User:Urszag/one-termination

POS: Adjective, Noun, Proper Noun?

Usage: like bonus?

• https://books.google.com/books?id=g6sZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25
• Ritchie says you can use "bonus": https://books.google.com/books?id=X6Sh9Hz3WPcC&pg=PA15
• Fischer: https://books.google.com/books?id=FKtIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA262 Says singular masculine use is rare, but gives examples such as "aegrotus" and "liber", and notes that historically amicus, familiaris, reus are adjective forms. However, Fischer says even the latter cannot take descriptive attributive adjectives, so objects to "amicus bonus", etc.
• Pinkster, vol ii, refers to "substantival bonus 'this good person'".
  • Pinkster, vol i, says "Just like nouns, substantival adjectives may be used in the generic sense to denote a class of men, both in the singular and (more often) in the plural. In that case masculine forms are normal, as in sicut medico diligenti, priusquam conetur aegro adhibere medicinam"
  • Pinkster §11.9 says "They may be determined and modified by the same constituents with which they co-occur when functioning as attribute", §11.13 says "The substantival use of adjectives is common from Early Latin onwards. Such adjectives may be modified by determiners, quantifiers, identifiers, possessive adjectives, and—much more rarely (except in poetry)—by other adjectives, and also by combinations of these modifiers." On page 952, Pinkster gives examples of masculine substantival adjectives: "ne quis bonus interiret in eadem caede providit" (couldn't "quis" be read as the head here? "anyone good" rather than "any good man?"), "Non igitur de improbo, sed <de> callido improbo quaerimus",

Alius bonus nullus erit.?

Anyway. Forms of Latin ethnonyms/demonyms. I don't think there are any 4th- or 5th-declension demonyms/ethnonyms.

There might also be a distinct relational adjective in -icus, -ius, -ānus, -ēnsis; see L&S on Crēta

Nationality or ethnicity:

• plain root + -us, -a, (-um) (1st/2nd): Gallus, Āfer, siculus, italus, Graecus, Sardus, Etruscus, Anglus, Maurus, Britannus, francus, Scōtus, suēbus, Dānī, Dācus, Parthus
• plain root + -a (1st): Belgae, Numida? Sīnae? Sarmata
• plain root (3rd): often from Greek, it seems? thrāx, Crēs, Cĭlix
  • Blemyes, Caturiges, Bituriges, Allobroges, Cicones
• -on- (3rd): Brittō?

Feminines: Cĭlissa

Any national/ethnic name can be extended with the suffix -icus, forming a "relational adjective"(?):

• from plain 1st/2nd: Āfricus, Gallicus, italicus, Anglicus, Gothicus, Parthicus.
  • We don't seem to see *graecicus or *Etruscicus. We do see Dacicus, Francicus.
• from plain 1st: Belgicus, Sarmaticus,
• from plain 3rd: Allobrogicus, creticus
• from -ānus: Germānicus, Graecanicus, urbanicus, Tuscanicus, Rhodanicus, Romanicus. This doesn't seem that common in Classical Latin.

The adjective-forming suffix -ius:

• Rhŏdĭus < Rhodos, Băbylōnĭus, Cĭlĭcĭus

The adjective-forming suffix -ānus forms demonyms and also "non-ethnic" adjectives?

• from cities: Rōmānus (from Rōma), Massĭlĭānus
• from -icus: Āfricānus
• No clear base word: Germānus, Hispānus

The adjective-forming suffix -ēnsis forms demonyms, i.e. "inhabitant of X". It is commonly used substantively for inhabitants of cities. Also "non-ethnic" adjectives from countries?

