Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Vocative case
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2012) |
In grammar, the vocative case (abbreviated VOC) is a grammatical case which is used for a noun that identifies a person (animal, object, etc.) being addressed or occasionally for the noun modifiers (determiners, adjectives, participles, and numerals) of that noun. A noun of address is an expression of direct address by which the identity of the party spoken to is set forth expressly within a sentence. For example, in the sentence "I don't know, John," John is a noun of address that indicates the party being addressed, as opposed to the sentence "I don't know John", in which "John" is the direct object of the verb "know".
Historically, the vocative case was an element of the Indo-European case system and existed in Latin, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. In many modern Indo-European languages (English, Spanish, etc.) the vocative case has been absorbed by the nominative, but others still distinguish it, including the Baltic languages, some Celtic languages and most Slavic languages. Some linguists, such as Albert Thumb, argue that the vocative form is not a case but a special form of nouns not belonging to any case, as nouns of address are not related syntactically to other words in sentences.[1] Pronouns usually lack vocative forms.
Indo-European languages
[edit]Comparison
[edit]Distinct vocative forms are assumed to have existed in all early Indo-European languages and survive in some. Here is, for example, the Indo-European word for "wolf" in various languages:
| Language | Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|---|
| Proto-Indo-European | *wl̩kʷ-o-s | *wl̩kʷ-e |
| Sanskrit | वृकः (vṛ́k-a-ḥ) | वृक (vṛ́k-a) |
| Classical Greek | λύκ-ο-ς (lúk-o-s) | λύκ-ε (lúk-e) |
| Latin | lup-u-s | lup-e |
| Lithuanian | vilk-a-s | vilk-e |
| Old Church Slavonic | вльк-ъ (vlĭk-ŭ) | вльч-е (vlĭč-e) |
The elements separated with hyphens denote the stem, the so-called thematic vowel of the case and the actual suffix. In Latin, for example, the nominative case is lupus and the vocative case is lupe, but the accusative case is lupum. The asterisks before the Proto-Indo-European words means that they are theoretical reconstructions and are not attested in a written source. The symbol ◌̩ (vertical line below) indicates a consonant serving as a vowel (it should appear directly below the "l" or "r" in these examples but may appear after them on some systems from issues of font display). All final consonants were lost in Proto-Slavic, so both the nominative and vocative Old Church Slavonic forms do not have true endings, only reflexes of the old thematic vowels.
Vocative singulars in Slavic languages appear to be irregular as a consequence of the Slavic first palatalization, which caused *k, *g and *x, when followed by an *e (as in the vocative suffix), to become č, ž, and š, respectively. Some modern Slavic languages have replaced these forms with a more regular vocative ending, so for example in Czech the usual masculine animate vocative is -e, except for roots ending in velar consonants, where it is now usually -u (e.g. chlap > chlape, but vlk > vlku). This is an instance of the paradigmatic complexity introduced into Slavic by successive waves of palatalisation, with some languages retaining more complex or irregular paradigms (such as Czech), and others tending towards simplification and regularization (such as Russian, which has lost the vocative as a productive case entirely).
Baltic languages
[edit]Lithuanian
[edit]The vocative is distinct in singular and identical to the nominative in the plural, for all inflected nouns. Nouns with a nominative singular ending in -a have a vocative singular usually identically written but distinct in accentuation.
In Lithuanian, the form that a given noun takes depends on its declension class and, sometimes, on its gender. There have been several changes in history, the last being the -ai ending formed between the 18th and 19th centuries. The older forms are listed under "other forms".
