Editing Umbrian language (section)

===Nouns===

==== Case functions ====

===== Accusative and dative =====
The accusative, just as in Latin, was used as the [[Object (grammar)|direct object]] of [[Transitive verb|transitive verbs]] and with [[Adposition|prepositions]]. There is also evidence of the cognate accusative, a function in Latin in which accusative nouns were often the object of related verbs. In Umbrian, this appears in the sentence "{{Lang|xum|teio subocau suboco}}."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=199}} The dative was used in both Latin and Umbrian to refer to the [[indirect object]] of [[Transitive verb|transitive verbs]], although it could also be the direct object of [[special verbs]]: the Umbrian verb "{{Lang|xum|'''kuraia'''}}" ("to care for") is used with the dative in the sentence "{{Lang|xum|'''ri esune kuraia'''}}" to express the meaning "to care for the divine thing," which in Latin would be expressed using the equivalent verb "{{Lang|xum|curo}}" with the accusative.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=198}} Certain compound verbs appear to have taken the dative, a linguistic peculiarity also present in Latin: In the sentence "{{Lang|xum|prosesetir strusla fida arsueitu}}," the compound verb "{{Lang|xum|arsueitu}}" takes the dative. Dative forms could also function as the indirect object of nouns with verbal meanings: "{{Lang|xum|'''tikamne luvie'''}}," meaning "dedication for [[Jupiter (god)|Jupiter]]."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=199}} Like Latin, the Umbrian dative could be paired with adjectives: "{{Lang|xum|'''futu fons pacer''' ... '''pople'''}}," meaning "It must be propitious ... for the people."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=199}} The Umbrian dative could indicate the beneficiary or maleficiary of an action: this function, the dative of reference, appears in the sentence "{{Lang|xum|aserio . . . anglaf esona mehe, tote Iioueine}}" ("observe... divine omens for me, for the city of Iguvinum").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=198}}

===== Genitive =====
Like Latin, the genitive case was utilized to communicate both partitive and objective relationships between nouns. The partitive genitive, in which the genitive communicates that the noun is a smaller component of the genitive noun, appears in Umbrian sentences such as "{{Lang|xum|'''mestru karu fratru'''}}," meaning "greater part '''of the [Arvales] brothers'''." However, unlike Latin, the partitive genitive in Umbrian may have also functioned as a [[Subject (grammar)|subject]] in certain circumstances, a grammatical property that appears in [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]], [[Avestan]], and—rarely—[[Greek language|Greek]]. This usage of the genitive is possibly attested in the sentence "," meaning "[whether] any '''of them''' are to be accepted." The genitive of possession, in which the genitive term is marked as the possessor, possibly appears in Umbrian sentences such as {{Lang|xum|popluper totar Iiouinar}}, translating to "for the people '''of the city of Iguvium'''." However, within this sentence, the genitive could either be functioning in its capacity as a partitive or possessive genitive. Likewise, the genitive of characteristic may appear in the sentence "{{Lang|xum|pisest totar Tarsinater}}," meaning "whoever is '''of the city of Tadinatus'''," although in this sentence the genitive may either be functioning as a genitive of characteristic or as a partitive genitive. The objective genitive, in which the genitive functions to communicate the object of nouns with verbal connotations, appears in Umbrian sentences such as "{{Lang|xum|'''katle tiçel'''}}," meaning "dedication '''of the sacrificial animal'''," and "{{Lang|xum|'''arsier frite'''}}," meaning "confidence in the '''holy one'''."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=195}}

