AureliaeLacrimae

I would, of course. Learning a language in school is so much better than doing it on your own, and there's a simple reason for that - you have a fixed schedule, homework and someone to guide you. Besides, sometimes it happens that you're too ''lazy'' to do anything so you skip a lesson (if you're learning on your own). You have to be present in school and there is only a certain number of absences that are accepted, so again, you function better. Just my opinion.

I agree with some of the statements above. I'd started learning English when I was five, so I don't really remember it ever being hard. We took small steps in the beginning (with nursery rhymes, alphabet, some basic words and such) and then moved on to grammar and short texts which looked like comic books (it was Chatterbox, I believe, our textbook). As we got older... well, we came to appreciate the language more.

I do hate some technical terms and I definitely don't like the economy register! However, that's on my syllabus for the time being... so I'll have to ''bite the bullet''.

Yes, exactly. I do believe this is a sound approach. However, if you have beginners, you won't really be achieving much. They will still be thinking in their native language and trying to translate the sentences into English... which would be very sloppy and would hinder the communication - many of them would become so shy they'd never want to speak, as it is natural that in the beginning, you make a lot of mistakes. But sometimes, if you have too many, it can be discouraging. You'd feel as if you're doing everything wrong.

You've had TOEFL? What was it like? I chose CAE, so I'm not really sure about the other one.

Well, considering that the neighbouring countries speak almost the same language (Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian are like British and American English, truly - there are some differences, but they are in essence the same), I don't think my answer would really count. I could try comparing Croatian with Russian... it's not that difficult to read Russian with Croatian as your native tongue, and some words are familiar, but there are also many ''false friends'', which can hinder the language learning.  I never tried learning Czech, though, but it doesn't seem like my knowledge of Croatian would help me much there.

I believe that being fluent in at least three languages is a fair number. However, I also believe that being able to actively or passively use other languages as well is a great quality, so you should never stop learning. Try to accumulate as much knowledge as possible - it can never be too little. The more languages you speak, the more choices you have. Sometimes your knowledge of a particular language can be the decisive factor in many things - getting a job, for example.

But yes, three is a good number.

Well, this one is very similar to the consonant base, but there are some minor differences, which are mostly realised through cases.

There are subtypes here as well:

parisyllaba with endings -is, -is and -es, is such as navis, navis, f ship and nubes, nubis, f coloud

imparisyllaba with the endings -s, -is (usually feminine)  such as pars, partis - a part, and  -er, -ris (usually masculine) imber, imbris - rain

And, of course, subtypes for the nouns of the neuter:

-e, -is      mare, maris, n        sea

-al, -alis    animal, animalis, n  animal

-ar, -aris  calcar, calcaris, n    spur (for horses)

Here are some examples with differences coloured in red:

        Singular

N        navis            pars            mare

G        navis          partis            maris

D        navi            parti              mari

Acc    navem          partem        mare

V        navis            pars            mare

Ab      nave            parte            mari

      Plural

N      naves            partes        maria

G      navium          partium        marium

D      navibus          partibus      maribus

Acc    naves            partes        maria

V      naves            partes        maria

Ab      navibus          partibus      maribus

Some of the nouns (such as navis and pars) have lost the -i in some cases and it had become -e instead. Nevertheless, we still consider them as i-base nouns because their genitive has remained -ium and hadn't contracted to -um.

Neuter nouns:

Remember the neuter rule? N=Acc=V? Plural of these cases ends with -a? Well, here you also follow these rules. However, you also have an additional -i before -a, so it's -ia (e.g. maria not mara).

Also, neuter nouns of this declension had kept the -i in ablative! (compare nave and mari)

Exactly which one is correct in the following examples?

"He is looking for the missing guy for ten days now. The guy hold the answer to who the culprit is."

"He was looking for the missing guy for ten days now. The guy held the answer to who the culprit was"

The setting was about a story from ten years ago. In what situation should the first one be used, and in what other situation should the second one be used?