| Masculine nouns | Nominative | Vocative | Translation | Feminine nouns | Nominative | Vocative | Translation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current standard | Other forms | Current standard | Other forms | ||||||
| o-stems | vilkas | vilke! | wolf | a-stems | tautà [sg.] | taũta! | people | ||
| jo-stems | vėjas | vėjau! | Old Lith. vėje! | wind | e-stems | katė | kate! | cat | |
| ijo-stems | gaidys | gaidy! | rooster | i-stems | avis | avie! | sheep | ||
| a-stems | viršilà | viršìla! | sergeant-major | r-stems | duktė | dukterie! | dukter! | daughter | |
| e-stems | dėdė | dėde! | uncle | irregular | marti | marti/marčia! | daughter-in-law | ||
| i-stems | vagis | vagie! | thief | proper names | Dalià | Dãlia! | |||
| u-stems | sūnus | sūnau! | son | diminutives | sesutė | sesut(e)! | little sister | ||
| n-stems | vanduo | vandenie! | vanden! | water | |||||
| proper names | Jonas | Jonai! | Old Lith. Jone! | John | |||||
| diminutives | sūnelis | sūneli! | little son | ||||||
Some nouns of the e- and a- stems declensions (both proper ones and not) are stressed differently: "aikštė": "aikšte!" (square); "tauta": "tauta!". In addition, nouns of e-stems have an ablaut of long vowel ė in nominative and short vowel e /ɛ/ in vocative. In pronunciation, ė is close-mid vowel [eː], and e is open-mid vowel /ɛ/.
The vocative of diminutive nouns with the suffix -(i)ukas most frequently has no ending: broliùk "brother!", etc. A less frequent alternative is the ending -ai, which is also slightly dialectal: broliùkai, etc.
Colloquially, some personal names with a masculine -(i)(j)o stem and diminutives with the suffixes -elis, -ėlis have an alternative vocative singular form characterized by a zero ending (i.e. the stem alone acts as the voc. sg.): Adõm "Adam!" in addition to Adõmai, Mýkol "Michael!" in addition to Mýkolai, vaikẽl "kid!" in addition to vaikẽli, etc.
Celtic languages
[edit]Goidelic languages
[edit]Irish
[edit]The vocative case in Irish operates in a similar fashion to Scottish Gaelic. The principal marker is the vocative particle a, which causes lenition of the following initial letter.
In the singular there is no special form, except for first declension nouns. These are masculine nouns that end in a broad (non-palatal) consonant, which is made slender (palatal) to build the singular vocative (as well as the singular genitive and plural nominative). Adjectives are also lenited. In many cases this means that (in the singular) masculine vocatives resemble the genitive and feminine vocatives resemble the nominative.
The vocative plural is usually the same as the nominative plural except, again, for first declension nouns. In the standard language first declension nouns show the vocative plural by adding -a. In the spoken dialects the vocative plural is often has the same form as the nominative plural (as with the nouns of other declensions) or the dative plural (e.g. A fhearaibh! = Men!)
| Gender | Masculine | Feminine | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sg. | Nominative | an fear mór | an buachaill mór | Seán | an bhean mhór | an deirfiúr mhór | Máire |
| Genitive | an fhir mhóir | an bhuachalla mhóir | Sheáin | na mná móire | na deirféar móire | Mháire | |
| Vocative | a fhir mhóir | a bhuachaill mhóir | a Sheáin | a bhean mhór | a dheirfiúr mhór | a Mháire | |
| Pl. | Nominative | na fir móra | na buachaillí móra | na mná móra | na deirfiúracha móra | ||
| Genitive | na bhfear mór | na mbuachaillí móra | na mban mór | na ndeirfiúracha móra | |||
| Vocative | a fheara móra | a bhuachaillí móra | a mhná móra | a dheirfiúracha móra | |||
| English | the big man | the big boy | John | the big woman | the big sister | Mary | |
Scottish Gaelic
[edit]The vocative case in Scottish Gaelic follows the same basic pattern as Irish. The vocative case causes lenition of the initial consonant of nouns. Lenition changes the initial sound of the word (or name).
In addition, masculine nouns are slenderized if possible (that is, in writing, an 'i' is inserted before the final consonant) This also changes the pronunciation of the word.
