesis: phylogenesis – phylogeny
-genus (- gena, - genum): anthropogenum-anthropogen
-petalus (- petala, - petalum): tetrapetalus
- four-leaved-phagus (phaga, phagum): polyphagus - polyphage
-philus (-phila, -philum): hydrophilus - hydrophilic
-phobus (phoba, phobum): hydrophobus - hydrophobic
-phorus (phora, phorum): Pogonophora - Pogonophores (molluscs)
-phyta (phyton): Chlorophyta-green algae
-poda (podus): Arthropoda-arthropods
-ptera, -pterus,- pteryx: Heteroptera - heteroptera
-spora: microspora – microspora
-typus: genotypus - genotype
-vorus (vora, votum): Carnivora-carnivores

When pronouncing terms with the suffixes indicated above and final word-forming elements containing the penultimate vowel, which is short in nature, you should be especially careful not to make mistakes in the statement of stress, which may be due to stress in Russian terms.

This post was edited by Tentator - 08/23/2007 13: 40

But, however, none of the zoologists I know say ArthrOpoda and GastrOpoda. In Russian dictionaries, where I have seen both words, the emphasis is only on pOda. After all, we do not say antipodes.

Tell me, have you met many biologists who would say parenchyma, chlorenchyma, Pithecanthropus? One botanical lady told me that she perfectly understands how to put stress, looked in the dictionary, but she can't overcome herself and always says parenchyma. Well, " a habit is given to us from above." Let's move on. Do you know a lot of people who say anticipate and avoid? No? And the dictionary norm for these words has not yet been canceled. With respect to the word Arthropoda, we can assume that it has passed into the Russian language and you can say "arthropods", "arthropods", then the stress may change. So it was with the words "erythrocyte", which in Latin reads Erythrocytus, and "foil", which was foil. But according to the rules of the Latin language, the scientific name of this taxon is read Arthropoda, as well as, for example, Echinodermata.

I liked one clarification
Q -- is used only in combination with qu -- [in]
if this is not ochepyatka, then how can I read aqua

I liked one clarification
Q -- is used only in combination with qu -- [in]
if this is not ochepyatka, then how to read aqua

yes, ochepyatka, guilty, correct

Tell me, have you met many biologists who would say parenchyma, chlorenchyma, Pithecanthropus?

I've met them, so all my friends say!
Unfortunately, the subsequent examples are accurate, no one from my environment, and I myself do not say so.
Although, as a student, I even compiled a dictionary from the statements of teachers, physiologists were especially different, I forgot almost everything, but I still remember the trunks (trunks) and fibers. Yes, most of them are very educated people, but each of them probably had a grandmother who cut a piece of meat. I noticed that very quickly I started talking with the use of medical jargon, and it was quite difficult to correct my speech.

I've met them, so all my friends say!
Unfortunately, the subsequent examples are accurate, no one from my environment, and I myself do not say so.
Although, as a student, I even compiled a dictionary from the statements of teachers, physiologists were especially different, I forgot almost everything, but I still remember the trunks (trunks) and fibers. Yes, most of them are very educated people, but each of them probably had a grandmother who cut a piece of meat. I noticed that very quickly I started talking with the use of medical jargon, and it was quite difficult to correct my speech.

Yes, it's interesting, but I haven't met them yet in any of the three universities to which I am related. Well, there is an isolation barrier between the populations of doctors and pure biologists, so differences accumulate And not counting the accents in ordinary Russian words, yes... what you will not hear at the university: porcelain, in the cold (very typical for chemists), between, etc., etc.

This post was edited by Tentator - 08/23/2007 15: 33

Yes, ochepyatka, I'm sorry, I'll fix it

there are a few exceptions, and so....

can anyone post useful additions to declensions here? or is the interest long gone?

I'm already reading. Only chattering here to no avail is somehow not good, the forum is thematic.

I'm already reading. Only chattering here to no avail is somehow not good, the forum is thematic.
Yes, yes. I also remember salmon and Sturgeon.

And Taimen. And also "Moskvot" shells. Listen to the computerised story of Karamzin being read on the Rossiya TV channel! RAgwold, Olgert, I don't remember who else cut my old ears-but at least where is the logic?!

can anyone post useful additions to declensions here? or is the interest long gone?

Yes, spread it out already, as much as you can ask!

And Taimen. And also "Moskvot" shells. Listen to the computerised story of Karamzin being read on the Rossiya TV channel! RAgwold, Olgert, I don't remember who else cut my old ears-but at least where is the logic?!

Well, the fact that television and radio now do not force you to speak correctly, as it was in Soviet times, yes. True, the examples I gave are the pronunciation of a university teacher, which is a completely different song.

About the shells. Although the pronunciation option that you condemn in modern dictionaries is not legalized, but Dahl, for example, has both options (just like with cottage cheese).
Olgerd (if you meant him, i.e. the Lithuanian prince) according to the dictionary of accents is pronounced just with an emphasis on the second syllable.

Tentator
By the way, I said parenchyma (and sometimes I still say it), until the residents of the glorious city of Moscow began to correct me. I still speak peticanthropus. But among the old residents of St. Petersburg and well-speaking Latin foreigners, I have never heard GastrOpoda. Apparently, this rule is not fully observed. I wonder if Apoda is an accent on the first A?

As for the parallels with accents in Russian, I repeat, over 50 years there have been changes in Russian (see "tractors" and "tractors", etc.), and Latin has been preserved. I can hardly believe that there is no debate about this among Latinists... So in the examples of accents you have given, the absurdity of "Rhinocephala - root-headed (mollusks)" is striking - then it would be "snout-headed", and the group is called Rhizocephala, and these are not mollusks, but crustaceans... A trifle, but immediately doubts about competence

PS By the way, in St. Petersburg (in Zina) they always say "Catalog", and this is carried around the country with graduate students. Apparently, the stress norms in Latin names are initially distorted not in the provinces, but in the centers. At our department, they always said "GastrOtricha" - until the Muscovites began to correct them.