• from -ia place-name: Hispāniēnsis, Massiliensis, Cĭlĭcĭensis
• from other city name: Cȳrēnensis (from Cȳrēnē/Cȳrēnae), Gomphensis (from Gomphi), Cannensis, Hălĭcyensis
• ?? : romaniensis, Carthaginiensis, Atheniensis, Lemniensis, Epidamniensis, Babyloniensis (Pl.), llurgavŏnēnsēs,
• from -ius adjective? Rhŏdĭensis (< Rhŏdĭus?)
• Germānĭcĭensis

"Histros, Hispanos, Massiliensis, Hilurios, / mare superum omne, Graeciamque exoticam, / orasque Italicas omnis, qua aggreditur mare, / sumus circumuecti." (Plautus uses Massiliensis alongside Hispanos)

-īnus: also used to form demonyms for cities, as well as relational adjectives.

• Murgentīnus, Assorinus

-aeus: Cȳrēnaeus

The feminine adjective-forming suffix -is, -idis:

• from plain 1st: Sarmatis
• from 1st/2nd?: Ītălis

References:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=GJgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA507
• https://books.google.com/books?id=aa8BAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25
• https://books.google.com/books?id=bEfqFw2R8L8C&pg=PA219
• https://books.google.com/books?id=Ynnn4BGA5j0C&pg=PA112

Let's make it so that these tables look better:

bellatrix and plus might look better with merged columns...

Third-declension two-termination adjective.

(This is not made with make_table_m_and_f)

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

(this is made with make_table_m_and_f) (optional: |acc_pl_m=Novembrēs/Novembrīs|acc_pl_f=Novembrēs/Novembrīs)

The culprit seems to be "noneut", for some reason? But "Aprīlis" has noneut and merges correctly... so is it affected by the nominative singular in specific being different? Hmm. If I add "nom_sg_f=November", we get this:

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

(this is made with make_table_m_and_f)

So, let's go through make_table_m_and_f line-by-line. 817-831 is just defining "conv" as a table(?) with the M and F forms. Then we call "convert" with both data and conv as parameters. (That's likely where things go wrong?) Lines 835-848: The columns are hard-coded at this point to be separated as Masculine | Feminine. Yeah, the rest seems to be just table-formation stuff. So the place where things go wrong must be in "convert".

If I remove 59-60 ("(data.accel and data.accel.lemma or nil) == (data.accel and data.accel.lemma or nil)") then I get the following error: "Lua error in Module:la-nominal at line 586: assertion failed!", but it doesn't apply to the version with nom_sg_f=November. Module:la-nominal at line 586 says "assert(data.accel.lemma == accel_lemma)" Ah, there's more about it here in Module:la-nominal. "if data.noneut then If noneut=1, we're being asked to do a noun like Aquītānus or Rōmānus that has masculine and feminine variants, not an adjective. In that case, make the accelerators correspond to nominal case/number forms without the gender, and use the feminine as the lemma for feminine forms."

With the vocative also:

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

(this is not made with make_table_m_and_f)

Yeah, so there's some kind of unnecessary dependency of the oblique and plural forms on the nominative singular.

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

OK ... "slots_equal" is only called once. What exactly does this mean? "when noneut=1 is set, the masculine slots will have the masculine lemma but the feminine slots will have the feminine lemma". What is the accelerator?

noneut is in the following functions: make_table_mfn_pl, make_table_mfn_sg, make_table_mfn, make_table. In make-table, it isn't directly called, just passed through. In make_table_mfn, we have "noneut and 'Masc./Fem.' or 'Masc./Fem./Neut.'"). This determines the header of the column: if noneut=1, it is "Masc./Fem.", whereas if noneut=0, it is "Masc./Fem./Neut.".

• make_table:
• it starts by checking if there is a neuter nominative singular or plural.
  • If there is not, it then checks if there is a feminine nominative singular or plural.
    • If so, it calls make_table_m_and_f_pl, make_table_m_and_f_sg or make_table_m_and_f.
    • Otherwise, it does make_table_mfn_pl, make_table_mfn_sg or make_table_mfn.
  • This is not ideal; e.g. adding "|nom_sg_n=-|nom_pl_n=-" to bonus makes all of the neuter forms disappear. Adding "nom_sg_n=-|nom_pl_n=-|nom_sg_f=-|nom_pl_f=-" makes it be marked as a Masc./Fem./Neut adjective. The question is, how embedded is this principle of using the absence of a nominative form to establish Masc./Fem. or Masc./Fem./Neut. syncretism?
• If there is a neuter nom sg/plr: is "nomf" true? (I don't know what "nomf" is. Maybe "no male/female forms?")

