Much to students' annoyance, nouns ending in -us can belong to either the second (servus), third (tempus), or fourth (circus) declensions. I understand the origin of the second and fourth: Proto-Indo-European stems in -o- vs -u-. But the third-declension -us nouns are less predictable:

  • tempus → temporis (also corpus, decus, nemus)
  • latus → lateris (also genus, funus, scelus)
  • jūs → jūris (also crūs, pūs, rūs)

The last of these makes sense to me: the root was originally jūs, and the intervocalic s became r in pre-classical Latin (cf flōs, flōris).

But for the other two patterns, why sometimes e and sometimes o? The two patterns seem very distinct: even nouns of uncertain declension, like penus, -ī/-ūs/-oris, never interchange -eris and -oris forms. What led to this distinction?

  • 2
    There is at least one noun that varies between -eris and -oris, though it's not an -us noun: iecur, gen. iecinoris / iocineris / iecoris.
    – TKR
    Commented Oct 28, 2016 at 1:32

1 Answer 1


The usual explanation given in historical grammars, e.g. those of Weiss, Sihler, and Buck, is that the -er- stems result from regular sound change, while the -or- stems result from analogical remodeling on the basis of the nominative/accusative.

A well-known Latin sound change turned all short vowels in word-medial open syllables to i. Since short unstressed ir is a disfavored sequence in Latin, though, before r such vowels became e instead. (Compare second-person passive forms like cap-e-ris, vs. cap-i-tur.) This is how you get the medial vowel of the lateris type.

Apparently, though, in some cases the vowel of the nominative/accusative -- which would still have been o, e.g. tempos, corpos -- was restored throughout the declension, giving the temporis type. Why this happened in some nouns and not others is unexplained: it's often the case that analogical changes hit some words but miss others for unclear reasons.

This, as I said, is the standard explanation. It is interesting, however, that in three of the four -oris examples you list, the consonant before the o is a labial. This could be coincidence, of course, but maybe part of the explanation is phonetic, since the presence of a labial could plausibly favor the rounded vowel o. It would be interesting to look at the full set of such neuter s-stems to see if there are any phonetic patterns of this kind.

  • 1
    Holt Parker (in Parker 1988) offers a more nuanced explanation: 1. medial weakening (no exceptions); 2. rhotacism; 3. R-lowering. V̌s > ǐs > ǐr > ěr; cf. NVMISIOS
    – Alex B.
    Commented Aug 26, 2018 at 2:14
  • 1
    As a matter of fact, Tronskii 1960 proposed the same analysis (§117, on page 79), even though Parker 1988 does not mention Tronskii. As the saying goes, everything new is well-forgotten old.
    – Alex B.
    Commented Aug 26, 2018 at 2:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.