Open funderburkjim opened 6 years ago
The masculine and feminine declensions are identical, and use the endings :
Case | S | D | P |
---|---|---|---|
Nominative | OH | AvO | AvaH |
Accusative | Am | AvO | AH |
Instrumental | avA | oByAm | oBiH |
Dative | ave | oByAm | oByaH |
Ablative | oH | oByAm | oByaH |
Genitive | oH | avoH | avAm |
Locative | avi | avoH | ozu |
Vocative | OH | AvO | AvaH |
Obtain the base by dropping the final 'o'.
Completely analogous to other vowel-ending declension algorithms. In brief:
Declension in feminine (or masculine):
Case | S | D | P |
---|---|---|---|
Nominative | g + OH = gOH | g + AvO = gAvO | g + AvaH = gAvaH |
Accusative | g + Am = gAm | g + AvO = gAvO | g + AH = gAH |
Instrumental | g + avA = gavA | g + oByAm = goByAm | g + oBiH = goBiH |
Dative | g + ave = gave | g + oByAm = goByAm | g + oByaH = goByaH |
Ablative | g + oH = goH | g + oByAm = goByAm | g + oByaH = goByaH |
Genitive | g + oH = goH | g + avoH = gavoH | g + avAm = gavAm |
Locative | g + avi = gavi | g + avoH = gavoH | g + ozu = gozu |
Vocative | g + OH = gOH | g + AvO = gAvO | g + AvaH = gAvaH |
Based upon Kale on p.53, I think that the neuter declension of nouns ending in 'o' is formed as follows:
The word 'bahu-go' is indicated to be an adjective by MW (having much cattle). So, we need to know how to decline 'go' in the neuter. First, we form the stem 'gu'. Then decline 'gu' like 'maDu', using the n_u model; i.e., form base 'g' from 'gu', then add the n_u endings. The result is:
Case | S | D | P |
---|---|---|---|
Nominative | gu | gunI | gUni |
Accusative | gu | gunI | gUni |
Instrumental | gunA | guByAm | guBiH |
Dative | gune | guByAm | guByaH |
Ablative | gunaH | guByAm | guByaH |
Genitive | gunaH | gunoH | gUnAm |
Locative | guni | gunoH | guzu |
Vocative | gu/go | gunI | gUni |
Finally, the declension of 'bahu-go' in neuter just reattaches 'bahu':
Case | S | D | P |
---|---|---|---|
Nominative | bahugu | bahugunI | bahugUni |
Accusative | bahugu | bahugunI | bahugUni |
Instrumental | bahugunA | bahuguByAm | bahuguBiH |
Dative | bahugune | bahuguByAm | bahuguByaH |
Ablative | bahugunaH | bahuguByAm | bahuguByaH |
Genitive | bahugunaH | bahugunoH | bahugUnAm |
Locative | bahuguni | bahugunoH | bahuguzu |
Vocative | bahugu/bahugo | bahugunI | bahugUni |
Note that we do not have a separate model 'n_o'. This is analogous to the way the feminine declension of an adjective ending in 'a' is handled by this system.
For example, 'agra' has the lexnorm attribute 'm:f:n'. We prepare the feminine stem of 'agra' as 'agrA'. Then we decline 'agrA' using the f_A model (like 'latA', or our example 'rAmA' in #8).
Deshpande , Kale, and Bucknell use the citation 'dyo' (sky).
MW has an entry for 'dyo', but only as a pointer to 'dyu':
dyo b dyota &c. See under dyu and 1. dyut.
In particular, 'dyo' has no lexical (gender) information in MW, so does not appear in the original lexnorm-all2 list.
I am handling this by
97516 dyo dyo m:f:n
to lexnorm-all2 92231.1 dyu dyu m:n
92231.2 dyu dyu m
This can be a temporary holding place for items of lexnorm-all2.txt that are known to lead to declension errors by the current stem-model classification and declension algorithms.
These cases will need to be handled somehow as this project matures.
lexnorm-irregular.txt
Can't locate it. It is not only about nominals ending in 'o'
, but general, right?
There are only 26 nominal citations in lexnorm-all2 which end in 'o'.
Most of these are 'go' (cow, bull) and its compounds. The others are 'lo', 'dyo', 'smfto', and 'so'.
The stem generation results in models f_o, m_o (same as f_o) and n_u (see below for discussion of neuter).