# Definite article impact on noun declension



## dihydrogen monoxide

Why did the declension of definite article have such an impact on noun declension in some languages? If you look at the endings in Ancient Greek for definite article (this,that...) and a stem they are the same, the same goes for Sanskrit. I realize it's one declension but why such impact?


----------



## Hilde

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Why did the declension of definite article have such an impact on noun declension in some languages?


 
 What exactly do you mean? What kind of impact are you referring to?
Hope you will clearify this for me.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Hilde said:


> What exactly do you mean? What kind of impact are you referring to?
> Hope you will clearify this for me.


 
I am referring to the fact that endings of definite articles and noun declensions are the same. It is being said that declension of definite articles had impact on noun declension, that is why they have the same endings.
The reason the noun declension has the same endings as definite article is because definite article declension had an impact on it. Impact is, definite article declension changed the whole paradigm of noun declension and I am asking why did the definite article declension change the paradigm of noun declension. Impact would be that it completely changed the paradigm, if it changed it slightly, it would still be an impact, but not that much of an impact.


----------



## Hilde

Aha, I see
Well, in my language (Norwegian), the definite suffix originally was a separate article, but it became enclitic, and is now a part of the noun declension.

'karl hinn' -> 'karl inn' ->'karlinn' (Mod. Norw.: kar*en*)

But this is special for Nordic languages, and Im not sure if it is the same in other languages.

(language and terminological differences can easliy create misunderstandings, please let me know if I didnt express myself clearly.)

Or: you are talking about congruence, aren't you?

(too tired tonight I am)


----------



## modus.irrealis

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Why did the declension of definite article have such an impact on noun declension in some languages? If you look at the endings in Ancient Greek for definite article (this,that...) and a stem they are the same, the same goes for Sanskrit. I realize it's one declension but why such impact?


I don't think this has to do specifically with the definite article. It's just that going back to Proto-Indo-European the declensions of most pronouns (including those that gave developed into articles later on) was already very similar to the declension of certain nouns. I don't know the reasons for this similarity though.

With Greek specifically, for the Ancient language the endings of definite article and those certain nouns were not exactly the same, and in Modern Greek there's been arguably more divergence than convergence of endings. With Sanskrit, as far as I know it did not have a definite article.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

I realized now I've made a mistake, Sanskrit didn't have definite article. In fact pronoun declension in Sanskrit had an impact on a stem. So why did this happen? 
What I meant was why did the pronoun declension have such an impact on noun declension? But thanks for clearing the Greek situation to me.


----------



## Hilde

Can you please give an example? By pronoun - do you mean demonstratives?

To me it seems obvious that the pronouns and the definite endings/articles are similar - they both express the same - definiteness. And pronouns (being pro-nouns) are substitutes for definite nouns. 

Most definite articles/affixes has their origin in demonstratives, so it might not be so much _impact_ as an _evolvment_.

But give an example. it makes it easier to see exactly what you are referring to


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I realized now I've made a mistake, Sanskrit didn't have definite article. In fact pronoun declension in Sanskrit had an impact on a stem.


 
I have a big problem with your starting point. Can you please explain why the declination of the demonstrative pronoun (or definite article) would have an impact on a stem of the noun? 

How do you demonstrate this impact?
Can you please give examples.


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Perhaps Dihydrogen Monoxide simply meant that the demonstrative pronouns and the nouns use the same affixes for declension...


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Outsider said:


> Perhaps Dihydrogen Monoxide simply meant that the demonstrative pronouns and the nouns use the same affixes for declension...


 
Yes, that's what I meant and can I get an explanation why?


----------



## Hilde

maybe
1. definite artcles/suffixes has its origin in demonstratives
2. they (demonstratves and nouns) are congruous in these languages. (agreement)

examples will still make it easier


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

This is what I meant by impact. I'll give you a declension example
I'll use Sanskrit for this. First I'll use the word deva (m.)-god
N-devaH-saH
A devam- tam (demonstrative pronoun)
I devena-tena
Ab devAt-tasmAt
G devasya- tasya
(this is singular)

Now to dual
NAV devau- tau
DAbG devAbhyAm-tAbhyAm
GL devayoH-tayoH

Now to plural
I devaiH-taiH
DAbl devebhyaH-tebhyaH
L deveSu-teSu
That's what I meant one paradigm and we were taught that demonstrative pronoun declension had an impact on short a stem in Sanskrit.

Definite article in Ancient Greek.
G logou (m.) -word, has in fact many meanings)-tou 
D logO-tO
A logon- ton
(singular)

Plural
N logoi - oi
G logOn- tOn
D logois- tois
A logous- tous

This is what I meant. Maybe it is coincidental, but I don't think so. In fact Ancient Greek tou,ton and Sanskrit sah,tasyai... are related and go back to PIE demonstrative pronouns.


----------



## berndf

In Acient Greek, like in other IE languages, the definite article is derived from a demonstrative pronoun. And demonstrative pronouns agree in gender, number and case which the noun, much like adjectives. A certain similaritiy of case endings is therefore to be expected.

Is this of any help? I am still not sure I understand you.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

berndf said:


> In Acient Greek, like in other IE languages, the definite article is derived from a demonstrative pronoun. And demonstrative pronouns agree in gender, number and case which the noun, much like adjectives. A certain similaritiy of case endings is therefore to be expected.
> 
> Is this of any help? I am still not sure I understand you.