I'd actually use Present Perfect Simple tense here:

He's been looking for the missing guy for ten days now (he still is). He's the key to finding out who the culprit is.

Past Perfect fits here as well (if you're narrating in past), though, for simplicity of the thought, past simple is also acceptable.

You can use Present simple tense in narration even if the events had happened in the past. One of the reasons why this is done so is to make the story ''closer'' to the reader - or rather, more immediate. You can imagine the things happening at the very moment you're reading. Of course, sometimes Past tenses fit better, especially if you plan on using conditional sentences. Switching back and forth here isn't really a neat example.

The whole paragraph should be coherent. If you'd begun in Present tense, stick to it. This is called ''historic present'' and is accepted in the literary theory as one of the narrative techniques... so no one can tell you it's wrong.

An additional piece of information for the last two sentences:

Verbs seem and appear are linking verbs and they serve to ''connect'' the subject with the rest of the sentence. They, therefore, require subject complement! and subject complement is usually realised through either noun phrase, adjective phrase or a clause.

True, abverb usually serves as a modification to verb and are quite common:

VP (Verb Phrase) - (AdvP+) V (AdvP+) (NP) [NP/CP] (AdvP+) (PP+) (AdvP+)

As you can see in the phrase structure rule for the verb phrase, adverbs can appear almost everywhere, and in a great number: ''deliberately always left frequently early''. In this example, they do modify the verb, and we could even go as far as to say that they serve like an ''adjective'', though I wouldn't really say so.

However, an adverb can also serve as a premodification of another adverb!

very quickly, rather frequently, quite early

Or an adjective:

very beautiful, fairly true, reasonably expensive.

It is also very important to differentiate in between the form and the function! (adverb vs adverbial)

An adverbial too could mean place.

Compare:

She put it outside. - adverb (part of speech! - realised through AdvP)

She put it on the desk. (adverbial - sentence element! like subject or object - realised through PP)

She put it where I can't find it (adverbial - realised through a finite clause)

If you're interested in pronunciation, you should check out RP, and if you're more interested in spelling, then I bet you can find the pointers almost anywhere. The difference is in lexis (apartment - flat), spelling (tyre- tire, plough - plow, pyjamas - pajamas, honour - honor, centre - center, dialogue - dialog), but also in stressing the words. For example, British speakers stress the word adult on the first syllable, whereas American on the second: 'adult vs a'dult. This is very common. Buoy is for example pronounced boi in BrE and bu:i in AmE, though BrE also accepts AmE variant...

You should bear in mind that even though these are ''standards'', both variants can be found in both American and British English. Language, after all, adapts to the surroundings and time and this ''melting pot'' is one of the consequences of globalisation.

---HUGS!!!--- I truly feel your passion for Literature from the previous post. I wasn't exposed to literature until I entered high school. It was through my beloved teachers who managed to explain in super details the books in our reading list that Literature somehow grew on me. Discussing about Shakespeare made me thought about taking up English Lit in college, too. Unfortunately, practicality got the better of me. No - scratch that. It wasn't practicality because I eventually took up Psychology, which to many was not also 'practical'. In our country, you'll normally end up an HR Practioner if you have this degree. Psych is also considered one of the 'easy' degrees in our school - at least to the outsiders. But like what you just described, we had SO MANY books to read, not to mention published journals. So, I'm very WITH you in saying that there's NO college degree that's ever worthless, English Literature included.

I hope you'll get your inspiration to read back after your much needed 'no reading phase'.

Exactly! This is my point exactly! All degrees are valuable. All subjects are difficult in their own way. Someone doesn't understand physics, no matter, it can also happen that someone doesn't understand economy, literature or psychology. They all require us to think in order to achieve something, one way or another. And you certainly must make a lot of sacrifices to get a degree - with reasonably good grades.