===== Ablative and locative =====
In contrast to Latin, in which the [[Locative case|locative]] was reduced to rare and limited functions, the Umbrian locative retained much broader and more widespread use.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=199}} The Umbrian locative was used to signify the place something occurred; thus, Umbrian terms locatives such as {{Lang|xum|Acersoniem}}, meaning "at Acedonia," and "{{Lang|xum|tote Iouine}}," meaning "at [city of] Iguvium." Locative forms such as {{Lang|xum|fratrecate}} and {{Lang|xum|maronatei}}, both of which refer to the time frame in which a specific individual held a political office, attest to the existence of a locative of time, which would indicate the time something occurred.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=200}} Ablative forms were also utilized to communicate locative meanings: Umbrian phrases such as "{{Lang|xum|tremnu serse}}" ("sitting in the tent") utilize the ablative to indicate the location where something occurred.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=204}} The ablative, typically when accompanied by a preposition such as "{{Lang|xum|ehe}}" ("{{Lang|la|ex}};" "out of," "from") or a postpositive marker such as "{{Lang|xum|-'''ta'''}}" or "{{Lang|xum|-'''tu'''}}," could also indicate movement from a location: the terms term "{{Lang|xum|'''akrutu'''}}" ("from the field") and the sentence"{{Lang|xum|ehe esu poplu}}" ("from this people") both demonstrate this function of the ablative.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=201}} Furthermore, the ablative in Umbrian could indicate the route through which movement had occurred: the sentence, "{{Lang|xum|uia auiecla etuto}}" ("go by the augural way"), exemplifies this usage."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=202}} Ablative forms could communicate the time something occurred, as demonstrated in the phrase "{{Lang|xum|pesclu semu}}" ("in the middle of the prayer"). Both the ablative and locative appeared to be able to communicate the means by which in action occurred: the phrase "{{Lang|xum|mani tenitu}}" ("to hold in the hand") utilizes the ablative form "{{Lang|xum|mani}}" ("in the hand"), while the sentence "{{Lang|xum|'''manuve habitu'''}}" ("to hold in the hand") utilizes the locative form {{Lang|xum|'''manuve'''}} to communicate a similar meaning.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=204}} 

The ablative could also communicate the attendant circumstances surrounding an action, as demonstrated by sentences such as "{{Lang|xum|'''eruhu tiçlu sestu luvepatre'''}}" ("present to Jupiter with the same dedication").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=203}} More broadly, the Umbrian ablative could signify accompaniment; it could communicate that an action was occurring with or alongside something. Such a meaning appears in sentences such as "{{Lang|xum|com prinuatir stahitu}}" ("stand with the assistants"), which utilize the preposition "{{Lang|xum|com}}" ("{{Lang|la|cum}};" "with"). This preposition was dropped in scenarios where the notion of accompaniment could be substituted for the ablative of means or manner: "{{Lang|xum|'''apretu tures et pure'''}}" ("go about [preform the lustration] with the bulls and the fire").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=202}} The preposition "{{Lang|xum|-co(m)}}" or "{{Lang|xum|-'''ku(m)'''}}," when used as a postpositive marker of an ablative term, communicated a locative meaning: "{{Lang|xum|'''asaku'''}}" ("at the altar") and "{{Lang|xum|termnuco}}" ("at the boundary").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=203}} Another, more miscellaneous usage of the Umbrian ablative is the ablative of price, which marks the cost of something: "{{Lang|xum|'''muneklu habia numer prever pusti kastruvuf'''}}" ("shall receive a perquisite of one sesterce for each person").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=201}} There is also limited attestation of an [[ablative absolute]] in Umbrian: "{{Lang|xum|'''aves anzeriates'''}}" ("when the birds have been observed").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=203}} The linguist Gary B. Holland suggests that it is possible this form merely constitutes a locative, as the locative plural is identical to the ablative plural in Umbrian.{{Sfn|Holland|1986|p=189}}

