Re: Okay, so...

"B. T. Raven" <nihil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:_uKdnTJSirt9lcLVnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Iain wrote:
>> ...-is, the ablative plural of the first declension is the same as the
>> genitive singular of the third declension?
>>
>> Is that a sick joke? I mean, there's irregularity....and then there's
>> linguistic fridge-nuking.
>
> What might that mean?
>>
>> When the Romans heard a new word, but only heard the ablative or
>> genitive, how did they know which declension it was of?
>>
>> ~Iain
>
> Genitive singular marker -is in the third declension was (and often is) 
> pronounced short, like the end of the English word "miss." The ablative 
> plural marking in the first and second declensions -is was pronounced
like 
> the end of the proper family name "Meese." So there would be no
confusion 
> even in rapid speech.
>
> Eduardus

Absent common markers, like the above, I'd have to assume context kicks
in. 
In highly inflected languages there will be quite a few situations where a

word in isolation could be in one of several possible cases or tenses. I 
don't mean just as written, but as pronounced. Without the context of 
surrounding (or tem****ally preceding) words you often will not know
exactly 
how to interpret the word.

AHS