# Why foreign proper names are latinized in the first or second declension?



## Erick404

Salvete!

I noticed that most foreign names, when latinized, are used either in the first (if female) or second (if male) declensions. I understand that traditionally, some names have been written like this (Robertus, Carolus, etc). 

But what about names ending in consonants without any tradition of being written in Latin? I thought, for example, _Barack_ should be latinized as _Barac _(maybe _Barax_), with genitive _Baracis_. However, the Latin Wikipedia as well as some other sources have _Baracus, -i_. 

Actually, I can't recall of any foreign name latinized as third, fourth or fifth declension. 

Is it just tradition?


----------



## fdb

Erick404 said:


> Actually, I can't recall of any foreign name latinized as third, fourth or fifth declension.



Jesus is fourth declension.


----------



## Glenfarclas

It seems to happen -- at least in Latin and Spanish, which I'm familiar with -- that some cases and declensions are productive and other are mere preserved but never added to.  In Spanish there are three verb endings, _-ar_, _-er_, and -_ir_, corresponding to the 1st, 2nd & 3rd, and 4th conjugations of Latin verbs.  But new verbs enter Spanish exclusively with the _-ar_ ending: _chequear_, _hackear_ (or _haquear_), _cliquear_, ... even "to Google," which ends in E and could have been "googler," is _googlear_.  The -_er _and -_ir_ conjugtions are in this sense nonproductive. I think that just tends to be a feature of language.

It's also true that virtually all Roman praenomina are of the first or second declension. The few exceptions seem to be rare and/or Etruscan. It strikes me as natural, then, that people would adapt non-Roman names to fit this strong existing pattern, rather than to invent new patterns.


----------



## Erick404

fdb said:


> Jesus is fourth declension.



Good point! And it's funny because it looks like second declension.



Glenfarclas said:


> It seems to happen -- at least in Latin and Spanish, which I'm familiar with -- that some cases and declensions are productive and other are mere preserved but never added to.  In Spanish there are three verb endings, _-ar_, _-er_, and -_ir_, corresponding to the 1st, 2nd & 3rd, and 4th conjugations of Latin verbs.  But new verbs enter Spanish exclusively with the _-ar_ ending: _chequear_, _hackear_ (or _haquear_), _cliquear_, ... even "to Google," which ends in E and could have been "googler," is _googlear_.  The -_er _and -_ir_ conjugtions are in this sense nonproductive. I think that just tends to be a feature of language.
> 
> It's also true that virtually all Roman praenomina are of the first or second declension. The few exceptions seem to be rare and/or Etruscan. It strikes me as natural, then, that people would adapt non-Roman names to fit this strong existing pattern, rather than to invent new patterns.



I see your point. I didn't realize the part about the Roman praenomina being of the first and second declension, but I believe the third declension is indeed productive. A quick example I remember is reading _californiensis_ somewhere.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Erick404 said:


> I believe the third declension is indeed productive. A quick example I remember is reading _californiensis_ somewhere.



That may be true; in any event I had meant to limit my comment in that respect to names, not to all words. Although "californiensis" is an adjective, not a part of a noun, and the toponymic suffix _-ensis_ is historical.  _California_ itself is first declension, as we see in scientific names like _Lampropeltis getula californiae _and _Pinus californiarum_.


----------



## Xavier61

If you look at them, most latin praenomina of second (and the few third) declension were originally adjectives. Praenomina worked as determiners of the nomina, so giving them adjectival forms is only natural.
 And, by the way, women had no praenomen, so there were no feminine praenomina. Those in first declension are masculine, as Agrippa. The feminine form "Agrippina" is not a praenomen, but a cognomen.


----------



## Xavier61

Erick404 said:


> Salvete!
> 
> I noticed that most foreign names, when latinized, are used either in the first (if female) or second (if male) declensions. I understand that traditionally, some names have been written like this (Robertus, Carolus, etc).
> 
> But what about names ending in consonants without any tradition of being written in Latin? I thought, for example, _Barack_ should be latinized as _Barac _(maybe _Barax_), with genitive _Baracis_. However, the Latin Wikipedia as well as some other sources have _Baracus, -i_.
> 
> Actually, I can't recall of any foreign name latinized as third, fourth or fifth declension.
> 
> Is it just tradition?


Well, it is easier to learn only the first 2 declensions, they are easy. Third declension is a bit tricky.


----------