So, the non-merged table is built by make_table_m_and_f. Whereas the merged table (where there is no separate female nominative singular form) is built by make_table_mfn. Or is it? The merged table still has separate headers... Oh, I did that by saying "nom_sg_f=November", so there is a nominative singular, so that should be going through make_table_m_and_f after all.

When is "Masc./Fem./Neut." even used?

• sēsē. This uses la-decl-ppron, doesn't seem to involve la-adj/table.
• sēsquimīlle, mīlle. In the case of the latter, it's arguably incorrect for the plural forms.

Test cases/controls:

First/second-declension adjective.

Third-declension two-termination adjective.

Third-declension three-termination adjective.

Irregular third-declension comparative adjective.

Note: Singular forms take the genitive of the whole and do not function as adjectives.

Third-declension one-termination adjective (feminine-only in the singular, feminine- and neuter-only in the plural).

la-adj, Module:la-headword, Template:la-adj.

adjectives like victrīx (feminine-only or feminine- and neuter-only, from feminine agent nouns):

• • headword line: victrīx f (genitive victrīcis, masculine victor); third-declension defective adjective (feminine- and neuter-only)
  • categories: Category:Latin third declension feminine- and neuter-only adjectives, Category:Latin third declension adjectives, Category:Latin defective adjectives
  • Auto-detection based on form: This should probably be the default inflection pattern for adjectives that end in "trix". The only possible exception I could find is new Latin hystrix "spiny", from the Classical Latin noun "porcupine", and I'm not sure whether this word is even attested as an adjective in running text, as opposed to in scientific species names.
    • The masculine form could probably be given automatically by default, but it should be possible to override its form or say it doesn't exist. For some rare adjectives such as silvicultrix, the masculine counterpart seems unattested. With formations in -strix, it could be ambiguous whether the masculine ends in -stor or s(s)or.
      • Examples: resistrix (DMLBS: manum resistricem) coresponds to ?? masculine
    • I think it's better not to display neuter plural forms in -ia if they are completely unattested, since it isn't clear that the use of forms in -tricia was a fully productive pattern (rather than lexically restricted set of analogical forms). I guess the noneut= parameter could be used for this.
  • {{la-adj|victrīx}}
  • {{la-adj|silvicultrīx|noneut=1|nomasc=1}}
  • {{la-adj|hystrix<+.-trix>}}

adjectives like victor (masculine-only, from masculine agent nouns):

• • headword line: victor m (genitive victōris, feminine victrīx); third-declension defective adjective (masculine-only, non-i-stem)
  • categories: Category:Latin third declension masculine-only adjectives, Category:Latin third declension adjectives, Category:Latin defective adjectives
  • Auto-detection based on form: This should probably be the default inflection pattern for adjectives that end in "tor" or "sor"; I found no "normal" third-declension adjectives that end like this. (There are adjectives ending in -or such as memor or comparatives in -ior). However, some things can't be automatically determined:
    • whether a feminine version exists, and what form it has?

adjectives like Nīlōtis (feminine-only, from Greek feminine demonyms):

• • headword line: Nīlōtis f (genitive Nīlōtidis); third-declension defective adjective (feminine-only, non-i-stem)
  • categories: Category:Latin third declension feminine-only adjectives, Category:Latin third declension adjectives, Category:Latin defective adjectives
  • POS: a fair number of these seem to be attested only attributively, modifying inanimate nouns, so they can't really be defined as nouns.
  • Auto-detection based on form: adjectives ending in -is in the nominative singular are usually 3rd-declension 2-ending i-stems. We can exclude those by checking that the oblique stem ends in -id-, but that still doesn't distinguish this type of adjective from some New Latin compounds that are supposed to be non-defective, e.g. acrolepis, microlepis, monocrepis.