Also, the particle a is placed before the noun unless it begins with a vowel (or f followed immediately by a vowel, which becomes silent when lenited). Examples of the use of the vocative personal names (as in Irish):
| Nominative case | Vocative case |
|---|---|
| Caitrìona | a Chaitrìona |
| Dòmhnall | a Dhòmhnaill |
| Màiri | a Mhàiri |
| Seumas | a Sheumais |
| Ùna | Ùna |
| cù | a choin |
| bean | a bhean |
| duine | a dhuine |
The name "Hamish" is just the English spelling of Sheumais (the vocative of Seumas and pronounced ˈheːmɪʃ), and thus is actually a Gaelic vocative. Likewise, the name "Vairi" is an English spelling of Mhàiri, the vocative for Màiri.
Manx
[edit]The basic pattern is similar to Irish and Scottish. The vocative is confined to personal names, in which it is common. Foreign names (not of Manx origin) are not used in the vocative. The vocative case causes lenition of the initial consonant of names. It can be used with the particle "y".
| Nominative case | Vocative case |
|---|---|
| Juan | y Yuan |
| Donal | y Ghonal |
| Moirrey | y Voirrey |
| Catreeney | y Chatreeney |
| John | John |
The name Voirrey is actually the Manx vocative of Moirrey (Mary).
Brythonic languages
[edit]Welsh
[edit]
Welsh lacks case declension but marks vocative constructions by lenition of the initial consonant of the word, with no obligatory particle. Despite its use being less common, it is still used in formal address: the common phrase foneddigion a boneddigesau means "gentlemen and ladies", with the initial consonant of boneddigion undergoing a soft mutation; the same is true of gyfeillion ("[dear] friends") in which cyfeillion has been lenited. It is often used to draw attention to at public notices orally and written – teachers will say "Blant" (mutation of plant 'children') and signage such as one right show mutation of myfyrwyr 'students' to draw attention to the importance of the notice.
Germanic languages
[edit]English
[edit]The vocative is not a grammatical case in English. Expressions for which the vocative would be used in languages which have that case, are nominative in English. In translations of languages that use the vocative case, translators have sometimes added the particle "O" before the noun, as is often seen in the King James Version of the Bible: for example the Greek ὀλιγόπιστοι, vocative masculine plural (in Matthew 8:26), is translated "O ye of little faith". While it is not strictly archaic, it is sometimes used to "archaeise" speech; it is often seen as very formal, and sees use in rhetoric and poetry, or as a comedic device to subvert modern speech. Another example is the recurrent use of the phrase "O (my) Best Beloved" by Rudyard Kipling in his Just So Stories. O may be considered a form of clitic and should not be confused with the interjection oh.[2] However, as the Oxford English Dictionary points out, "O" and "oh" were originally used interchangeably.
Modern English commonly uses the objective case for nouns of address but sets them off from the rest of the sentences with pauses as interjections, rendered in writing as commas (the vocative comma[3][4]). Two common examples of nouns of address in English are the phrases "Mr. President" and "Madam Chairwoman".[clarification needed]
Some traditional texts use Jesu, the Latin vocative form of Jesus. One of the best-known examples is Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.
German dialects
[edit]In some German dialects, like the Ripuarian dialect of Cologne, it is common to use the (gender-appropriate) article before a person's name. In the vocative phrase then the article is, as in Venetian and Catalan, omitted. Thus, the determiner precedes nouns in all cases except the vocative. Any noun not preceded by an article or other determiner is in the vocative case. It is most often used to address someone or some group of living beings, usually in conjunction with an imperative construct. It can also be used to address dead matter as if the matter could react or to tell something astonishing or just happening such as "Your nose is dripping."