 
You do understand me and I've got an answer, but how would demonstrative pronoun become definite article? And you gave quite a decent explanation.


----------



## berndf

In most IE languages which have definite articles they have developped out of a demonstrative pronoun meaning "that". Examples:
- In German _der, die, das_ can still be used as demonstrative pronouns meaning that.
- In English _the_ and _that_ are derived from different OE declensions of the same pronoun: _the_=nominative masculine, _that_=nominative neuter. _The_ corresponds to German _der_ and _that_ to German _das_.
- The definite articles in Romance languages (with a little twist in Spanish because of Arabic influence) are derived from the Latin demonstrative pronoun _ille_ (=_that_).

The reason for this is that if you say "the book" rather than just "book" you want to express the following: "I do not mean just any book. I mean THAT book".

Hope this helps


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



dihydrogen monoxide said:


> That's what I meant one paradigm and we were taught that demonstrative pronoun declension had an impact on short a stem in Sanskrit.


What do you mean by all this???

Frank


----------



## Kanes

In Bulgarian it is the same as in Scandinavian languages, the demonstrative became enclitic and on the back of the words. We are the only Slavic language with definete articles and the only one that has no noun cases except the vocative as other IE languages. This may show some corelation between the two. Maybe if one starts using preposition instead of cases there is space to put the article on the back of the word now. Not sure how the oposite effect would go though.

kola - kola*ta* (the car)
divan - divan*a *(the couch)


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> What do you mean by all this???


Maybe someting similar to strong and weak adjective declensions in Germanic languages but applied to nouns? I don't know Sanskrit. Maybe this rings a bell with someone who does.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Definite article in Ancient Greek.
> G logou (m.) -word, has in fact many meanings)-tou
> D logO-tO
> A logon- ton
> (singular)
> 
> Plural
> N logoi - oi
> G logOn- tOn
> D logois- tois
> A logous- tous
> 
> This is what I meant. Maybe it is coincidental, but I don't think so. In fact Ancient Greek tou,ton and Sanskrit sah,tasyai... are related and go back to PIE demonstrative pronouns.


 
 
What you say about using the same endings for articles and nouns in Ancient Greek is right only when the noun follows the same declension pattern as its article, namely the most usual of the first declension ( for the fem. article) and the second (for the masc. and neuter articles) as your example shows it. But if you choose nouns of the third declension (or even of th 1st. or 2nd. where there are other patterns ) , many endings are different : 
 
Sing. Nom.  ὁ   πατήρ        o pater         (the father)
 Acc.  τὸν  πατέρα   ton patera
       Gen.  τοῦ  πατρός tou patros
       Dat.  τῷ  πατρί  tô patri
 
Plur. Nom.   ὁι πατέρες  oi pateres
       Acc.   τὸυς πατέρας    tous pateras
       Gen. τῶν   πατέρων        tôn paterôn
       Dat.   τοῖς  πατράσι  tois patrasi
 
Dual Nom.Acc  τὼ πατέρε    tô patere
       Gen.Dat.  τοῖν πατέροιν    toïn pateroïn.
 
The only genitive plurals and genitive/dative duals endings are common in all patterns . 
It's true that in Sanskrit the case endings are much more similar, but noun
declensions conforming with article or demonstrative declensions sounds rather strange, as the article or the demonstrative agrees with the noun, and not the contrary (  obviously it would not make sense ) . Moreover I.E languages with declensions  having generally several patterns, even in Sanskrit, a word belongs to one and cannot adopt the case endings of another, even if historically it may have happened.

Your assumption rather reminds of noun classes in Bantu languages where the classes which nouns belong to determine prefixes or infixes attached to adjectives, pronouns, verbs depending on or replacing the noun. But here too the noun is the key word that impacts on the others.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Isn't o pater in Ancient Greek an exception in declension like o anthropos?


----------



## berndf

Not really. Ancient Greek, like Latin, has several declension patterns. The correspondence to definite article endings exist *only* for second declension masculine nouns and _πατήρ_ is third declension, like _pater _in Latin. It would not be appropriate to call every noun an exception, if it is not second declension masculine.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

It is said that pater in Ancient Greek is an exception because of ablaut. And I didn't mean anthropos in my previous post but aner is an exception.


----------



## berndf

Ok I misunderstood you, sorry.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Isn't o pater in Ancient Greek an exception in declension like o anthropos?


 
Yes, only some words follow this  pattern, but they belong to the wide range of nouns and adjectives with the same 3rd-declension inflections that differ from the article endings :
 
Nom.  Sing. -s /0       Pl.-es     Dual -e
Acc  .  Sing. -n /a      Pl.-as     Dual -e
Gen.    Sing. -os        Pl.-ôn     Dual -oin
Dat.    Sing. -i           Pl.-si             Dual -oin

For example : o/ê ornis , ton/tên ornitha, toû/tês ornithos, tô/tê ornithi (the bird)
                    oi/ai ornithes, tous/tas ornithas, tôn ornithôn, toîs/taîs ornithsi (the birds)
                    tô ornithe, toîn/taîn ornithoîn (the two birds)
 
To come back to your initial assumption it can be right that the  2nd declension Greek-specific ending -oi  was borrowed from demonstatives, maybe the 1st. declension -ai too, but it’s  uncertain and impossible to say the same about all endings.


----------

