thanks to everyone who responded. it felt like they stood for certain
declensions, but i couldn't figure out why they just didn't use the
standard (nom., gen., etc). of course, it's because the meaning is a bit
more involved than that.
thanks again,
nall.
Erich Rickheit KSC wrote:
> It was a bit of a trick, though; I don't see this listed in my copy of
> Zoëga, but did find it in front of the glossary in Rogers.
that's odd. i have what appears to be the 1967 reprint and that word
appears on page 203 as the first entry in the second column.