adjectives like Crēs, Magnēs (masculine-only, from Greek masculine demonyms):

• • headword line: Magnēs m (genitive Magnētis, feminine Magnessa or Magnētis); third-declension defective adjective (masculine-only, non-i-stem)
  • categories: Category:Latin third declension masculine-only adjectives, Category:Latin third declension adjectives, Category:Latin defective adjectives
  • POS: Many of these are used as nouns in the plural (e.g. "the Cretans", "the Magnesians") but that isn't a unique characteristic of substantive nouns in Latin: we also see plural adjectives like boni, sapientes used in the same way as generic definite noun phrases. Compare English "the French", "the rich", "the poor", "the wise". However, grammars of Latin say that Latin adjectives typically aren't used by themselves as nouns in the masculine nominative singular: i.e. we don't as a rule say "bonus", "sapiens" for "a good man", "a wise man" (kind of like how in English, we don't say *"a French, a rich, a poor, a wise"). Though I think this can be complicated by ellipsis; e.g. "bonus" might be used to mean "the good one" when referring back to an already-mentioned man.
    • Lazarus and the rich man in Vulgate: "homo quidam erat dives", "mendicus nomine Lazarus", "cadebant de mensa divitis", "mortuus est autem et dives et sepultus est in inferno",
  • Auto-detection based on form: there's at least one native Latin non-defective third-declension adjective ending in -ēs, locuplēs, as well as Greek-type borrowings such as phȳsōdēs, etc.

Miscellaneous special cases (not fitting so well into patterns):

iuvenis:

• • headword line: iuvenis m or f (genitive iuvenis, comparative iūnior or iuvenior); third-declension defective adjective (masculine- and feminine-only, non-i-stem)
  • categories: Category:Latin third declension masculine- and feminine-only adjectives, Category:Latin third declension adjectives, Category:Latin defective adjectives

anus:

• • headword line: anus f (genitive anūs); fourth-declension defective adjective (feminine-only)
  • categories: Category:Latin defective adjectives

Possible parameters: For the ones that can be two genders, I don't know whether using a comma as in "f, n-pl" and "m, f" is best, or something else like "f/n-pl" and "m/f".

• • {{la-adj|Nīlōtis/Nīlōtid<+.-I>|onlyg=f}}
  • {{la-adj|victor<+.-I>|onlyg=m|f=victrīx}}
  • {{la-adj|victrīx|onlyg=f, n-pl|m=victor}}
  • {{la-adj|iuvenis<3-1+.-I>|onlyg=m, f|comp=iūnior|comp2=iuvenior}}
  • {{la-adj|anus<4>|onlyg=f}}

pastrix ferastrix persuastrix = persuasor estrix = esor/estor? succestrix = successor praedecestrix gestrix, mestrix adsestrix/assestrix possestrix possessor ministrix (minister? cf. ministratrix) pistrix = pistor adsistrix resistrix (*resistor?) assistrix defenstrix defensor sponstrix sponsor tonstrix tonsor impostrix impostor suppostrix plaustrix plausor custrix custor

Fixed categorization bug, but there's still a need to distinguish between use of la-adj in cases like ōcior (treated as a lemma because no positive form exists) from use of la-adj-comp in cases like doctior (treated as a non-lemma because positive forms exist). Cases like catholicior, which use the wrong headword template, can be located by searching for incategory:Latin third declension adjectives and Latin comparative adjectives, also "incategory:"Latin adjectives" incategory:"Latin comparative adjectives"".

Comparatives like catholicior were miscategorized in Category:Latin third declension adjectives of one termination. The culprit ultimately may be Module:la-adj/data, via Module:la-nominal and Module:la-headword.