Colognian examples:
| Do es der Päul — Päul, kumm ens erövver! | There is Paul. Paul, come over [please]! |
| Och do leeven Kaffepott, do bes jo am dröppe! | O [my] dear coffee pot, you are dripping! |
| „Pääde, jooht loufe!“ Un di Pääde jonn loufe. | "Horses, run away!" And the horses are running away. |
Icelandic
[edit]The vocative case generally does not appear in Icelandic, but a few words retain an archaic vocative declension from Latin, such as the word Jesús, which is Jesú in the vocative. That comes from Latin, as the Latin for Jesus in the nominative is Jesus and its vocative is Jesu. That is also the case in traditional English (without the accent) (see above):
| Nominative | Jesús elskar þig. | Jesus loves you. |
|---|---|---|
| Vocative | Ó Jesú, frelsari okkar. | O Jesus, our saviour. |
The native words sonur 'son' and vinur 'friend' also sometimes appear in the shortened forms son and vin in vocative phrases. Additionally, adjectives in vocative phrases are always weakly declined, but elsewhere with proper nouns, they would usually be declined strongly:
| strong adjective, full noun | Kær vinur er gulli betri. | A dear friend is better than gold. |
|---|---|---|
| weak adjective, shortened noun | Kæri vin, segðu mér nú sögu. | Dear friend, tell me a story. |
Norwegian
[edit]Nouns in Norwegian are not inflected for the vocative case, but adjectives qualifying those nouns are; adjectival adjuncts modifying vocative nouns are inflected for the definite (see: Norwegian language#Adjectives).[5]: 223–224 The definite and plural inflections are in most cases identical, so it is more easily observable with adjectives that inflect for plural and definite differently, e.g. liten being lille when definite, but små when plural, an instance of suppletion.[5]: 116
| Non-vocative | Vocative | English translation |
|---|---|---|
| kjær venn | kjære venn | dear friend |
| vis mann | vise mann | wise man |
| liten katt | lille katt | little cat |
In several Norwegian dialects, north of an isogloss running from Oslo to Bergen, names in argument position are associated with proprial articles, e.g. gendered pronouns such as han 'he' or hun 'she', which either precede or follow the noun in question.[6] This is not the case when in vocative constructions.[7]
Greek
[edit]In Ancient Greek, the vocative case is usually identical to the nominative case, with the exception of first-declension masculine nouns (ending in -ας or -ης), second-declension non-neuter nouns (ending in -ος) and third-declension non-neuter nouns.
In the first declension, masculines in -ᾱς have the vocative in -ᾱ (νεᾱνίᾱ); those in -της have -ᾰ (πολῖτα), all others in -ης have -η (Ἀτρείδη) except names of nations and compounds: Πέρσᾰ, Σκύθᾰ, γεω-μέτρᾰ, παιδο-τρίβᾰ. Δεσπότης has a recessive accent vocative δέσποτα. Second-declension masculine and feminine nouns have a regular vocative ending in -ε. Third-declension nouns with one syllable ending in -ς have a vocative that is identical to the nominative (νύξ, night); otherwise, the stem (with necessary alterations, such as dropping final consonants) serves as the vocative (nom. πόλις, voc. πόλι; nom. σῶμα, gen. σώματος, voc. σῶμα). Irregular vocatives exist as well, such as nom. Σωκράτης, voc. Σώκρατες.
In Modern Greek, second-declension masculine nouns still have a vocative ending in -ε. However, the accusative case is often used as a vocative in informal speech for a limited number of nouns, and always used for certain modern Greek person names: "Έλα εδώ, Χρήστο" "Come here, Christos" instead of "...Χρήστε". Other nominal declensions use the same form in the vocative as the accusative in formal or informal speech, with the exception of learned Katharevousa forms that are inherited from Ancient Greek Ἕλλην (Demotic Έλληνας, "Greek man"), which have the same nominative and vocative forms instead.[8]
Iranian languages
[edit]Kurdish
[edit]Kurdish has a vocative case. For instance, in the dialect of Kurmanji, it is created by adding the suffix -o at the end of masculine words and the -ê suffix at the end of feminine ones. In the Jafi dialect of Sorani it is created by adding the suffix of -i at the end of names.
