Pedants' Paradise

[french frank]

I didn't. It seems rather odd to say opus at all unless you're talking about opus numbers - in which case the plural would surely opus numbers.

'Magnum opus', on the other hand is a not unusual phrase. Southey favoured 'operas' to refer to his own (multiple) works, but this is presumably just an early version of what became standard (referring to the musical genre); whereas 'opi' obeys no rules, even of analogy - other than wrenching a noun out of its gender and declension and placing it in different ones. It doesn't seem to have caught on: on the whole, dead languages do not behave like living ones.

[jean]

... 'opi' obeys no rules...

It obeys the perceived rule that all Latin nouns ending in -us are 2nd declension masculine, whereas a few are fourth declension, and some are third declension and neuter. I've seen tempus cause the same problem.

'Magnum opus', on the other hand is a not unusual phrase.

But rarely in the plural - you usually only have one of them.

[gurnemanz]

With little better to do at 10.30 on a Monday morning I refreshed my memory on nouns like "opus" which inflect in the same way in the oblique singular (genitive operis) as well as the plural (opera). Some of them have led to common English vocabulary: genus - generis, onus - oneris (burdon), funus - funeris (funeral), latus - lateris (side), viscus = an entrail, usually plural, hence viscera = innards.

PS just been reading a book which puts forward the possible origin of these endings as postpositions, whereby the rather cumbersome ablative -ibus ending would actually derive from an Indo-European root which also came down to English as the preposition "by".

[french frank]

It obeys the perceived rule that all Latin nouns ending in -us are 2nd declension masculine, whereas a few are fourth declension, and some are third declension and neuter.

You've excised my acknowledgement of that: " 'opi' obeys no rules, even of analogy - other than wrenching a noun out of its gender and declension and placing it in different ones."

[jean]

I was considering rules of analogy - but that isn't one!

[french frank]

I was considering rules of analogy - but that isn't one!

It implies one, doesn't it? That because most -us nouns are masculine, 2nd declension, a noun ending in -us is treated as 2nd declension masculine.

There seems, on the other hand no (?) evidence that Vulgar Latin treated it in that way, since oeuvre (and Sp obra) derive from opera. I would think that opus/opi would have been treated as opum/opos and, phonologically, given Fr. oeuf/oeufs.

[jean]

It implies one, doesn't it?

Yes, that's what I was addressing - but the wrenching isn't the analogy, but our comment on the failed analogy. If you see what I mean.

[french frank]

With little better to do at 10.30 on a Monday morning I refreshed my memory on nouns like "opus" which inflect in the same way in the oblique singular (genitive operis) as well as the plural (opera). Some of them have led to common English vocabulary: genus - generis, onus - oneris (burdon), funus - funeris (funeral), latus - lateris (side), viscus = an entrail, usually plural, hence viscera = innards.

Hadn't really thought of the connections already in classical Latin either - e.g. onero-are to load, burden; genero-are to beget; funero-are to bury.

[jean]

Words formed from nouns in Latin are always based on the stem. It's only with the third declension that the stem is significantly different from the nominative singular.

[french frank]

It's only with the third declension that the stem is significantly different from the nominative singular.

And in differing ways. School pupils have every justification in believing "that the Roman Senate sat down one day to design the complex system that is Latin grammar" - and did so to trip them up and test their memories.

[Old Grumpy]

Just noticed this appears in "New Posts" as Sticky Pedants' Paradise

I find this slightly disconcerting!

OG

[french frank]

Just noticed this appears in "New Posts" as Sticky Pedants' Paradise

I find this slightly disconcerting!

OG

Should be "Stickler"?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

"This is truly an historic occasion."

OK, but why "an" historic..?
We wouldn't say "an horrible occasion" or "an house". Also I've never heard anyone refer to "an history book".

[vinteuil]

"This is truly an historic occasion."

OK, but why "an" historic..?
We wouldn't say "an horrible occasion" or "an house". Also I've never heard anyone refer to "an history book".

... because "historic", "historical" are stressed on the second syllable, whereas "history" is stressed on the first.

A history, an historic occasion, an historical romance.

I still use this form ; I understand it is now-a-days considered antiquated. But so am I...

[french frank]

"This is truly an historic occasion."

OK, but why "an" historic..?
We wouldn't say "an horrible occasion" or "an house". Also I've never heard anyone refer to "an history book".

Very interesting - I can't explain why an historic but not an history book. But the Greek ἱστορία and post classical Latin istoria would both suggest a common form without an 'h' at the beginning; that would logically have given an istoric occasion.

The stress seems to have been variable, so Old French had both estoire (< istória) and (h)istorie < (h)istoría. I suppose it all added to the uncertainty as to what the 'correct' form would be. There's also a possible analogy in a(n) hotel where the h was silent because it came from a later French form (I presume).