• Immediate cause: In Module:la-adj/data, line 457 "table.insert(data.categories, "Latin third declension " .. data.pos .. " of one termination")" under decl.
  • Removing this line fixes the error, but incorrectly removes the category from pages like Felix.
• So we need to check for other examples of 3-1.
  • line 464: "decl(data, {stem .. "or", stem .. "ōr"})"
    • Removing this line fixes the categorization error, but causes new errors in the headword line and inflection table for catholicior. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to affect bicolor or memor. The templates are simply la-adj|catholicior, la-adecl|catholicior and la-adj|bicolor, la-adecl|bicolor, so some intermediate step must be treating these differently (probably one that detects comparative forms in -ior and makes them get consonant-stem endings).
• There could be issues with Module:la-nominal, where "3-1" occurs extensively.
  • Places to check: 1145-46: "{"^(.*)or$", "3-C", {}}," "{"^(min)or$", "3-C", {}},". How does "3-C" work exactly? I guess it's meant to stand for "3-Comparative", but it isn't really explained, as noted at Template:la-adecl. Oh, I guess it ends up getting inflected according to Module:la-adj/data, line 460 "decl = function(data, args)".
    • Going back to line 464: "decl(data, {stem .. "or", stem .. "ōr"})": replacing "3-1" here with "3-2" makes comparative adjectives, both those like catholicior and those like horribilior, take the wrong endings like catholicioria (with short -or-, oddly enough). It also puts the first in Category:Latin third declension adjectives of two terminations. So this line is key.
      • As best as I can figure out, the short "or" in catholicioria seems to be based on 3-2 inflected words being treated as having a single "stem" for all forms, with no distinction between the nominative and oblique stems. So this requires some exploration of what "(data, {stem .. "or", stem .. "ōr")" is doing.
• OK, it looks like the specific endings for 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 are all defined in Module:la-adj/data (e.g. line 538 "decl = function(data, args)", line 488 for 3-2, line 324 for 3-1). So I think I could just make decl more like these.

Latin: Template:la-adj, Module:la-headword.

• The latter uses: Module:la-nominal.
  • This uses: Module:la-adj/data, which seems to be where termination categories are assigned.
    • Not directly relevant: Module:la-noun/data, Module:la-adj/table, Module:la-noun/table

See pos_functions = function(def, args, data, infl_classes, appendix) local function adjectives_comp(pos, def, args, data, infl_classes, appendix)

-

primoris:

"Dixit & Scaliger primori in Ablativo, & infoleol primorem hominis ætatem, imitatus Catonem & Gellium. An non, inquis, hic solæcismus? Ætas enim fœmininum est, primores masculinum. ℞ Auguror fuisse apud Priscos adjectivum hic & hac primoris & hoc primore. Itaq; cum dicitur primoribus labris, quidam eruditi dixerunt, ibi primoribus esse adjectivum genere neutro usurpatum, in nominativo tamen & accusativo primora vel primoria non dici. Sed de hoc deinceps.

XXXI An cùm dicitur primoribus labris (id

      eft,leviter guftare & attingere)& 
  à Scalig.primores ab oriufuo dies: 
  primores & primoribus fint fub- 
  ftantiva? 

St non I non placeat tibi effe adjectiva, dicas sanè esse substantiva, sed quæ sustineant vicem seu officium adjectivorũ, Primoribus labris, id eft, extremis vel primis: sic cùm dicitur, princeps omnium debet esse exordium, si neges princeps esse adjectivum, necesse est ut dicas esse substantivum, sed quod obeat vicem adjectivi primum. Principes enim exordia & primores labra nõ dicitur. Sic à substantivo fœminino victrix est victrices & victricia, ut victricibus armis, victricia arma (non victrices arma) ubi significatio adjectivi manifesta est,"

https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA2-PA210&dq=%22primoria%22&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=_QZNAAAAcAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22primoria%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=p1pGQLv5f-EC&pg=PA867&dq=%22primoria%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN993fyZyIAxWIMDQIHUTLFlkQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22primoria%22&f=false

Zumpt says month names don't occur in the neuter: "Note 2. The names of the months, September, October, November, December, also belong to this class of adjectives. As adjectives, however, they are defective, since the neuter never occurs, and the masculine and feminine scarcely in any other connection than with mensis (masc.), Calendae, Nonae, and Idus. Horace uses libertate Decembri."