==== Declension ====

===== First Declension =====
The Umbrian first declension retained the elongated {{Lang|xum|-ā}} stem in the nominative singular, whereas in Latin it shortened to {{Lang|xum|-a}}. However, the vowel "ā' in Umbrian became a more [[Roundedness|rounded vowel]] akin to the "a" in English "call."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=30}} Umbrian also retained the elongated {{Lang|xum|-ām}} stem in the accusative singular, although the final {{Lang|xum|-m}} is often dropped in writing, likely because the final sound was pronounced so faintly that it was somewhat negligible. The accusative plural form derives from Proto-Italic {{Lang|itc|-ans}}, which evolved into {{Lang|xum|-af}}. The final {{Lang|xum|-f}} was pronounced so weakly that it is often dropped often from inscriptions, although this is more common in the later Iguvine tablets written in the Latin script than the older Iguvine tablets written in the Old Italic script.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=115}} For the dative singular, the Proto-Italic [[diphthong]] {{Lang|itc|-āi}} was [[Monophthongization|monophthongized]] to {{Lang|xum|-ē}}. It was likely an [[open vowel]] as it is never misspelt with {{Lang|la|-i}}, which occurs frequently in the related Oscan language for terms with {{Lang|xum|-ē}} or {{Lang|xum|-oi}} in the final syllables.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=44}} Like Latin, Umbrian dropped the final {{Lang|la|-d}} at the end of words; thus, the ablative singular form in Umbrian evolved into {{Lang|xum|-ā}} from {{Lang|xum|-ād}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=84}} Umbrian inherited the genitive singular ending {{Lang|xum|-ās}} from Proto-Italic, which also appears in [[Old Latin]] and persisted into [[Classical Latin]] through terms such as {{Lang|la|[[pater familias]]}}. The genitive plural ending, {{Lang|xum|-āsōm}}, likely retained the long {{Lang|xum|-ō}} as—in neither Oscan nor Umbrian—is vowel contraction observed prior to the final consonants {{Lang|la|r}}, {{Lang|la|t}}, {{Lang|la|l}}, and {{Lang|la|m}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=115}} Although there is no attested first declension vocative plural, the vocative singular likely appears in certain names and was likely marked by the ending {{Lang|xum|-a}}. Buck concludes that it was likely a short vowel as it is never misspelt as {{Lang|xum|-o}} in inscriptions. The locative singular ending is identical with that of the dative singular and the locative plural is identical with that of the ablative plural. In Umbrian inscriptions, the locative ending was often suffixed by the [[Postpositive adjective|postpositive]] form {{Lang|xum|-en}}, which was sometimes written separately from the word (for instance, "{{Lang|xum|tafle e fertu}}," meaning "to carry on a table") or merged with the term through [[Contraction (grammar)|contraction]] (see {{Lang|xum|'''arven'''}}, meaning "into the field"). In some circumstances, the form altered to {{Lang|xum|-em}} through contraction; for example, the term {{Lang|xum|Acersoniem}}, meaning "at Acedonia."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=114}} There is also evidence of masculine proper names bearing the same {{Lang|xum|-ā}} stem of the first declension. Such names are occasionally borrowed from Greek, although they omit the final {{Lang|xum|-s}}; names such as {{Lang|xum|'''Arkiia'''}} from {{Lang|grc|Ἀρχίας}} ("{{Lang|grc|Arkhíās}}," "Archias"). Other names end in {{Lang|xum|-as}} and appear to derive from Italic sources, such as {{Lang|xum|'''Tanas'''}} or {{Lang|xum|'''Markas'''}}. Only one oblique form for masculine first declension forms is attested: the accusative singular form {{Lang|xum|'''Velliam'''}}. Another form, that possibly was a genitive singular of a masculine first declension term, is attested: {{Lang|xum|'''Maraheis'''}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=115}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+
! colspan="3" |First Declension Feminine
|-
!Case
!Singular
!Plural
|-
!Nominative
|{{Lang|xum|-ā}}
|{{Lang|xum|-ās}}
|-
!Accusative
|{{Lang|xum|-ām}}
|{{Lang|xum|-āf}}
|-
!Dative
|{{Lang|xum|-ē}}
|{{Lang|xum|-ēs}}
|-
!Genitive
|{{Lang|xum|-ās}}
|{{Lang|xum|-āsōm}}
|-
!Ablative
|{{Lang|xum|-ā}}
|{{Lang|xum|-ēs}}
|-
!Vocative
|{{Lang|xum|-a}}
|
|-
!Locative
|{{Lang|xum|-ē}}
|{{Lang|xum|-ēs}}
|}

===== 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}}
|
|
|}

===== Third declension =====
The Umbrian third declension, like the Latin third declension, merged forms from the Proto-Italic consonant stem and i-stem declensions. In Proto-Italic, the nominative singular of these declensions was {{Lang|itc|-s}} and {{Lang|itc|-is}} respectively. During the transition to Umbrian, the /i/ vowel was syncopated, producing a nominative singular ending {{Lang|itc|-s}} for all third declension forms.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=124}} However, the nominative plural endings vary depending upon whether the term was inherited from the consonant or i-stem terms. I-stem terms likely inherited the ending {{Lang|xum|-ēs}}, although the Oscan nominative plural formation "{{Lang|osc|aídilis}}" Indicates that at least the Oscan language, and possibly the Osco-Umbrian languages at large, may have evolved the ending {{Lang|xum|-īs}} according to the model of the first and second declension forms {{Lang|xum|-ās}} and {{Lang|itc|-ōs}}. Consonant stems syncopated the short vowel ending {{Lang|xum|-es}} in Proto-Italic, resulting in a more unique evolution. The term {{Lang|xum|frater}}, which is used in the nominative plural, presumably evolved from the from {{Lang|itc|*frāteres}}, which contracted to {{Lang|itc|*frāters}} before arriving at {{Lang|xum|frater}}. This term is also misspelt as {{Lang|xum|frateer}} in one inscription, which may provide evidence of [[compensatory lengthening]].{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=126}}