... About seashells. Although the pronunciation option that you condemn in modern dictionaries is not legalized, but Dahl, for example, has both options (just like with cottage cheese).
Olgerd (if you meant him, i.e. the Lithuanian prince) according to the dictionary of accents is pronounced just with an emphasis on the second syllable.

Yes, indeed. Thank you.

  

PS By the way, in St. Petersburg (in Zina) they always say "Catalog", and this is carried around the country with graduate students. Apparently, the stress norms in Latin names are initially distorted not in the provinces, but in the centers. At our department, they always said "GastrOtricha" - until the Muscovites began to correct them.

I'm sorry, but LATIN has a radically different accent setting principle than RUSSIAN...
YOU CAN'T COMPARE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THIS IS INCORRECT....

Yes, spread it out already, as much as you can ask!

cough....I'm writing...but there is such abuse....occurs periodically...

cough....I'm writing...but there is such abuse....occurs periodically...

Yes, do not listen to anyone, it will be very interesting to read, and if someone fights, then there is a moderator

This post was edited by Sergeich - 08/24/2007 10: 41

Tentator
By the way, I said parenchyma (and sometimes I still say it), until the residents of the glorious city of Moscow began to correct me. I still speak peticanthropus. But among the old residents of St. Petersburg and well-speaking Latin foreigners, I have never heard GastrOpoda. Apparently, this rule is not fully observed. I wonder if Apoda is an accent on the first A?

As for the parallels with accents in Russian, I repeat, over 50 years there have been changes in Russian (see "tractors" and "tractors", etc.), and Latin has been preserved. I can hardly believe that there is no debate about this among Latinists... So in the examples of accents you have given, the absurdity of "Rhinocephala - root-headed (mollusks)" is striking - then it would be "snout-headed", and the group is called Rhizocephala, and these are not mollusks, but crustaceans... A trifle, but immediately doubts about competence

PS By the way, in St. Petersburg (in Zina) they always say "Catalog", and this is carried around the country with graduate students. Apparently, the stress norms in Latin names are initially distorted not in the provinces, but in the centers. At our department, they always said "GastrOtricha" - until the Muscovites began to correct them.

Comparisons of Latin and any other living language are completely incorrect. Latin is not developing now and cannot do so, but it is in your power to choose the tradition of using the language-either the richest classical or the shabby medieval, but in this, as you understand, consistency is good.

I did not rewrite the manual, but compiled, as I was asked, a list of basic pronunciation rules based on four sources; yes, the word "Rhinocephala" was originally misspelled, there is no such taxon, unlike Rhizocephala, but the pronunciation of words containing "- cephala" is not affected in any way, even if it is Culosocephala.

As for the Latin-speaking residents of St. Petersburg: one of Zina's highly respected elderly co-workers told me that when he came to the institute, everyone pronounced ColeoptEra, but gradually everything improved. Here someone wrote about "good" traditions, well, well. As for the catalog, excuse me, if you listen to the recordings of Y. M. Lotman and D. S. Likhachev, the most authoritative philologists, you will hear, for example, diAlog, Atomic, thinking, Otherwise, etc. But do not rush to be indignant, but first look at the accents in Dahl's dictionary. You don't have to tell us about the fact that the language is evolving, but tell us who is changing the language norm and on what basis? Why should seisas, according to modern dictionaries, say provision instead of literate provision? And if the form that becomes predominant in the speech of the people is entered in dictionaries, then why are the expressions "put on a hat" and "put on soup", the words "bellutes" and "prencendent" not yet the norm?

This post was edited by Tentator - 25.08.2007 21: 22

in the I declension poema, atis n poem is an example of gender entities that have mixed forms in declension:
poema
poematis
poemati
poema
poemate

poemata
poematorum
poematis
poemata
poematis
also FOR ALL ENTITIES 1 SLOPE. NOMINATIVE = SOUND

In the second declension of the form on er of the masculine gender, on um of the neuter
gender, the noun vir, virir is separately inclined

In the THIRD DECLENSION, there are three types:
consonant (determined by ok is in the r. case)
mixed type (both gender and Gender have the same number of syllables
in Gender and consonants in gender)
vowel type (they end in-e, -al, -er)
vowel types also include:
sittis, is thirst
puppis, is ship
turris, is tower
febris, is fever
vis,is power
securis, is axe

declension of nouns vis:
vis


vim
vi
NB!It does not have Gender n and Dates
n. NOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF NOUNS:
the rule of neuter gender in the plural is always-a-
nominative n. = accusative
in the FOURTH slope. verbal nouns
in THE FIFTH SLOPE. only res, rei, and dies, diei have plural forms
ALL TREES IN-US
FRUIT NAMES IN-UM ARE FEMININE

In the 1950s, cataloging was the norm, but now there is only one norm in all dictionaries, with an emphasis on "log". In the same way, it is not known why in ZINA they equalize if you pronounce "childbirth". No one writes "shkap" and "tsyryulnik"now. Defining rules is a special topic, outside of this topic. All languages change if they are used for a long time. Here you can also raise the question, and who established the rules of phonetics of classical Latin and from what it proceeded?

P.S. Something is hard to believe that in the old ZINE Stackelberg and Rodendorff said DiptEra...

This post was edited by Juglans - 08/24/2007 14: 53

Here, if anyone is interested.
Regarding the pronunciation of scientific names of arachnids, there are even audio files:
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=101604

write about the verb system?or is everyone more interested in their native language?

This post was edited by fly-km-08/24/2007 15: 43