The only form in "-embre" I see in PHI is in Festus, "mense Decembre".

No Octobre. We do find "mense Octobri".

Postclassical "mense Octobre": https://books.google.com/books?id=F85BAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP55&dq=%22Octobre%22+%22quae%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX7435hJWIAxWwHDQIHUioGLEQ6AF6BAgJEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Octobre%22%20%22quae%22&f=false

Headword line:

• Compare fr-adj|onlyg=f, Template:fr-adjective, Module:fr-headword.
• Latin: Template:la-adj, Module:la-headword.

auctor sumus: adjective?

Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/May#How_should_we_present_Latin_adjectives_that_inflect_like_nouns_(or_that_are_really_appositive_nouns?)

agitatrix

Adjectives like victrīx: f. abl. sg. may end in -trīcī or -trīce, f./n. gen. pl. may end in -trīcium (-trīcum seems rarer and may be only attested as a feminine form, but I'm not sure).

Template:la-adecl, Module:la-nominal, Module:la-adj/data

Examples of neuter use: lacte ... altrici: https://books.google.com/books?id=8GNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40

Ennodius, per TLL: fidei ubere lacte pascit altrici.

Note also some cases of derived second declension forms, such as nūtrīcius, nūtrīcium; meretrīcius, meretrīcium.

• nutrix
• Attested neuter forms: peccatricia (attested: "peccatricia membra", "peccatricia opera", "verba peccatricia"), altricia ("altricia terga")
• Masculine counterparts would be: dēlētor (not clearly attested in Classical Latin), peccātor, cantātor, accelerātor, silvicultor.

• proditricia: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZFpBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA92

Grammar books: Grant, Feldbausch

Greek-type feminine-only adjectives in -is, -idis: Euphratis, Nilotis, Libystis, Thessalis

The ones that are indisputably adjectives are those in -trix, -tricia.

"Animate only" adjectives (appositive nouns?):

• mās?
• fēmina (1st decl.)

• • • porco(um) femina(m) (Cato De Agri Cultura 134.1.3; Cicero, De Legibus 2.57.18)
    • cardinibus ex torno masculo et femina inter se coartatis,
    • Caere porcus biceps et agnus mas idem feminaque natus erat;
    • in Sabinis incertus infans natus, masculus an femina esset,
• 106 BCE – 43 BCE, Cicero, De Legibus 2.57.18:

  Itaque in eo qui in nave necatus, deinde in mare proiectus esset, decrevit P. Mucius familiam puram, quod os supra terram non extaret; por<c>am heredi esse contractam, et habendas triduum ferias et porco femina piaculum <f>aci<undum>.

  Therefore in the case of one who died onboard, then was thrown into the sea, P. Mucius decreed the family pure, because the bones did not stand above the earth; a sow was required of his heir, and to have three days' holiday and a female pig

Feminine adjectives: anus, fēmina, virgō?

Latin third declension adjectives used only in the masculine and feminine: senex, iuvenis. nēmō?

Madvig, transl. Woods 1870

To do:

See also Talk:sospes#RFV_discussion:_April_2017–January_2021 and quadrupēs

Third declension adjectives of "one termination" not following the participle pattern:

