One thing I've never understood, since I don't know Latin...

Why is it Vetus Testamentum but Novum Testamentum? I would think the noun testamentum is the same gender in both cases, and that the adjective modifying it would be in the came gender, number, case, tense, voice, mood, whatever linguistic categories there are for adjectives in Latin which I don't know. (I know I'm mixing in some verb ones in there just for fun Big Smile ). So why are the endings different on the adjectives in the titles of these two journals?

Speaking of them, I have just posted requests for both of them on the feedback board. Please vote here:

Vetus Testamentum (journal)

Novum Testamentum (journal)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ken McGuire

Because "Vestus" is 3rd Declension and "Novum" (and "Testamentum") are 2nd Declension. I am sure there is a historical linguistic reason Latin has multiple Declensions, but that goes way beyond the High School Latin I had a really long time ago...

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274938#Comment_1274938

OK, thanks for reminding me of the term declension. I've heard of it before even though I never studied Latin and don't know what a declension is without looking it up. But I'm not sure it would help. Why would the declension be different for two adjectives that are both descriptions of age (new and old) when used before the same noun? And both are used in a contextless setting, as the title of a journal. I could see a different declension being used if it was part of a clause or something. But just standing alone like that, it doesn't make any sense to me.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274938#Comment_1274938

I am sure there is a historical linguistic reason Latin has multiple Declensions

It is a simplification of the 8 to 10 declensions in Proto-IndoEuropean. Sanskrit has 5 major classes (with variations).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274939#Comment_1274939

Why would the declension be different for two adjectives that are both descriptions of age (new and old) when used before the same noun?

Because in Indo-European languages the terminal letter/sound of the lemma/stem is the primary, grammatical gender secondary determinate of the declensional class. Grammatical gender is primary in Spanish, for a example of the continuing simplification. In English irregularities such as child/children represent the fragmentary retention of lost declensional classes.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274942#Comment_1274942

Why would the declension be different for two adjectives that are both descriptions of age (new and old) when used before the same noun?

Because in Indo-European languages the terminal letter/sound of the lemma/stem is the primary, grammatical gender secondary determinate of the declensional class. Grammatical gender is primary in Spanish, for a example of the continuing simplification. In English irregularities such as child/children represent the fragmentary retention of lost declensional classes.

So you're saying that the 't' and 'v' of vet- and nov- determine the declension? That is something I can understand now. Thank you.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274941#Comment_1274941

I am sure there is a historical linguistic reason Latin has multiple Declensions

It is a simplification of the 8 to 10 declensions in Proto-IndoEuropean. Sanskrit has 5 major classes (with variations).

I've always been intrigued by ancient languages being so much more complicated grammatically than modern ones with so many more inflected forms. Any idea why this is so? (I'm too lazy to Google it.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274947#Comment_1274947

that the 't' and 'v' of vet- and nov- determine the declension?

Essentially. If I remember my historical PIE correctly 3rd declension should be stems ending in constants or i; 2nd declension I am less certain but I think the stems end in o.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274955#Comment_1274955

[quote] L. vetus ‘old’ is an old neuter noun (cf. G. ϝέτος ‘year’), first used in apposition to another neuter (e.g. vīnum vetus) and then generally as an adjective.

Source: Carl Darling Buck, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), 210.

Source: Michiel de Vaan, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 672–673.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1274954#Comment_1274954

I've always been intrigued by ancient languages being so much more complicated grammatically than modern ones with so many more inflected forms. Any idea why this is so?

I've never seen a reasonable theory of how languages become complicated with the exception of pidginization. Well, that is not quite true - languages become complicated when multiple dialects are treated as a single language. What I personally suspect is something along the lines of when human speech discovered the usefulness of declension/cases (or other technique of your choice) they tend to apply the same technique to each new situation adding complexity. When they discover an alternative technique such as word order (or particles or prepositions or agglutination or ...), they start shifting towards the new technique - simplifying the old system and complicating the new technique. But any time I try to apply my theory to the Sino-Tibetan family of languages, I tell myself "nice try, but it doesn't seem to work".