| Kurmanji | Jafi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Vocative | Name | Vocative |
| Sedad (m) | Sedo | Bêstûn | Bêsi |
| Wedad (m) | Wedo | Reşîd | Reşo |
| Baran (m) | Baro | Sûret | Sûri |
| Nazdar (f) | Nazê | Fatime | Fati |
| Gulistan (f) | Gulê | Firset | Firsi |
| Berfîn (f) | Berfê | Nesret | Nesi |
Instead of the vocative case, forms of address may be created by using the grammatical particles lê (feminine) and lo (masculine):
| Name | Vocative |
|---|---|
| Nazdar (f) | Lê Nazê! |
| Diyar (m) | Lo Diyar! |
Indo-Aryan languages
[edit]Hindi-Urdu
[edit]In Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani), the vocative case has the same form as the nominative case for all singular nouns except for the singular masculine nouns that terminate in the vowel आ /aː/ ā and for all nouns in their plural forms the vocative case is always distinct from the nominative case.[9] Adjectives in Hindi-Urdu also have a vocative case form. In the absence of a noun argument, some adjectives decline like masculine nouns that do not end in आ /aː/ ā.[10] The vocative case has many similarities with the oblique case in Hindustani.
| Noun Classes | Singular | Plural | English | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | Vocative | Nominative | Vocative | |||
| Masculine | ending in आ ā | लड़का laṛkā | लड़के laṛke | लड़कों laṛkõ | boy | |
| not ending in आ ā | इंसान insān | इंसानों insānõ | human | |||
| Feminine | ending in ई ī | लड़की laṛkī | लड़कियाँ laṛkiyā̃ | लड़कियों laṛkiyõ | girl | |
| not ending in ई ī | माता mātā | माताएँ mātāẽ | माताओं mātāõ | mother | ||
| चिड़िया ciṛiyā | चिड़ियाँ ciṛiyā̃ | चिड़ियों ciṛiyõ | bird | |||
| Adjective Classes | Singular | Plural | English | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | Vocative | Nominative | Vocative | ||||
| Declinable | masculine | बुरा burā | बुरे bure | bad | |||
| feminine | बुरी burī | ||||||
| Undeclinable (not ending in -ā or -ī in nominative singular) | masculine | with noun | बेवकूफ़ bevakūf | fool | |||
| feminine | |||||||
| masculine | sans noun | बेवकूफ़ bevakūf | बेवकूफ़ों bevakūfõ | ||||
| feminine | |||||||
Sanskrit
[edit]In Sanskrit, the vocative (सम्बोधन विभक्ति sambodhana vibhakti) is morphologically distinct from the nominative only in the singular. In vowel-stem nouns, if there is a -ḥ in the nominative, it is omitted and the stem vowel may be altered: -ā and -ĭ become -e, -ŭ becomes -o, -ī and -ū become short and -ṛ becomes -ar. Consonant-stem nouns have no ending in the vocative:
| Noun | Singular | Dual | Plural |
|---|---|---|---|
| बाल (bāla, masc., 'boy') | हे बाल he bāla | हे बालौ he bālau | हे बालाः he bālāḥ |
| लता (latā, fem., 'creeper') | हे लते he late | हे लते he late | हे लताः he latāḥ |
| फल (phala, neut., 'fruit') | हे फल he phala | हे फले he phale | हे फलानि he phalāni |
Slavic languages
[edit]Old Church Slavonic
[edit]Old Church Slavonic has a distinct vocative case for many stems of singular masculine and feminine nouns, otherwise it is identical to the nominative. When different from the nominative, the vocative is simply formed from the nominative by appending either -e (rabŭ : rabe 'slave') or -o (ryba : rybo 'fish'), but occasionally -u (krai : kraju 'border', synŭ : synu 'son', vračĭ : vraču 'physician') and '-i' (kostĭ : kosti 'bone', gostĭ : gosti 'guest', dĭnĭ : dĭni 'day', kamy : kameni 'stone') appear. Nouns ending with -ĭcĭ have a vocative ending of -če (otĭcĭ : otĭče 'father', kupĭcĭ : kupĭče 'merchant'), likewise nouns ending with -dzĭ assume the vocative suffix -že (kŭnědzĭ : kŭněže 'prince'). This is similar to Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit, which also employ the -e suffix in vocatives.[11][12]
Bulgarian
[edit]Unlike most other Slavic languages, Bulgarian has lost case marking for nouns. However, Bulgarian preserves vocative forms. Traditional male names usually have a vocative ending.