The problem is that people outside our circles don't know the real extent to which we make these sacrifices and immerse ourselves into the books and texts required. Sometimes passing one of these subjects can be very difficult with all those books to read... there's so much that sometimes you don't even have the time to read all of the obligatory works, let alone fifteen of ''suggested'' ones...

Unfortunately, I've not yet the luxury of ''no reading phase'', so... As soon as my exams are over, though, I'll see to it. I think I deserve a break.

The last, letter d is not a passive sentence. The propositional clause there is not the cause why the subject is tired. The subject is simply describing himself. Unlike with the first three, it's not just stated there who actually did the action to them. That's why there's no 'by' there.

A little too late as a reply, but still, I wish to add a few things:

In the fourth sentence ''I was tired by the end of the day.'', verb ''to be'' serves as a linking verb. And linking verbs are used in SVC sentence patterns: Subject - Verb - Subject Complement. There is no action happening in the sentence.

Compare:

The ghost appeared in the room.

It appeared that the only solution was hers.

Compared to the sentence above, where you have ''action'', sentence below has none. Verb appear is used as a linking verb.

''Tired'' here is subject complement realised through an adjective phrase, AdjP (yes, phrase, even though it's only one word - adjective is the head and the fact that you can say ''very tired'' - I was very tired - confirms this). This tells us about the subject and provides a connection in between it (the subject) with the rest of the sentence (tired). I am omitting the ending (''by the end of the day'') for a reason, because that isn't an obligatory element. In this case, adverbial (of time) is optional and therefore not included in the pattern.

More subject complement examples:

She is my secretary.

She is beautiful.

A detective's job is to find clues.

The reason is that I don't like him.

As you can see, subject complement is mostly realised through noun phrases (in this case NP with D my and N secretary), adjective phrases (AdjP with adjective beautiful as its head), but they can also be clauses - either non-finite (to infinitive in this case, but it could have easily been gerund-participial) or finite (that-clause)

This is same for object complements (pattern SVOC), though they come after direct object:

He got his shoes wet.

The dye turned the water blue.

I made her my secretary.

Active passive distinction:

They elected her president. (object complement - active)

She was elected president. (passive)

Naturally, this is agentless passive! You won't add ''by them'' as it doesn't really matter (plus, we don't know who ''they'' are).

I am going to offer possible variants of the active sentences for the first three:

They denied me admission into school (it could be the principal - The principal denied me admission into school)

She wheeled me into the operating theatre (could be the nurse - The nurse wheeled me into the operating theatre)

He informed me of the dangers involved. (could be the scientist, the doctor, the nurse, the man, the detective.... take your pick)

Exactly, you've said it just right (and let me say - your memory and the associations with the subject seem impeccable). Language is like a tree. And like any tree, it grows and develops. All the branches are there, meaning, all languages, but only a few become dominant due to exposure to that language and such. We don't make any effort to make this happen - it simply does. How can you stop a tree from growing if it's healthy and the environment is perfect?

This also makes drawing trees by using Phrase-Structure Rules all the more appropriate. It's my favourite part of the practical side. I love sentences and syntax, so it's all very interesting to me. Seeing how noun phrases and verb phrases develop and become more complicated is truly a wonder. Everything seems so logical and so well-ordered that it makes you really ask yourself who had DESIGNED the language - it's like a clockwork, so precise, so... Anyway, I am glad that there are other people who'd also had interest for this at one point.

I adore this book! I'd loved it since I was a little girl - it was one of the first books that I'd really liked when I was young and it's still one of my favourites. I believe that it's a good read. Besides, like most sad stories, it has a strong message. It shouldn't be ''skipped'' merely because it's sad. Most of Andersen's fairy tales are sad - we still read them to our children.

The Girl with the Matches, anyone?

It's a story about a poor girl who is out in the streets on New Year's Eve, alone, with her mother's slippers and a box of matches and everywhere around her, people are preparing for the New Year's and baking cookies and cooking fine dishes - and she's so hungry and the scents are mouthwatering. She dies in the end, cold and alone.