In the accusative singular, Umbrian i-stem forms inherited the Proto-Italic ending {{Lang|itc|-im}}, which was often represented by the graphemes  {{Lang|xum|-e}} or {{Lang|xum|-em}}, although the spelling {{Lang|itc|-im}} occurs rarely. For consonant stems, the Proto-Italic ending {{Lang|itc|-əm}} was replaced by {{Lang|xum|-om}}, which was borrowed from the second declension forms.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=125}} The accusative plural ending, in the i-stem, shifted the final {{Lang|xum|-ns}} in Proto-Italic {{Lang|xum|-ins}} to {{Lang|xum|-f}}, resulting in the form {{Lang|xum|-if}}. However, the {{Lang|xum|-f}} was often omitted in writing and the {{Lang|xum|-i}} could be rendered as {{Lang|xum|-e}}, sometimes including {{Lang|xum|-ei-}}; thus, forms such as "{{Lang|xum|'''tref'''}}," "{{Lang|xum|'''tre'''}}," and "{{Lang|xum|treif}}" appear for "{{Lang|xum|'''trif'''}}."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=126}} Consonant stems followed a more distinct evolution; although they contracted the {{Lang|xum|-ns}} in Proto-Italic {{Lang|xum|-ens}} to {{Lang|xum|-f}}, they dropped the {{Lang|xum|-e}}, leading to the form {{Lang|xum|-f}} instead of the expected form {{Lang|xum|-ēf}}. Such an evolution could theoretically have been explained through the syncopation of a short {{Lang|xum|-e}},{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=127}} however the contraction of {{Lang|xum|-ns}} to {{Lang|xum|-f}} appears to have been accompanied by the lengthening of the preceding vowel.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=47}} It is possible, although disputed, that the original Proto-Italic forms contained long vowels, allowing for an explanation of the unusual form through regular syncopation. Buck proposes that, in the absence of the aforementioned explanation, the form may have emerged due to the influence of the accusative plural forms of the other declensions, which were typically preceded by the same phonemes as the {{Lang|itc|-s}} of the nominative plural.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=127}} 

The i-stem forms developed the open vowel {{Lang|xum|-ē}} in the dative singular, which was represented by the graphemes {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}, and—occasionally—{{Lang|xum|-i}}, although this form is of exceptional rarity.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=44}} I-stem forms also adopted an ablative singular form {{Lang|xum|-īd}}, which was represented orthographically by either {{Lang|xum|-'''i'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-i}}, {{Lang|xum|-ei}}, and—rarely—{{Lang|xum|-e}}. In consonant stems, the ablative singular ending was {{Lang|xum|-e}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=125}} Umbrian consonant stem ablative singular forms are near-universally rendered as "{{Lang|xum|-e}}" or "{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}," with the exception of the term "{{Lang|xum|persi}}" or " "{{Lang|xum|'''peři'''}}" ("foot"), which is exclusively marked by the ending {{Lang|xum|-i}}. The linguist Reuben J. Pitts regards this as a "lexical aberration," which may have resulted from influence by the i-stem forms.{{Sfn|Pitts|2020|p=9}} Pitts suggests that the restricted orthographical representations of the consonant-stem ablative singular indicates that it likely was an [[Mid-open vowel|open-mid vowel]], as the [[close-mid vowel]] forms were often represented by the graphemes  {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-i}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''i'''}}, and {{Lang|xum|-ei}}. Moreover, Pitts argues that the ending was likely a [[Vowel length|short vowel]] as an—according to Pitts—a long vowel likely would have been raised to a close-mid vowel in Umbrian.{{Sfn|Pitts|2020|p=10}} The dative-ablative plural form, in i-stems, evolved from the Proto-Italic from {{Lang|itc|*-iβos}} into {{Lang|itc|*-ifos}}, which became {{Lang|xum|-ifs}} through syncopation. The ending {{Lang|xum|-ifs}} is attested in one Oscan term, "{{Lang|osc|'''luisfaris'''}}," however all other Oscan and Umbrian forms showcases that the {{Lang|xum|-fs}} was assimilated, leading to the {{Lang|xum|-is}} ending found in Umbrian terms such as "{{Lang|xum|'''avis'''}}." However, it was alternatively written with the {{Lang|xum|-i}} substituted for {{Lang|xum|-e}}; thus, Umbrian forms such as "{{Lang|xum|'''aves'''}}." Consonant stems inherited their dative and ablative plural forms from the Proto-Italic u-stem nouns, resulting in forms such as "{{Lang|xum|fratrus}}" and "{{Lang|xum|'''karnus'''}}."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=126}} Both i-stem and consonant stem third declension forms inherited the Proto-Italic i-stem genitive singular form {{Lang|itc|*-eis}}, which was orthographically represented by the forms {{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}} and {{Lang|xum|-er}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=125}} The third-declension locative singular ending is attested in terms such as "{{Lang|xum|scalsie}}" and "{{Lang|xum|ocre}}," both of which were marked graphically by the ending {{Lang|xum|-e}}, although considers it likely that consonant-stem forms had inherited the Proto-Italic ending {{Lang|xum|*-i}} while i-stem forms had inherited the Proto-Italic ending {{Lang|xum|*-ei}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=126}}

