Checking accuracy of Wiki descrip on adjective declension

[os draconis]

Hi, I'm curious as to whether this Wiki description is correct:

Positive and superlative adjectives are declined according to the first and second declension noun paradigm, but comparative adjectives are declined according to the third declension noun paradigm.

From what I can gather, only positive FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSION adjectives, as well as superlative adj. of all declensions (?) are declined according to the first and second declension noun paradigm (-us, -a, -um in the nom. sing., and -issimus, -a, -um for superlatives), while comparative adjectives of all declensions are declined according to the third declension noun paradigm (-ior, -ius in the nom. sing.). So is WIki missing the words in bold? Or have I got it wrong?

I'm just beginning my study of adjectives (in my first week of self-study of Latin, using Wheelock etc.) and am a little confused. Surely 3rd declension adjectives aren't declined according to the first and second declension noun paradigm when they're positive?

A good, clear overview of how adjectives work would be nice. Hopefully someone can edit Wiki to improve it, and hopefully my Reading Latin book by Cambridge will be clearer, when it arrives in the mail.

Sorry if the above is a stupid newbee question or if it's been asked before; I did run a search. Thanks!

 

[Bitmap]

Yes, what you're saying is right. I wouldn't trust that article too much anyway. The description of how comparisons are made is slightly flawed and incomplete as well (like it's not the comparative adj that is put in the ablative, and there are certain rules as to when you can't use quam and when you can't use the ablative).

 

[Matthaeus]

So what do you say, Bitmap and others, maybe we should go over there and change that blunder...Quid putatis?

 

[Imber Ranae]

Yes, what you're saying is right. I wouldn't trust that article too much anyway. The description of how comparisons are made is slightly flawed and incomplete as well (like it's not the comparative adj that is put in the ablative, and there are certain rules as to when you can't use quam and when you can't use the ablative).

I don't think there are any rules that absolutely prohibit the use of quam for any comparisons, though in many constructions the ablative of comparison is far more prominent. Amphiboly does rule out the ablative of comparison in many cases, though. It may be incomplete to not mention these, but doing so would produce a good chunk of text for what is in any case grammatical minutiae, and it's just an encyclopedia entry article after all.

I emended the other mistake.

 

[Bitmap]

I don't think there are any rules that absolutely prohibit the use of quam for any comparisons

I thought there were ... at least I can remember that you can't use it with relative pronouns
e.g. "Cicero, quo eloquentior alius non fuit (not quam qui), multa dixit"

 

[Imber Ranae]

I thought there were ... at least I can remember that you can't use it with relative pronouns
e.g. "Cicero, quo eloquentior alius non fuit (not quam qui), multa dixit"

That may be true. On the other hand, comparisons with ego, tu, and se require quam (or at least usually do) because of the ambiguity of the accusative and ablative forms.

 

[Bitmap]

Oh Yes, the restrictions for the ablativus comparationis are much stronger

You can't use it in connexion with ablativi mensurae either (Cicero fuit multo eloquentior quam alii) or with genitivi pretii (Ciceronis orationes pluris facio quam alios). I'm not even sure if you can use the ablative with any other case than the nominative... When in doubt, I just use quam

 

[Imber Ranae]

Actually, I've been looking at a lot more examples of ablative of comparison and I am forced to retract my previous claim about se, te, and me. Oh well. On the upside, I did find a very interesting descriptive analysis of the use of quam and abl. of separation by authors of the republican age. (Caution: PDF) The Case-construction After the Comparative in Latin