I remember crying when I'd read this one, but I'd liked it. It was one of my favourites as well. So yes, I do believe that Heidi is a good read. I really felt for Clara, but I also felt for Heidi. Going through their story and feeling it is a great experience. That's something that can truly make you feel nobler.

Well, complicated it is, but still, with several subgroups, it can be simplified. When you have such a variety of nouns, as it happens to be in third declension, sometimes it is important to know the types. These types can tell you the gender of a noun just by looking at its suffix.

As a reminder, here's third declension once again, only this time, I won't use examples of victor and lex, but that of civitas, civitatis, f - state

              Sg                  Pl

N        civitas                civitates

G        civitat-is            civitatum

D        civitati              civitatibus

Acc    civitatem            civitates

V        civitas              civitates

Ab      civitate              civitatibus

As you see, the nominative form civitas is repeated only once - in Vocative case, and that is only because vocative and nominative happen to have the same form. For the rest of the declension, you use the GENITIVE base, which has, in this case, an aditional t which isn't the case in nominative!

Masculine Nouns

They usually have these endings:

  N    G            e.g.

-or, -oris        victor, victoris    -  winner

-os, -oris        mos, moris        - mores

-o, -onis          leo, leonis          - lion

-er, -eris        passer, passeris  - sparrow

-es, -itis          miles, militis      - soldier

-ex, icis          iudex, iudicis    - judge

Remember victor? They follow the same pattern.

Feminine nouns

They usually have these endings:

-as, atis          civitas, civitatis        - state

-aus, audis      laus, laudis              - praise

-us, -utis        virtus, virtutis          - virtue

-us, -udis        palus, paludis          - pond

-io, -ionis        oratio, orationis        - speech

-do, -dinis      fortitudo, fortitudinis  - fortitude

-go, -ginis      imago, imaginis        - image, picture

-x, -cis          pax, pacis                - peace

-x, -gis          lex, legis                - law

You can use civitas and lex as examples, but the pattern is usually the same as that of victor.

Neuter Nouns

They usually have these endings:

-us, -oris        corpus, corporis      - body

-us, -eris        genus, generis        - race, kind

-ur, -uris        fulgur, fulguris        - lightning

-ur, -oris        robur, roboris          - strength (Eng. adjective robust stems from this noun)

-c, -ctis          lac, lactis                - milk

-l, -llis          mel, mellis              - honey

-n, -inis        nomen, nominis        - name

-t, -itis          caput, capitis            - head

The rules are the same as before: follow the pattern of victor.

The only difference is the rule of the neuter!! Remember?

Reminder:

Neuter nouns have same form for Nominative, Accusative and Vocative. So, for corpus, N=Acc=V = corpus; for mel = mel and so on.

Neuter nouns have -a ending in plural of these same cases! So, instead of capites, which would be victor analogy, you have corpora! for mel, it's mella, for nomen, nomina... The rest is the same.

This is a large compilation of nouns and therefore, it is only natural that they don't have one ending. They do follow one pattern, though.

We can distinguish two major groups according to their base:

1) consonant base

2) vowel base i-

Consonant base nouns have one syllable more in genitive, and that's why we call them imparisyllaba, ''of unequal syllables''. Vowel base i- nouns have the same amount of syllables and therefore we call them parisyllaba (''of equal syllables'').

Nomintive singular of these nouns can either be formed by adding -s on their base or  without it. Wherever -s is added in following examples I marked it:

Consonant endings can be:

1) explosives:

                labials p, b (princep-s first man; trab-s beam of wood)

                dentals d, t (that's right, d and t are dentals in Latin: virtus - virtue, from virtut-s; lapis - stone, from lapid-s)

                gutturals c, g (vox - voice, from voc-s; rex - king, from reg-s)

2) liquids l, r (sol - sun, victor - winner)

3) nasals m, n (hiem-s - winter, nomen - name)

4)  spirant s (mos - habit, mores; ius - law; genus - kind, race)

