I believe there are no exceptions to this rule. That's what I have always read, and I have never encountered any, neither in Greek nor in Latin, nor even in German.
There is an hypothesis about the cause of this phenomenon. Neuter words were historically limited to inanimate objects or things that cannot act. In a basic sentence, it was rarely or never the ...
These are the exact same word, and yes both mean "world" but no you cannot substitute them for each other. Latin is a fully inflexional language, which means that the words have endings which change depending on their grammatical use. You can compare mundum and mundi to whom and whose. You wouldn't say, "This is me ball" (well, not in Standard English, at ...
It's pretty much arbitrary.
There are some standard patterns: first-declension nouns tend to be feminine, second-declension masculine/neuter, third-declension abstract concepts, fourth-declension collectives and states, fifth-declension feminine. But there's an exception to each and every one of these rules.
Historically speaking, the declensions derived ...
I believe there's no straightforward answer as to „why different usage contexts correlate to different grammatical gender“, but the etymological origin gives some insights to the gender.
Diēs comes from Proto-Indo-European *d(i)jéus „daytime sky, Sky-god“ and is cognate to Iūp-piter (≈ Diespiter, „dies pater“), so originally it should have been masculine, ...
I searched for the vocative form Gnaee in several corpora but did not find any results. A general web search seems to reveal only automatically generated vocatives, which I would not lend much credence to, as well as the excellent 16th century example cited by @JoelDerfner in Juan Luis Vives's De Initiis Sectis Et Laudibus Philosophiae. The two alternatives ...
'Why' isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is often "just because." The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.
Nominative Ἰησοῦς νοῦς
Genitive Ἰησοῦ νοῦ
Dative Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ νῷ
Accusative Ἰησοῦν νοῦν
In a recent paper (included in The Latin of the Grammarians), I have made the point that Latin grammarians, unlike their Greek predecessors, did not expressly stress the uninflectional nature of adverbs, and this may be due to the fact that they observed some sort of declension in some types of adverbs (not only those derived of adjectives -doctus > docte-, ...
There are two (main) classes of adjectives in Latin:
Some adjectives use the first declension for feminines (e.g. Romana, "Roman") and the second declension for masculines and neuters (e.g. Romanus and Romanum).
For adjectives like this masculine forms look different from feminine forms — with the exception of plural dative and ablative.
The Latin word used for "world" here is mundus.
This word has several forms (singular/plural):
The five grammatical cases are used in different contexts and they are rarely interchangeable.
"Of the world" requires ...
To complete your example, it would be,
Quid est hoc? What is this?
Because "what" is neuter, whereas "who" could be masculine or feminine.
The demonstratives (hic, ille, iste, and is) can be used as either pronouns or adjectives. You can read about their paradigms on section 146 of Allen and Greenough, and their uses on section 296.
When demonstratives ...
The phrase you quote has words in the vocative case.
Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe
The vocative case is used for address. That is,
O Lord, only begotten son, Jesus Christ
The particle O underscores this fact, that the phrase is in the form of address.
On the other hand, Iesus is in the nominative case. The nominative case is used for the ...
To answer your second question, this rule is completely exceptionless, not only in Latin but in all Indo-European languages (that is, those that have a neuter gender at all).
neuter gender always had identical nominative, accusative and vocative forms in all three numbers
Archaic Syntax in Indo-European
I'm not sure there is more of a "why" to it than the fact that, in Latin, the ablative mostly absorbed the Proto-Indo-European instrumental's functions as the latter disappeared, just as the Greek dative did (which also happened to absorb some functions of the Proto-Indo-European ablative as it disappeared in Greek). Some other functions of the ablative were ...
I can only partially answer your question. In medieval documents dies is sometimes feminine where based on classical usage we would expect it to be masculine. Examples:
Liber Pontificalis1 (~10th century) 371, in reference to Charlemagne's arrival in Rome (but note that this text contains frequent grammatical irregularities):
Et alia die, secundum ...