• praepes, -etis: "praepete" attested, maybe also "praepeti"?
  • "Praepetium" not found in PHI or CorCor. Google Books shows only a variant manuscript reading of Servius and a poem by Ioannis de Curiis Dantisci: "pecoris nutrix , et equorum Praepetium genitrix , belligerûmque viruum"
  • "praepetia" is found in some Google Books.
  • "praepeta" seems to be only found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=9ssrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA359
  • "praepetum" attested:
  • Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 7.6.12.3|Adulescens ego Romae, cum etiamtum ad grammaticos itarem, audivi Apollinarem Sulpicium, quem inprimis sectabar, cum de iure augurio quaereretur et mentio 'praepetum' avium facta esset, Erucio Claro praefecto urbi dicere 'praepetes' sibi videri esse alites, quas Homerus τανυπτέρυγας appellaverit, quoniam istas potissimum augures spectarent, quae ingentibus alis patulae atque porrectae praevolarent.
  • Maurus Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros 12.869.2|stridorem vocis scilicet sonum: nam utrumque tangit augurium, et oscinum et praepetum, quod graviter posset obesse Troianis: sic Homerus inducit Calchanta.
  • praepetia and praepeta both not found in either PHI or CorCor.

Ending in s, some attested -a form:

• vetus, -er-

-es, -itis:

• sospes, sospite
  • unattested in CorCor: sospitia
    • Juno Sospitia This seems to be a typo for "Juno Sospita", a feminine form.
    • usque sospitia Unclear, could be plural of "*sospitium"?
    • sospitia Sed uti jus Romanorum matrimonii pudorem, honore prosecutum est, ita et matrimonii et cognationis intimae, verbo familiae jura et reverentiam sospitia tenere voluit legislator Francicus, atque ideo actionem publicam non admisit, ubi haec periclitari posse viderentur
    • feminine?

Already not shown:

• ales, alite
  • attested in CorCor: "autu alitia auti estin": here is a greek transcription of "aletheia"/ἀλήθεια.
    • • Google Books: proper noun: , ,
      • "Alita" is also a participle of "alo". It has 2 PHI hits: Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni 8.10.8.3 "Quae lignis alita oppidanorum sepulcra comprendit." Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 9.3.8.9 "sed alita miseriis rei publicae inpotentia furens"
        • GB:
• caeles, caelite
  • unattested in CorCor: caelitia: caelitia
    • caelita, , , ,
• superstes, superstite (unattested on PHI: superstitia)
  • Du Cange: "SUPERSTITIA Superstitium, idem quod Superstitio."
  • superstitia vana

-os

• -os, -otis: compos, impos; attested 1ce: compotum: unattested: *impotum; *compotium, impotium; *compotia, impotia. Compotum in CorCor seems to mostly be computum?
  • Google books impotium:
  • Google books impotum: , , ,
  • Ablatives in -e: attested compote, unattested *impote
• -ebs, -ibis: caelebs (no caelibia, caeliba; not in CorCor either)

Ending in s, some attested -ia form:

• īs, -ītis: dīs (dītia)
• eps, -ipitis: (praecipitia, ancipitia; abl. s. always ancipiti)

• pubes, -er-: (no puberia or pubera; not in CorCor either)

Ending in r:

• cicur
  • PHI: has cicurum. no *cicure, cicura. no *cicurium, cicuria.
  • CorCor: has 2 hits for cicura, no hits for *cicuria. 2 hits for cicure.
• memor
  • "17. Auctor incertus (Augustinus Hipponensis?), De grammatica (n. d.): CAPUT V.-- Neque enim dicimus memora vel memoria numina."
    • See
• pauper
• uber
• degener
  • degeneria: not in CorCor.
  • ,

• • • divitia (many times)

Ending in s, attested -ia form that could be a singular noun:

• -es, -idis: deses (desidia: but this is commonly a noun. compare inertia)
• -ors, -ordis: concors, misericors
  • concordia, misericordia: can both be nouns. L&S says "Plur. neutr.: concordia, Verg. A. 3, 542; Sil. 13, 650; Pers. 5, 49"
  • Ablatives in -e: attested misericorde (1nce), unattested *concorde.
  • Ablatives in -i: "in concordi civitate posset", "concordi pace ligavit", "concordi virtute manus

Ending in s, attested -ia form that could be a plural of an -ium noun:

• -eps, -ipis: princeps, particeps
  • attested on PHI: principia, participia. But singulars can be principium, participium (compare mancipium, municipium > mancipia, municipia).
  • Ablatives in -e: attested principe, articipe
• -es, -itis: ] (hospitia: plural of hospitium)
  • Ablatives in -e: attested hospite
  • "si hospitia, clientelas, cognationes, adfinitates caste colenda esse dicemus" "if we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship, and relationship by marriage must inviolably be cherished". This is the plural of hospitium.