These are the general endings for consonant base nouns:

          Sg                  Pl

N      -s/-0                -es

G      -is                  -um

D      -i                    -ibus

Acc    -em                -es

V          =N            -es

Ab    -e                    -ibus

Best examples are victor, is, m - winner and lex,gis, f - law

                      Sg                                  Pl

N        victor-0        lex (leg-s)        victor-es    leg-es

G        victor-is      leg-is              victor-um    leg-um

D        victor-i        leg-i                victor-ibus    leg-ibus

Acc      victor-em    leg-em            victor-es      leg-es

V (=N)  victor          lex                  victor-es      leg-es

Ab        victor-e      leg-e                victor-ibus  leg-ibus

This declension is complicated because nominative base isn't the same as genitive: lex compared to legis. However, once you learn that you must take the base from genitive form, which is always written down in dictionaries, you don't have to worry!

Not to make this any more complicated, but these four numbers (unus, una, unum; duo, due, duo; tres, tria; milia) have their declensions! This, however, isn't the case with the rest of the CARDINAL numbers. All ordinal numbers have their declension, but about that later.

Unus, una, unum has the pattern of 2nd declension for masculine and neuter nouns (like adjective bonus, bona, bonum), and 1st declension for feminine nouns. However, beware: unus has only SINGULAR! Why? It's one! For plural, you must have at least two, which is why duo, due, duo has only plural! Same is with tres, tria and milia. They too come only in plural.

          one             

N    unus      una      unum

G              unius

D                uni

Acc unum    unam    unum

V    unus      una      unum

Ab  uno        una      uno

        two

N    duo      due      duo

G  duorum duarum duorum

D  duobus  duabus  duobus

Acc duo(s)    duas    duo

V    duo      due      duo

Ab  duobus duabus duobus

        three

N      tres        tria

G          trium

D          tribus

Acc    tres        tria

V      tres        tria

Ab        tribus

        millions

N        milia

G        milium

D        milibus

Acc      milia

V        milia

Ab      milibus

You can also decline ''hundreds'' from ducenti (200) to nongenti (900), also in plural, so like  boni, bonae, bona.

First of all, Romans used Roman numerals (logical, isn't it?), so one isn't 1 but I, two isn't 2 but II, and so on. When it comes to number four, in most cases, it's written like this: IV. However, you will also find instances were it's recorded like four Is: IIII, so don't be puzzled. Still, IV is the common way of writing down the number four, so that's how I'm going to write it.

Some basic symbols used:

(I am sure most of us know this, but still, just to be sure)

I 1

V 5

X 10

L 50

C 100

D 500

M 1000

Combinations

You must have wondered why four is written like IV and nine like IX. Well, Roman numerals are all about counting and adding up. Two is one plus one and therefore I + I = II. Same analogy can be used for III = I+I+I, six VI = V+I, seven VII = V+I+I, eight VIII= V+I+I+I,... However, they were also trying to be economical and use as little symbols as possible, so instead of writing down nine like VIIII (or four like IIII), which would take five symbols! (in those days, many things weren't written down on paper but engraved into stone, which isn't easy at all, so they were very careful about it) they came up with the idea of subtracting: IV stands for V-I and we all know that 5-1 equals 4. Same is with nine: IX stands fo X-I. 10-1 is 9, isn't it? And so, instead of engraving four or five symbols, you only have two.

I have used examples with numbers to ten. Same can be applied to the rest of the system.

Thirty is ten+ten+ten and therefore X+X+X=XXX, whereas forty, which is 50-10 will be written down like XL rather than XXXX - economy - two symbols are better than four. Eighty is 50+10+10+10, therefore L + X+X+X = LXXX, but ninety is 100-10 rather than 50+10+10+10+10 (it's so long to write down), so ninety: XC.

This is true even for numbers higher than 100. However, remember me mentioning four could be written both as IIII and IV, but IV was more common? Same can be said for 400. True, it's more commonly written as 500-100, which is CD, but you can also write it down as CCCC. So, 400 is CD. 900 is 1000-100, therefore CM.