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| Петър Petar | Петре Petre |
| Тодор Todor | Тодоре Todore |
| Иван Ivan | Иване Ivane |
More-recent names and foreign names may have a vocative form but it is rarely used (Ричарде, instead of simply Ричард Richard, sounds unusual or humorous to native speakers).
Vocative phrases like господине министре (Mr. Minister) have been almost completely replaced by nominative forms, especially in official writing. Proper nouns usually also have vocative forms, but they are used less frequently. Here are some proper nouns that are frequently used in vocative:
| English word | Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|---|
| God | Бог Bog | Боже Bozhe |
| Lord | Господ Gospod | Господи Gospodi |
| Jesus Christ | Исус Христос Isus Hristos | Исусе Христе Isuse Hriste |
| comrade | другар drugar | другарю drugaryu |
| priest | поп pop | попе pope |
| frog | жаба zhaba | жабо zhabo |
| fool | глупак glupak | глупако glupako |
Vocative case forms also normally exist for female given names:
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| Елена Elena | Елено Eleno |
| Пена Pena | Пено Peno |
| Елица Elitsa | Елице Elitse |
| Радка Radka | Радке Radke |
Except for forms that end in -е, they are considered rude and are normally avoided. For female kinship terms, the vocative is always used:
| English word | Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|---|
| Grandmother | Баба Baba | Бабо Babo |
| Mom | Майка Mayka Мама Mama |
Майко Mayko Мамо Mamo |
| Aunt | Леля Lelya | Лельо Lelyo |
| Sister | Сестра Sestra | Сестро Sestro |
Czech
[edit]In Czech, the vocative (vokativ, or 5. pád – 'the fifth case') usually differs from the nominative in masculine and feminine nouns in the singular.
| Nominative case | Vocative case | Gloss |
|---|---|---|
| Feminine | ||
| paní Eva | paní Evo! | 'Ms Eve' |
| knížka | knížko! | 'little book' |
| Marie | Marie! | 'Mary' |
| nová píseň | nová písni! | 'new song' |
| Masculine | ||
| pan profesor | pane profesore! | 'Mr Professor' |
| Ježíš | Ježíši! | 'Jesus' |
| Marek | Marku! | 'Mark' |
| předseda | předsedo! | 'chairman' |
| pan žalobce | pane žalobce! | 'Mr complainant' |
| blbec | blbče! | 'dunce' |
| Jiří | Jiří! | 'George' |
| pan Dobrý | pane Dobrý! | 'Mr Good' |
| Neuter | ||
| moje rodné město | moje rodné město! | 'my native city' |
| jitřní moře | jitřní moře! | 'morning sea' |
| otcovo obydlí | otcovo obydlí! | 'father's dwelling' |
It is a common dialectal feature of Czech to use the nominative with female names (Lojzka, dej pokoj!) or when following a title (pane učitel!, pane továrník!, pane Novák!). It is particularly prevalent in regional dialects, such as those of Moravia, where it has been the only form in use for hundreds of years.