Therre are also attestations of neuter forms for the third declension. Terms such as "{{Lang|xum|sacre}}" suggest that the Umbrian neuter nominative and accusative singular for third declension i-stem terms, like Latin, was marked by the ending {{Lang|xum|-e}}, although other terms such as "{{Lang|xum|sehemeniar}}" indicate that, also like Latin, the final {{Lang|xum|-e}} could be omitted. There are a few examples of consonant stem third declension neuter nouns, such as "{{Lang|xum|pir}}," "{{Lang|xum|nome}}", and "{{Lang|xum|'''tupak'''}}." Consonant stem neuter nouns inherited the {{Lang|xum|*-ā}} ending from Proto-Italic for the nominative and accusative plural, while i-stem nouns evolved the ending {{Lang|xum|-iā}} from Proto-Italic. The final {{Lang|xum|-ā}} would change regularly according to the standard phonological and graphical rules in Umbrian governing the form of the final {{Lang|xum|-ā}} vowel.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=127}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+
! colspan="3" |Third declension Consonant Stem
! colspan="2" |Third Declension i-Stem
|-
!Case
!Singular
!Plural
!Singular
!Plural
|-
!Nominative
|{{Lang|itc|-s}}
|
|{{Lang|itc|-s}}
|{{Lang|xum|-ēs}}
|-
!Accusative
|{{Lang|xum|-om}}
|{{Lang|xum|-f}}
|{{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-em}}
|{{Lang|xum|-if}}, {{Lang|xum|-ef}}, {{Lang|xum|-eif}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}
|-
!Dative
|
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-i}}
|{{Lang|xum|-is}}
|-
!Genitive
|{{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}
|
|{{Lang|xum|-'''es'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-er}}
|
|-
!Ablative
|{{Lang|xum|-e}}, {{Lang|xum|-'''e'''}}
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|{{Lang|xum|-'''i'''}}, {{Lang|xum|-i}}, {{Lang|xum|-ei}}, {{Lang|xum|-e}}
|{{Lang|xum|-is}}
|-
!Locative
|{{Lang|xum|-e}}
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|{{Lang|xum|-e}}
|{{Lang|xum|-is}}
|}

===== Fourth and fifth declensions =====
There is little attestation as the Umbrian fourth or fifth declension. The fourth declension accusative singular was seemingly represented orthographically by the form {{Lang|xum|-o}}, which was often used to represent the ending {{Lang|xum|-um}} in Umbrian writings. Nominative and accusative plural forms are attested for the fourth declension neuter. It is likely that the ending was {{Lang|xum|-uā}}, although it would have been represented orthographically in various ways according to the standard Umbrian writing conventions for final {{Lang|xum|-ā}}. Other forms attested to a genitive singular ending in {{Lang|xum|-or}}, a dative singular in {{Lang|xum|-o}}, an ablative singular form in {{Lang|xum|-i}}, and a dative-ablative plural in {{Lang|xum|-us}}. One locative form is attested: {{Lang|xum|'''manuv-e'''}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=132}} The majority of attested Umbrian fourth declension terms appear feminine or neuter, however the Umbrian form {{Lang|xum|'''mani'''}} appears masculine in contrast to the feminine Latin cognate {{Lang|xum|manus}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=132}} Few fifth declension forms are attested in Umbrian: the accusative plural "{{Lang|xum|iouie}}," the dative-ablative plural "{{Lang|xum|iouies}}," the dative singular "{{Lang|xum|auie}}," the ablative singular "{{Lang|xum|re}},"{{Sfn|Pitts|2020|p=9}} and the form "{{Lang|xum|'''ri'''}}," which serves as both a dative or ablative singular.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=133}}
{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="3" |Fourth Declension Feminine
|-
!Case
!Singular
!Plural
|-
!Nominative
|
|
|-
!Accusative
|{{Lang|xum|-o}}
|
|-
!Dative
|{{Lang|xum|-o}}
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|-
!Genitive
|{{Lang|xum|-or}}
|
|-
!Ablative
|{{Lang|xum|-i}}
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|-
!Locative
|
|{{Lang|xum|-us}}
|}