Editing Umbrian language (section)

===== Second declension =====
The Proto-Italic nominative singular ending {{Lang|itc|-os}} lost the {{Lang|itc|-o}}, leaving the Umbrian nominative singular ending {{Lang|itc|-s}}, as represented by Umbrian terms such as {{Lang|xum|taçez}} ("quiet").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=116}} Umbrian preserved the Proto-Italic accusative plural ending {{Lang|itc|-ōs}}, although it was represented in Umbrian by the [[Grapheme|graphemes]] {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''us'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''ur'''}}, and {{Lang|xum|-ur}}. The accusative singular form was merely the vowel {{Lang|itc|-o}}, occasionally written orthographically as {{Lang|xum|-'''um'''}} or {{Lang|xum|-om}}, although it was more common for the final {{Lang|xum|-m}} to be omitted. Thus, the Umbrian word for "people" can be written as {{Lang|xum|'''puplum'''}} or {{Lang|xum|'''poplom'''}} and as {{Lang|xum|'''puplu'''}} or {{Lang|xum|poplo}}, presumably because the final {{Lang|xum|-m}} was pronounced so faintly that it was often ignored.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=117}} The accusative plural form {{Lang|xum|-'''uf'''}}, or {{Lang|xum|-of}}, deriving from Proto-Italic {{Lang|itc|*-ons}}, was also written without the final {{Lang|xum|-f}}, presumably because the sound was also pronounced so weakly that writers often opted to neglect it.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=119}} During the transition from Proto-Italic, the dative singular form {{Lang|xum|-ōi}} shortened to {{Lang|xum|-oi}} and then was monophthongized in Umbrian. Orthographically, it was written as {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''i'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-ei}}, and {{Lang|xum|-i}}. Umbrian lost the final {{Lang|itc|*-d}} of the Proto-Italic ablative singular ending {{Lang|itc|*-ōd}}. The ablative singular was near unanimously transcribed as {{Lang|xum|-u}}; the example {{Lang|xum|somo}} constitutes the only definitive evidence of an ablative singular denoted by {{Lang|itc|-o}} and the term {{Lang|xum|maronato}}, although it has also been interpreted as a locative singular marked by {{Lang|xum|-u}}, may be interpreted as an ablative singular form.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=117}} The dative and ablative cases shared the same plural endings, which were orthographically represented by a multitude of forms:{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}} , {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er-e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-eir}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''is'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-is-co}}, and {{Lang|xum|-ir}}. Of these endings, the most common is {{Lang|xum|-ir}}, with {{Lang|xum|-ir}}, {{Lang|xum|-is-co}} appearing in over 100 inscriptions, although {{Lang|xum|-eir}} only appears in 7 inscriptions and {{Lang|xum|-er}} appears in only 6.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=117}} Unlike the other second declension forms, which derived from Proto-Italic o-stem nouns, the genitive singular inherited the {{Lang|xum|-eis}} from the Proto-Italic i-stem declension.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=116}} It was typically represented in writing through the forms {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, although the endings {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}} and {{Lang|xum|-e}} appear rarely.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=117}} In contrast, the genitive plural ending was inherited from the equivalent Proto-Italic o-stem form {{Lang|itc|-om}} and was typically represented in Umbrian {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|itc|-o}}, or {{Lang|xum|-om}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=118}} The vocative singular form in Umbrian was {{Lang|xum|-e}} and the locative singular was the long vowel {{Lang|xum|-ē}}, frequently—or perhaps always—compounded with the postpositive {{Lang|xum|-en}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=118}}

Another subtype of the second declension appears in the second declension {{Lang|xum|-io}} stem nouns, which derive from terms ending in {{Lang|xum|- ȋom}} or {{Lang|xum|-ȋos}}. The nominative and accusative singular in both masculine and neuter forms was marked by the phoneme {{Lang|xum|-i}}, which could be written as {{Lang|xum|-i}} or {{Lang|xum|-im}}. However, these graphemes were relatively uncommon compared to the forms {{Lang|xum|-e}} or {{Lang|xum|-em}},{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=124}} which appear in terms such as  the nominative or accusative singular neuter form {{Lang|xum|peřae}} or the accusative singular masculine form {{Lang|xum|peřaem}}, both of which may derive from {{Lang|itc|*pedaiiom}}. Other irregular forms may surface in the [[Hapax legomenon|hapax]] "{{Lang|xum|Fisei}}" possibly was an {{Lang|xum|-io}} stem noun that conveyed the short vowel {{Lang|xum|-i}} through the ending {{Lang|xum|-ei}}, an orthographic choice that, although attested elsewhere in the language, remains uncommon. The term {{Lang|xum|difue}}, possibly deriving from {{Lang|itc|*dui-fuiom}}, may also have replaced the standard ending with {{Lang|xum|-e}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=120}} The remaining forms are identical with those of the standard second declension endings, although in the ablative and dative singular and plural forms contraction is possible. This feature, which is more common in Late Iguvine writings than Early Iguvine, can be overserved in the dative singular form {{Lang|xum|Sansii}}, which can be alternatively written as {{Lang|xum|Sansi}} or {{Lang|xum|Sansie}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=120}} 

In addition to the masculine second declensions, there is also a slightly distinct morphology for neuter second declension forms. The only known differences between the second declension masculine and neuter forms appear in the nominative and accusative singular and plural: the neuter nominative and accusative singular are identical with each other and the masculine accusative singular, while the neuter accusative plural—which are also identical with each other—were represented by the ending {{Lang|xum|-ā}} and were represented orthographically by {{Lang|xum|-'''a'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, or {{Lang|xum|-o}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=118}} There were other, rarer, endings utilize to mark the nominative or accusative neuter plural: the form {{Lang|xum|-or}} is attested for the nominative plural and the forms {{Lang|xum|-'''uf'''}} or {{Lang|xum|-of}}, which could also be written without the final {{Lang|xum|-f}}, are attested as representations of the accusative plural.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=119}} Buck suggests that this irregularity possibly originated in the accusative plural before spreading the nominative; he suggests it was likely that it was motivated by the existence of parallel forms in the standard masculine nominative and accusative plural.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=119}}   
{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="3" |Second Declension Masculine
! colspan="2" |Second Declension Neuter
|-
!Case
!Singular
!Plural
!Singular
!Plural
|-
!Nominative
|{{Lang|itc|-s}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''us'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''ur'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-ur}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''um'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-om}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''a'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-o}}, {{Lang|xum|-or}}
|-
!Accusative
|{{Lang|xum|-'''um'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-om}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''uf'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-of}}, {{Lang|xum|-o}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''um'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-om}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''a'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''uf'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-o}}, {{Lang|xum|-of}}, 
|-
!Dative
|{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''i'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-ei}}, {{Lang|xum|-i}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er-e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-eir}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''is'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-is-co}}, {{Lang|xum|-ir}}
|
|
|-
!Genitive
|{{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}} 
|{{Lang|xum|-'''u'''}}, {{Lang|itc|-o}}, or {{Lang|xum|-om}}
|
|
|-
!Ablative
|{{Lang|xum|-u}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er-e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-eir}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''is'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-is-co}}, {{Lang|xum|-ir}}
|
|
|-
!Vocative
|{{Lang|xum|-e}}
|
|
|
|-
!Locative
|{{Lang|xum|-ē}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''er-e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-eir}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''is'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-is-co}}, {{Lang|xum|-ir}}
|
|
|}