Talk:Locative case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think the long Sanskrit example is not justified here. This article is about the locative case (in any language), but it looks to me you are telling what cases are in general, including ablative, instrumental etc...

In Latin, only relics of locative remain, so the word "particularly" is quite inappropriate here.

"It is no longer productive." This sentence needs to be clarified. The word "productive" appears to have a special meaning in relation to grammar, but it is simply stated without a definition.--B.d.mills 05:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the Russian examples need to be transliterated into Latin characters to conform with standard wiki practice.

Hryts 12:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the article, so I'm moving it here:

(NOTE TO EDITOR: Given the layout of the Wikipedia article on "locative" this entire interpolation should reasonably be placed somewhere else, as a link, with only the addition "and Classical Latin", after the phrase "in Old Latin".)

      SOURCE:  Allen and Greenough, New Latin Grammar


The locative case is used fairly commonly in Classical Latin to indicate a place "where" (we would prefix the place name with "at") as opposed to "to which" (we would prefix the name with "to").

In Classical Latin the locative was dying out. Please correct the sentence, or else attach a reliable reference.

Also, I think there should be a separate article for the Latin locative. RedRabbit (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have studied Classical Latin for two years now - and we have never been shown a locative case. The examples given are nonesensical. There are 5 declensions - each of which has 5 cases - the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and ablative. This article is garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have indeed studied Classical Latin for two years, then you must have a copy of either Allen and Greenough, or Gildersleeve and Lodge. See Gildersleeve and Lodge paragraph 411 on remaining forms of the locative, or Allen and Greenough paragraph 427. You are correct about the locative being vestigial, but the vocative isn't -- so there are actually 6 non-vestigial cases. Even though the locative is vestigial, various words have it as a separate case, continuing into modern usage. See also the footnote at the bottom of page 34 of Allen and Greenough, which describes the Indo-European origins of the locative case.Unclesmrgol (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin (again)[edit]

When somebody has got the time (or myself), certain corrections ought to be made in reference to the Latin section.

"The Latin locative case is extremely marginal" is perhaps an overstatement. It crops up now and again. But that is a minor point.

The problem is the big end section after "Walking "in Rome" is not the same as walking "to Rome"." which to me creates more confusion than good about the meaning of the locative case:

  1. Romum is just plainly wrong. Roma is 1th declension. Shame on the person who did this. ;)
  2. Ad domum I cannot defend as being grossly incorrect. Cat.63.20, Cic. In Verrem, Livius, id., Seneca de beneficiis, and others (including Suetonius and Tacitus) have examples of "ad domum". I found 36 instances in the PHI5 cd, so it is not an unknown construction.
  3. There is some confusion about the meaning of the locative. There shouldn't be. Any decent grammar would have a nice section about the locative stating that is is a case which denotes time when and place where, not anything else, and it wouldn't contain "loosely speaking [...] but not technically" locatives which in reality aren't locatives but accusatives of direction or ablative of separation. The "domum" of the Monty Python sketch is not a locative under any circumstance. I suggest a clearup or a deletion.

I hope I have expressed myself as clear as possible as I am quite tired. --NuclearWarhead (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin (yet again)[edit]

The section on Latin mentions the ending of the locativus is the same as the genitivus or ablativus depending on declension.

However, IMO, that does not mean the cases are the same (even though the same letters are used): Romae (loc.) still is a different case from Romae (gen.).: "The first declension locative is by far the most common, [...] therefore use the Genitive form" I wouldn't call it "use the Genitive form" but "use the same form as the Genitive".

But perhaps I'm being a nitpicker here... -- (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


'Statements such as "в библиотеке" v biblioteke ("in the library") or "на Аляске" na Alyaske ("in Alaska") demonstrate the usage to indicate location. However, this case is also used after the preposition "о" ("about") as in "о студенте" o studente ("about the student").'

In all these cases used other case than locative, i.e. prepositional case. Locative is not used in modern Russian.--MathFacts (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

...except for the second locative as explained in the article. (The quoted text above refers to the prepositional case as it is made clear in the opening sentence of that paragraph).Gr8white (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Finnish under Uralic?[edit]

I noticed that there is a section on the article describing the 6 locative cases of Estonian. Finnish has the same 6 cases, just written differently: ssa, sta, Vn (where V is the preceding vowel); lla, lta, lle. Could someone add a section for Finnish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Latin (Loan words)[edit]

Comparasion: In case of the vocative many modern grammar books are incorrect (I can't even give a counter example of a correct modern book), as they usually omit the vocative or state something like "except for the 2nd declension the vocative is the same as the nominative". This is incorrect in case of many Latin words derived from Greek, which usually aren't mentioned in modern grammar books.
So: Are the information given here still correct in case of loan words, e.g. from Greek?
(And there are Latin city or iland names which are loan words, e.g. Hebron and Hierusālēm (also Ierusālēm)). - (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Prepositional case[edit]

The current version states that the locative case exists in all the Balto-slavic languages, except in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Russian which has reduced it to a prepositional case. The respective parts of the article about Czech, Slovak and Polish show that the respective "locative" cases in those three languages are identical to Russian (cannot be used without a preposition, different prepositions denote not just the location etc.). Why is OK to say Russian has no locative, but Czech, Slovak and Polish actually do? Wouldn’t it be more logical to simply state that all Slavic languages have reduced it to prepositional case?--Ąžuolas (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Because that's how the grammar of these languages is described. Can you find reliable sources that do otherwise? CodeCat (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. This book treats Russian предложный падеж as a locative case in any other Slavic language. It states specifically that "There are no examples of bare locative usage in the modern Slavic languages".
Not only that. Russian literature on other Slavic languages systematically describes the respective locative case as предложный падеж, instead of местный падеж. Take, for instance, the manual of Chech language by У. Рагчек and П. Тучнегов (2000), page 40, or Polish language manual by А. К. Киклевич and А. А. Кожинова (2003), page 51.
Now, is there any realiable source that treats Russian предложный падеж differently than the corresponding case in other Slavic languages?--Ąžuolas (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)