Now, to numbers:

0 nihil (no symbol for zero)

1 I ūnus

2 II duo

3 III trēs

4 IV quattuor

5 V quīnque

6 VI sex

7 VII septem

8 VIII octō

9 IX novem

10 X decem

11 XI ūndecim

12 XII duodēcim

13 XIII trēdecim

14 XIV quattuordecim

15 XV quīndecim

16 XVI sēdecim

17 XVII septendecim

18 XVIII duodēvīgintī

19 XIX ūndēvīgintī

20 XX vīgintī

21 XXI vīgintī  ūnus

22 XXII vīgintī  duo

23 XXIII vīgintī  trēs

24 XXIV vīgintī  quattuor

25 XXV vīgintī  quīnque

26 XXVI vīgintī  sex

27 XXVII vīgintī  septem

28 XXVIII duodētrīgintā (or vīgintī octō)

29 XXIX ūndētrīgintā (or vīgintī novem)

30 XXX trīgintā

31 XXXI trīgintā  ūnus

32 XXXII trīgintā  duo

33 XXXIII trīgintā  trēs

34 XXXIV trīgintā quattuor

35 XXXV trīgintā  quīnque

36 XXXVI trīgintā  sex

37 XXXVII trīgintā  septem

38 XXXVIII duodēquadrāgintā (or trīgintā octō)

39 XXXIX ūndēquadrāgintā (or trīgintā novem)

40 XL quadrāgintā

50 L quīnquāgintā

60 LX sexāgintā

70 LXX septuāgintā

80 LXXX octōgintā

90 XC nōnāgintā

100 C centum

200  CC    ducenti

300  CCC  trecenti

400  CD  quadringenti

500    D    quingenti

600  DC  sescenti

700  DCC  septingenti

800 DCCC  octingenti

900  CM  nongenti

1000  M    mille

For the rest, you just paste them together. Enjoy!

I have also attached the symbols, so that you can see them in a jpeg format.

Yes, exactly, that's the gist of it. Children, I mean, human beings in general, already have the patterns of Universal Grammar (or Language - Human Language Capability). Their minds are able to grasp the logic of syntax and therefore, they can learn languages. All of the languages (English, French, any language on the planet) are just instances of Language.

And so, while being exposed to one particular language, they determine its pattern from all possible patterns - SVO for English, for example, as they're constantly being exposed to subject-verb-object sentences that they immediately reject all other possibilities. And so, by the age of five, they can understand complex sentences even though they use simple ones in speech. Whatever the case, their knowledge about their language is absolute (their competence).

This also means that exposure is the key. It doesn't matter whether a child was born in German family if the language being spoken is English. The child will speak English.

Well, you certainly do make it sound so easy. My native tongue is Croatian, so another Slavic language and I found a lot of similarities with Russian, especially when I was browsing through your colours post and such. I can also read the Cyrillic from before, so it was a plus! Now I am really grateful to my teacher for stressing the importance of it.

What's really good about Slavic languages is it's straightforwardness. You have pronunciation which matches the words. You also have cases, true, but these make it easier later on, not to mention that it helps when learning a foreign language.

One question, how do you write in Cyrillic letters? My keyboard is pretty standard - just the Latin script, but I was wondering whether it can be adjusted to accept other letters, Cyrillic and Alphabet included.

Some general rules that nouns belonging to this declension follow are: Nominative singular always ends on -es (no exceptions here), genitive singular ends on -ei and the base ends on long -e.

I'll use dies and res for examples

Base: die-                re-

          (di- as in disaster and e- as in elephant)

              Singular                                Plural

N      dies            res                        dies        res

G      diei            rei                      dierum      rerum 

D      diei            rei                      diebus      rebus

Acc    diem          rem                    dies          res

V      dies            res                      dies          res

Ab    die              re                      diebus      rebus

Some interesting pieces of information about the quality of the vowel:

In the genitive ending -ei, the e is long if a vowel stands before him, e.g. diei; and short if it's a consonant, e.g. fidei (from the noun fides, loyalty)

Only two nouns have full declension!!!!

