(1) The locative, which had almost vanished in classic Latin, lingered in Vulgar Latin only in names of places. It has left no sure traces in Provençal.
(2) The vocative, in classic Latin, was like the nominative for most words; in Vulgar Latin it probably disappeared, except in Church phrases, such as mī dŏmĭne. In Provençal we find the nominative regularly used in address (chanzọs, companh, emperaire, ioglars, Papiols), although the objective occasionally occurs in its stead (barọns pl., ioglar malastrüc, trachọr).
(3) The genitive, in the popular language, was little by little replaced by other constructions—commonly by the ablative with de or by the dative; the beginnings of this substitution may be observed as early as Plautus. Among Provençal nouns—aside from such learned forms as ancianọr, christianọr, companhọr, paianọr, parentọr—we find remnants of the genitive only in a few compound words, as diiǫus ＜ dīe Jŏvis, and in the standing phrase ẹs mestięr ＜ est ministĕrii.
(4) The dative, which in most words had the same ending as the ablative, came to be replaced, in the greater part of the Empire, by the accusative with ad; this construction, too, goes back as far as Plautus. Provençal nouns retain no traces of the dative.
(5) The ablative, after the fall of final m (§ [55], M) and the loss of quantitive distinctions in unstressed syllables (§ [21]), differed little or not at all from the accusative in the singular of nearly all nouns: causăm causā, dōnŭm dōnō, patrĕm patrĕ, frūctŭm frūctū, dīĕm dīē. Furthermore, some prepositions (especially in) were used both with the accusative and with the ablative. It was inevitable, then, that the two cases should be confounded in the singular, and we have evidence of such confusion as early as the first century of our era; this led gradually to a substitution of the accusative for the ablative in the plural, the accusative plural being somewhat commoner and frequently simpler than the ablative. We may, therefore, take the accusative as the basis of the Provençal objective, remembering, however, that this accusative has been more or less blended with the ablative.
(6) The two-case declension remained theoretically in use in Provençal literature through the 14th century; but in texts later than the 12th, cases are often confused. From the spoken language the declension disappeared, in the west (as in Catalan), before the literary period; in the centre and east, probably in the 12th century; in the north, in the 13th. The case preserved was usually the objective, but sometimes the nominative. Some nouns in -aire -adọr kept both forms, with a differentiation of meaning.
92. In the discussion of declensions some phonetic peculiarities must not be overlooked:—
(1) In the nom. pl. of the 2d declension, a stressed ẹ, followed in the next syllable by final -ị, would regularly give ị (cf. § [27], 1); but the ẹ is preserved by the analogy of the nom. and obj. sg. and the obj. pl.: capĭllī ＞ cabẹl, mĭssī ＞ mẹs, quētī ＞ quẹt, sērī ＞ sẹr. We do, however, find cabil, and (perhaps by analogy) auzil ＜ aucĕllī.
(2) In the nom. pl. of the 2d declension, a c or g before the final -ị would regularly be palatalized (cf. § [55], C, G); but it is preserved from palatalization by the analogy of the other three forms: amīcī ＞ amic, lŏngī ＞ lonc.
(3) For the development of a t between a palatal or an n and a final s, see § [82], S: annos ＞ anz, fīlios ＞ filz.