The full vocative remains part of the official standard propagated by the Czech government.[13] In the Czech Republic and elsewhere in eastern Europe, language competence is often conflated with adherence to official norms, and the use of the nominative - while common - may therefore be stigmatised.[14]
Polish
[edit]In Polish, the vocative (wołacz) is formed with feminine nouns usually taking -o except those where the last consonant is soft e.g. -sia, -cia, -nia, and -dzia, which take -u. Feminine nouns that end with -i, usually in the suffixes -ini and -yni, as well as feminine nouns that end with a soft consonant, usually words with the suffix -(o)ść, but also irregular words like sól take the ending -i. Feminine nouns that end with a hardened consonant e.g. noc take the ending -y. Masculine nouns generally follow the complex pattern of the locative case, with the exception of a handful of words such as Bóg → Boże 'God', ojciec → ojcze 'father' and chłopiec → chłopcze 'boy'. Neuter nouns and all plural nouns have the same form in the nominative and the vocative:
| Nominative case | Vocative case | Gloss |
|---|---|---|
| Feminine | ||
| Pani Ewa | Pani Ewo! | 'Mrs Eve' |
| Ewusia | Ewusiu! | diminutive form of Ewa) |
| ciemność | ciemności! | 'darkness' |
| książka | książko! | 'book' |
| Masculine | ||
| Pan profesor | Panie profesorze! | 'Mr. Professor' |
| Krzysztof | Krzysztofie! | 'Christopher!' |
| Krzyś | Krzysiu! | 'Chris' |
| wilk | wilku! | 'wolf' |
| człowiek | człowieku! człowiecze! (poetic) |
'human' |
The latter form of the vocative of człowiek 'human' is now considered poetical.
The nominative is increasingly used instead of the vocative to address people with their proper names. In other contexts the vocative remains prevalent. It is used:
- To address an individual with the function, title, other attribute, family role
- Panie doktorze (Doctor!), Panie prezesie! (Chairman!)
- Przybywasz za późno, pływaku (You arrive too late, swimmer)
- synu (son), mamo (mum), tato (dad)
- After adjectives, demonstrative pronouns and possessive pronouns
- Nie rozumiesz mnie, moja droga Basiu! (You don't understand me, my dear Basia!)
- To address an individual in an offensive or condescending manner:
- Zamknij się, pajacu! ("Shut up, you buffoon!")
- Co się gapisz, idioto? ("What are you staring at, idiot?")
- Nie znasz się, baranie, to nie pisz! ("Stop writing, idiot, you don't know what you're doing!")
- Spadaj, wieśniaku! ("Get lost, hillbilly!")
- After "Ty" (second person singular pronoun)
- Ty kłamczuchu! (You liar!)
- Set expressions:
- (O) Matko!, (O) Boże!, chłopie
The vocative is also often employed in affectionate and endearing contexts such as Kocham Cię, Krzysiu! ("I love you, Chris!") or Tęsknię za Tobą, moja Żono ("I miss you, my wife."). In addition, the vocative form sometimes takes the place of the nominative in informal conversations: Józiu przyszedł instead of Józio przyszedł ("Joey's arrived"). When referring to someone by their first name, the nominative commonly takes the place of the vocative as well: Ania, chodź tu! instead of Aniu, chodź tu! ("Anne, come here!").
Russian
[edit]Historic vocative
[edit]The historic Slavic vocative has been lost in Russian and is now used only in archaic expressions. Several of them, mostly of Old Church Slavonic origin, are common in colloquial Russian: "Боже!" (Bože, vocative of "Бог" Bog, "God") and "Боже мой!" (Bože moj, "My God!"), and "Господи!" (Gospodi, vocative of "Господь" Gospodj, "Lord"), which can also be expressed as "Господи Иисусе!" (Gospodi Iisuse!, Iisuse vocative of "Иисус" Iisus, "Jesus"). The vocative is also used in prayers: "Отче наш!" (Otče naš, "Our Father!"), or the Russian version of the Jesus Prayer ("Господи Иисусе Христе"). Such expressions are used to express strong emotions (much like English "O my God!"), and are often combined ("Господи, Боже мой"). More examples of the historic vocative can be found in other Biblical quotes that are sometimes used as proverbs: "Врачу, исцелися сам" (Vraču, iscelisia sam, "Physician, heal thyself", nom. "врач", vrač). Vocative forms are also used in modern Church Slavonic. The patriarch and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church are addressed as "владыко" (vladyko, hegemon, nom. "владыка", vladyka). In the latter case, the vocative is often also incorrectly used for the nominative to refer to bishops and patriarchs. These Old Church Slavonic words that are present in the current Russian language are known as "fossil words".[15]
New vocative
[edit]In modern colloquial Russian, given names and a small family of terms often take a special "shortened" form that some linguists consider to be a re-emerging vocative case.[16] It is used only for given names and nouns that end in -a and -я, which are sometimes dropped in the vocative form: "Лен, где ты?" ("Lena, where are you?"). It is basically equivalent to "Лена, где ты?" but suggests a positive personal and emotional bond between the speaker and the person being addressed. Names that end in -я then acquire a soft sign: "Оль!" = "Оля!" ("Olga!"). In addition to given names, the form is often used with words like "мама" (mom) and "папа" (dad), which would be respectively shortened to "мам" and "пап". The plural form is used with words such as "ребят", "девчат" (nom: "ребята", "девчата" guys, gals).[17]
Such usage differs from the historic vocative, which would be "Лено" and is not related.