These are dies and res. All other are only partially declined. They have singular forms and some or none forms in plural! These are:

- Acies (sharpness), spes (hope), species (sight, view) have only nominative, accusative and vocative plural.

- The rest have only singular and are mostly abstract, such as fides, fidei, f - loyalty, faith

All of the nouns of this declension are feminine with the exception of two - dies, ei, m - day and meridies, ei, m noonday/noon/noontide. The noun dies can also stand in singular and be feminine, but then it doesn't mean day, it means deadline or a specific determined date!!

e.g.

dies festus - a holiday (any holiday, it doesn't matter whether it's Saturnalia, Veneralia or any other - no specific determination since Romans had about 100 days for state holidays)

dies constituta - a set date (for example, for court meeting of a certain case and such - you know exactly which day it is! and it's only in those specific circumstances)

meridies calidus - a warm noon

There aren't many nouns which belong to this declension. Some common are:

dies, ei, m day ; dies, ei, f deadline

res, ei, f thing

meridies, ei, m noon

fides, ei, f loyalty, faith

spes, ei, f hope

acies, ei, f sharpness

glacies, ei, f ice

species, ei, f sight, view

eluvies, ei, f flood

facies, ei, f face

series, ei, f series, row

luxuries, ei, f luxury, extravagance

It may seem like much, but I'd named most of the nouns belonging into this group, so it isn't really. The rest aren't so common, so they aren't of great importance to us.

I'd also found an interesting PDF page online and I'd attached it. You can use it when learning, it may be useful.

These nouns also take adjectives of 1st and 2nd declension. The only rule you have to follow is gender! So, bona fides (good faith) would be

N    bona fides

G    bonae fidei

D    bonae fidei

Acc  bonam fidem

V    bona fides

Ab  bona fide

Bona follows the 1st feminine declension rules and fides 5th declension. It may get a little confusing, but you'll get used to it.

For practice:

mala spes

pulchra species

magna glacies

So, today would be mandag, åttende december... you lost me at the years. I know that you combine 20 with 14, but you'd written only for 2015 and it doesn't really seem like just combination. You changed the ending. Why? Does it always follow that pattern? You switch that one ending for another? Or do you have several different rules?

One more question, do you have to capitalise the dates, like in English and German? Or not? I know I am tiring you with all these questions, but I bet others are asking them as well, only not really. Oh, and feel free to correct any mistakes you see in my posts. You don't even have to inform me, really, I'm just trying to help, but I wouldn't like to mislead people.

Well, my native language is Croatian - it's a Slavic language and the pronunciation matches the sounds written to the core - there are no exceptions. So, that's what I'm used to. Then I started learning English and of course, it seems as if there's no rule to pronunciation and the written word, but there really is. People just don't think about it and don't try to learn phonetics. I was amazed with phonetics and I love the charts. I can follow a pronunciation if it's written down in standard terms.

I am wondering about these sj, skj sounds. They're a group of consonants (they aren't a problem. In Croatian, you can have even up to four consonants and no vowels, take for example word for thorn - trn; there are many examples, but at the moment, I can't think of anything else). Are they pronounced like consonants or does j play the role of ''half'' a vowel, like i?

3rd declension is a varied one, so I'm going to leave it for the time being. That's why I immediately skipped forward to 4th or u-declension and later on to 5th or e-declension.

4th or u-Declension

Nominative singular always ends on either -us (masculine nouns) or -u (neuter), and the base always ends on -u. There are only seven of feminine nouns in this declension and they follow masculine endings. The only difference is the form of adjective - they take feminine adjective.