See L&S regarding "hospita": "Form hospita (in the fem. and neutr. plur. mostly poet.): hirundines hospitae, Varr. ap. Arn. 6, 207: navis, Ov. F. 1, 340: quo tutior hospita lustres Aequora, Verg. A. 3, 377: conjunx hospita Teucris, id. ib. 6, 93: terra hospita, id. ib. 3, 539: tecta, Val. Fl. 2, 650: flumina, Stat. Th. 4, 842: litora mundo, id. S. 3, 5, 75: unda plaustris, bearing wagons on its frozen surface, Verg. G. 3, 362: vina, Val. Fl. 1, 44."

Also Zumpt: http://google.cat/books?id=CI4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA30, http://google.cat/books?id=CI4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA58

Ending in l:

• vigil (are neuter forms actually attested?)

Compounds of corpus, color and pes,

ferox, trux

hebes only has neuter plural in -ia, but it has a genitive plural in -um as well as -ium (both postclassical). Is this related to gender?

impotum is listed in the below:

Among others: pugilum, degenerum, congenerum, celerum, compotum, puberum, uberum, consortum, inopum.

This is a questionable list. Consortum seems to be eventually attested, but not in Cl L. Then again, is cōnsortium attested as a genitive plural?

• Lancelot
• Johnson
• this thing

Attested neuter forms: insontia (pectora, membra, in alia pura & insontia)

See also discussion in https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Some_Latin_adjectives

Sources:

• "The neuter plural is only formed from those adjectives of one termination, which end in ans and ens, in as (rarely), rs, ax, ix, and ox, and from the numeral adjectives in plex": Latin Grammar by J. N. Madvig, translated by George Woods

• "All those adjectives that have e only in the ablative, have no neuter plural; also, adjectives of one termination in er, es, or, os, and fex, whether the ablative ends in i or e and i, have seldom a neuter plural; as, puber, degener, uber; ales, locuples, deses, reses; memor, concolor, bicorpor; compos, impos, exos; artifex, &c.; also, comis, consors, exors, inops, particeps, princeps, pubis, impubis, redux, sons, insons, supplex, and vigil." Latin Grammar by Richard Hiley

• "Adjectives ending in er, or, es, os, have no neuter plural; as pauper, memor, dives, compos. Also pubis, impubis, supplex, comis, inops, vigil, sons, insons, redux, intercus, and a few others; except hebes, teres, and adjectives in er of three endings; as pedester." The Eton Latin Grammar

• "A Copious Latin Grammar", page 86

domo: https://books.google.com/books?id=P99FAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA68

Priscian says on the genitive plural:

• reperiuntur praeterea absque i facientia genetiuum pluralem, quamuis ablatiuum et in e et in i proferant, in "us" et in "il" et in "or" trium generum et in "ex" desinentia, quando sunt communis generis, ut hic et haec et hoc uetus a uetere uel ueteri ueterum (Virgilius in V:

«ueterum non inmemor ille parentum»), uigil ab hoc et ab hac uigile uel uigili horum et harum uigilum.

• similiter memor a memore uel memori horum et harum memorum (Horatius in II sermonum:

«nam quamuis memori referas mihi pectore cuncta». raro tamen inuenitur in e terminans huius nominis ablatiuus, nec aliam esse causam existimo, ut supra dictum est, nisi eam, quod apud antiquos hic et haec memoris et hoc memore proferebatur. in quo testis est Caper, antiquitatis doctissimus inquisitor. ostendit enim, Caecilium in epiclero sic protulisse: «itane Antipho † inuentus profluuia fide? / itane est inmemoris, itane est madida memoria?». nec mirum, cum et hic celer et hic celeris, et hic concors et hic concordis