# lapis, lapidis



## Casquilho

Hello guys,
I have a doubt remaining from this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2490647

What is the correct genitive for _lapis_? _lapidis _(so the plural ablative -> _lapidibus_) or _lapis _(pl. abl. _lapidiis_)?


----------



## Agró

(gen.) _*lapidis*_*
*according to my dictionary and this.


----------



## fdb

May I say that I am baffled by your question? Even if the genitive were _lapis_, how could the abl. pl. be _“lapidiis”_? As a matter of fact, in Old Latin we have a single reference for the abl. sing. _lapi, _implying that the word could be transferred from the _d _stems to the _i_ stems. Moreover, in classical Latin we have the gen. pl. _lapiderum_. The automatically generated  paradigm on the Wiktionary site does not of course take any of this into account.


----------



## CapnPrep

fdb said:


> Moreover, in classical Latin we have the gen. pl. _lapiderum_.


Where can we find this form in Classical Latin?


----------



## fdb

Lewis and Short give a reference to Gellius.


----------



## CapnPrep

fdb said:


> Lewis and Short give a reference to Gellius.


That's Gnaeus Gellius, so also Old Latin (cited by the Late Latin grammarian Charisius). So it has the same status as Ennius's ablative _lapi_.


----------



## fdb

I am not quite sure about “same status”. Ennius lived a generation or two before Gellius. _lapi_ is presumably an authentic Old Latin variant. _lapiderum_ looks more like an ad-hoc formation, by analogy to words like _gener-um_, reanalysed as _gen-erum_.


----------



## Casquilho

fdb said:


> May I say that I am baffled by your question? Even if the genitive were _lapis_, how could the abl. pl. be _“lapidiis”_? As a matter of fact, in Old Latin we have a single reference for the abl. sing. _lapi, _implying that the word could be transferred from the _d _stems to the _i_ stems. Moreover, in classical Latin we have the gen. pl. _lapiderum_. The automatically generated  paradigm on the Wiktionary site does not of course take any of this into account.



My bad: what I actually would to mean is:

If _lapis, lapidis _= 3rd declension, consonant stem, following the pattern of _rex, regis_: plural ablative _lapidibus_
If _lapis, lapis_ = 3rd declension, i-stem, following the pattern of _civis, civis_: plural ablative _lapibus_


----------



## fdb

Casquilho said:


> If _lapis, lapidis _= 3rd declension, consonant stem, following the pattern of _rex, regis_: plural ablative _lapidibus_



Yes, this is correct.



Casquilho said:


> If _lapis, lapis_ = 3rd declension, i-stem, following the pattern of _civis, civis_: plural ablative _lapibus_



This is not the case, except with the archaic abl. sing. _lapi_ used by the early poet Ennius.


----------



## Casquilho

Thank you, fdb.


----------



## CapnPrep

fdb said:


> I am not quite sure about “same status”.


What I meant was that both forms are extremely rare, non-classical, useless (at best) for the vast majority of Latin learners, and justifiably absent from the Wiktionary paradigm.


----------



## stevelogan

The classical form is làpis làpidis, for the most classical authors (e.g. Cicero, Livius) with lapidibus used for the ablative.  Lapi in abl. and lapid-erum in pl. gen. is used  by Ennius and is considered "arcaic".


----------



## CapnPrep

stevelogan said:


> Lapi in abl. and lapid-erum in pl. gen. is used  by Ennius and is considered "arcaic".


_Lapi_ appears in Ennius _Ann XV_, quoted by Priscian: _obcumbunt multi letum ferroque *lapi*que_. Priscian interpreted this as fdb does above, assuming that _lapis_ had an parisyllabic declension in Old Latin ("vetustissimi tamen etiam _huius lapis_ protulerunt", although he doesn't provide any actual examples of genitive _lapis_, and there may be alternative explanations for ablative _lapi_). 

_Lapiderum_ is not attested in Ennius, but in Cn. Gellius, as stated already above.


----------



## stevelogan

CapnPrep said:


> _Lapi_ appears in Ennius _Ann XV_, quoted by Priscian: _obcumbunt multi letum ferroque *lapi*que_. Priscian interpreted this as fdb does above, assuming that _lapis_ had an parisyllabic declension in Old Latin ("vetustissimi tamen etiam _huius lapis_ protulerunt", although he doesn't provide any actual examples of genitive _lapis_, and there may be alternative explanations for ablative _lapi_).
> 
> _Lapiderum_ is not attested in Ennius, but in Cn. Gellius, as stated already above.



I checked before writing, and that was what I found in Georges-Calonghi dictionary in use in Italy from 1950 so far: _Lapiderum_ feminine genitive pl. Enn., Varr. et Ser. I cannot cross-check with other fonts at the moment, my bad... Probably there is a typo in Georges.

The general sense was that lapiderum is archaic. Cn. Gellius is arcaic enough...


----------