                Sg                                                          Pl

N      fructus            genu                          fructus        genua

G      fructus            genus                        fructuum      genuum

D      fructui            genui                        fructibus        genibus

Acc    fructum          genu                          fructus          genua

V      fructus            genu                          fructus          genua

Ab    fructu              genu                          fructibus        genibus

Remember the rule of the neuter? It's followed here as well!

Reminder:

All neuter nouns have the same form for Nominative, Accusative, and Vocative. Also, in plural, these three end in -a!

There are several exceptions to D and Ab plural form. I'll name them here. The reason: to differ from the nouns which belong to 3rd declension and have the same -ibus ending, but about that more later:

                                    Dative/Ablative plural form

acus, acus, f - needle        - acubus  (instead of acibus)

arcus, arcus, m - arch      - arcubus (instead of arcibus)

lacus, lacus, m - lake        - lacubus (instead of lacibus)

quercus, quercus, f - oak  - quercubus (instead of quercibus)

specus, specus, m - cave  - specubus (instead of specibus)

artus, artus, m - extremity - artubus (instead of artibus)

partus, partus, m - birth    - partubus (instead of partibus)

Feminine nouns:

Idus, us, f - 15th day of the month    Idus Martiae - 15th of March

porticus, us, f - porch                    porticus alta - high porch

acus, us, f - needle                        acus acuta - sharp needle

manus, us, f - hand                        manus valida - strong hand

domus, us, f - home                      domus antiqua - old house

quercus, us, f - oak                        quercus umbrosa - shadowy oak

domus, us, f is the only noun which follows an exception!!

This is how you decline domus:

            Singular                      Plural

N          domus                      domus

G          domus                      domuum/domorum!!!

D          domui                      domibus

Acc        domum                      domos!!!

V          domus                      domus

Ab          domo!!                      domibus

Wherever you see exclamation marks, that's where you have to note the change. Domus is a noun which had taken half of the second declension. Ablative sg, Accusative Plural and optional G plural are from the second declension. The rest follows the pattern of fourth.

Two best examples would be lego, legere, legi, lectum - read and punio, punire, punivi, punitum - punish

lego, legere, legi, lectum - read

                    Singular          Plural

1st person          lego          legimus

2nd person          legis          legitis

3rd person          legit            legunt

punio, punire, punivi, punitum - punish

                    Singular          Plural

1st person        punio          punimus

2nd person      punis          punitis

3rd person        punit           puniunt

The reason why I put these two together is because of the 3rd person plural, where both verbs have -unt ending. It is very important to notice this. Usually, the inflectional suffixes follow the core vowel from the verb, however, here it changes, and so we have the following situation.

In third conjugation, short i is present throughout the conjugation, except for the third person plural where it changes into short u.

In fourth conjugation, long i is present throughout the conjugation, except for 3rd person singular where it's short and in 3rd person plural it's joined with a short u.

Common verbs:

3rd declension:

peto, petere, petivi, petitum  -  seek

quaero, quaerere, quaesivi, quaesitum - ask

cupio, cupire, cupivi, cupitum - want, yearn

sperno, spernere, sprevi, spretum - despise

sero, serere, sevi, satum - shine

consulo, consulere, consului, consultum - ask for advice

gemo, gemere, gemui, -        - sigh

dico, dicere, dixi, dictum - say

duco, ducere, duxi, ductum - lead

rego, regere, rexi, rectum - govern

veho, vehere, vexi, vectum - drive (they had carriages)

mitto, mittere, misi, missum - send

ago, agere, egi, actum - work

emo, emere, emi, emptum - buy

4th declension:

sepelio, sepelire, sepelivi, sepultum - bury (the word sepulchre has this root)

sentio, sentire, sensi, sensum - feel, think

vincio, vincire, vinxi, victum - bind

venio, venire, veni, ventum - come

convenio, convenire, conveni, conventum - gather

invenio, invenire, inveni, inventum - invent, find

As you can see, there are a lot of verbs in the third declension. I picked only the most frequent ones.