Genitive case of a word?

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
Even in Latin, a language that is much 'younger' than, say, Vedic Sanscrit, the morphological distinctions between noun and adjective are often non-existent (e.g. puero parvo), and it's reasonable to assume that in the proto-language they belonged to essentially one and the same category, that the words had a considerably abstract range in meaning, so that you could use precisely the same word for, e.g., 'eating (guy)' & 'tooth'. My point being that when the daughter languages 'came to decide' where they should go (before or after the word modified), it was more or less up to 'their taste'.

In Sanscrit, you have sometimes minimal pairs of noun and adjective, differing only in the position of the accent, e.g. ápasi : apási, that is 'in a work' (cf. Latin opus, the ablative (= old locative) ópere) and 'in an active (guy)', respectively.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
you could use precisely the same word for, e.g., 'eating (guy)' & 'tooth'.
Are you suggesting that dens was originally a present participle? It does look like one. :eek: And even sounds like it could be akin to edo. :eek: Holy moly, I never thought of that!

By the way, Latin grammarians (or at least some of them) put nouns and adjectives in the same category: nomina.
 
Top