This is a really common stumbling block for those approaching Latin from the background of a language like English, so it merits a careful step-by-step explanation. I'll break my response into two steps:
Adjectives agree in case, number, and gender with the noun they modify.
Suus, -a, -um is an adjective.
Adjectives agree with their nouns
Let's start by ...
Short answer: Latin does not allow the sequence ts (except in compound words), so an expected form like monts was remade into mons.
Of course, this only leads to the further question of why this sequence was disallowed in Latin, which is much more difficult to answer. Every language has a set of preferences as to which sequences of sounds it does and doesn'...
Tuomo Pekkanen's Ars Grammatica (a Latin grammar in Finnish) says that the second declension has three neuters ending in -us: vīrus, vulgus and pelagus.
They are only used in the singular, and accusative is exactly like the nominative (not -um).
I have no clue about the origin of these words.
I'm not sure if these words even have a similar history.
Regarding why the Latin text uses the accusative and then the nominative, this is simply because the Vulgate is closely following the Greek original:
6 ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ·
7 τοῖς μὲν καθ’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν ζωὴν αἰώνιον·
8 τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ...
The OLD writes that dies is "fem. frequently or usually in senses 1b, 5, 7, 10, occasionally elsewhere," with the following definitions listed:
1b: [the period from sunrise to sunset] as a diety
5: A specific day, the date of a letter
7: A day appointed for business
10: The lapse or passing of time
You might want to scope out the OLD for more about those ...
Spevak 2010 writes that the most frequent pattern is Subject Predicative.Noun sum (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to Predicative.Noun Subject sum (3%).
However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and
there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), context ...
Vespere, like mane, is adverbial (originally from the ablative), 'in the evening.' Also like mane, in late vulgar Latin it became an indeclinable substantive.
That mane, as an ablative, can turn into an adverb and then be used as a noun allows vespere to be done on analogy.
For example, Vergil (Georg. 3.325) can say mane novum 'new morning', Cicero (Att. 5....
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 ...
Ancient Latin had no separate letter for the the vowel I and the consonant Y (J in German). They were both written as I. In Medieval Latin, though, a development took place that differentiated between the vowel I (written as I, i) and the consonant I (now written as J, j).
There is no difference, then, between Iesus and Jesus in Latin.
Jesu/Iesu, though, ...
The noun foedus originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *foidos-. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached.
Proto-Indo-European ablaut patterns would have meant the stem was *foidos- in the nominative and vocative and *foides- in the other cases, but I'm not sure if this ablaut was still relevant ...
"Declension" (like "conjugation") is a word that means two different things.
In the abstract sense, "declension" is the abstract process of changing a noun or adjective's ending to reflect its role in the sentence.
In the specific sense, a "declension" is a class of nouns (or adjectives) that all decline the same way.
Latin has five ...
Using the texts stored in the Latin Library as a guide, we can see that the prevalence of eumdem waxes and wanes through history. Its earliest significant use in writing appears to be approximately the 4th century, and it reaches its height in the late Medieval period, but even then it does not displace eundem.
Several works from the post-...
The direct object of an active sentence is typically in accusative, an indirect one in dative.
An object in an active sentence is never nominative.
The verb esse (to be) is active but does not take an object.
When you say that something is something, aliquid aliquid est, both nouns are in nominative.
Marcus dux est. (Marcus is the leader.)
Acc. pl. pelagē occurs in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 6.619:
at pelage multa et late substrata videmus
This is simply the Greek plural: the word is a loan of Greek πέλαγος, whose nom./acc. pl. is πελάγη.
A Packard search finds no results for vira, virora, vulga, vulgora.
Venetiarum is the genitive plural of the first-declension noun Venetia, -ae. Venetiae, -arum (plural) is Latin for English Venice (singular).
Patriarchatus Venetiarum thus means "The Patriarchate of Venice."
Why is Venetiae plural? We have a parallel situation in English, since we refer to one country as "The Maldives" (plural). The plural refers in both ...