Serbo-Croatian
[edit]In Serbo-Croatian languages, distinct vocatives exist only for singular masculine and feminine nouns. Nouns of the neuter gender and all nouns in plural have a vocative equal to the nominative. All vocative suffixes known from Old Church Slavonic also exist in Serbo-Croatian.[18]
The vocative in Serbo-Croatian is formed according to one of three types of declension, which are classes of nouns with the same declension suffixes.[19]
First declension
[edit]The first declension comprises masculine nouns that end with a consonant. These have a vocative suffix of either -e (doktor : doktore 'doctor') or -u (gospodar : gospodaru 'master').
Nouns terminating in -or have the -e vocative suffix: doktor : doktore 'doctor', major : majore 'major', majstor : majstore 'artisan', as well as nouns possessing an unsteady a: vetar : vetre 'wind', svekar : svekre 'father-in-law', and the noun car : care 'emperor'. All other nouns in this class form the vocative with -u: gospodar : gospodaru 'master', pastir : pastiru 'shepherd', inženjer : inženjeru 'engineer', pisar : pisaru 'scribe', sekretar : sekretaru 'secretary'.
In particular, masculine nouns ending with a palatal or prepalatal consonant j, lj, nj, č, dž, ć, đ or š form vocatives with the -u suffix: heroj : heroju 'hero', prijatelj : prijatelju 'friend', konj : konju 'horse', vozač : vozaču 'driver', mladić : mladiću 'youngster', kočijaš : kočijašu 'coachman', muž : mužu 'husband'.
Nouns ending with the velars -k, -g and -h are palatalized to -č, -ž, -š in the vocative: vojnik : vojniče 'soldier', drug : druže 'comrade', duh : duše 'ghost'. A final -c becomes -č in the vocative: stric : striče 'uncle', lovac : lovče 'hunter'. Likewise, a final -z becomes -ž in only two cases: knez : kneže 'prince' and vitez : viteže 'knight'.
The loss of the unsteady a can trigger a sound change by hardening consonants, as in vrabac : vrapče 'sparrow' (not *vrabče), lisac : lišče 'male fox' (not *lisče) and ženomrzac : ženomršče 'misogynist' (not *ženomrzče). There may be a loss of -t before -c like in otac : oče 'father' (instead of *otče), svetac : sveče 'saint' (instead of *svetče). When these phonetic alterations would substantially change the base noun, the vocative remains equal to the nominative, for example tetak 'uncle', mačak 'male cat', bratac 'cousin'. This also holds true for foreign names ending with -k, -g and -h like Džek 'Jack', Dag 'Doug', King, Hajnrih.
Male names ending with -o and -e have a vocative equal to the nominative, for example: Marko, Mihailo, Danilo, Đorđe, Pavle, Radoje.
Second declension
[edit]The second declension affects nouns with the ending -a. These are mainly of feminine but sometimes also of masculine gender. These nouns have a vocative suffix -o: riba : ribo 'fish', sluga : slugo 'servant', kolega : kolego 'colleague', poslovođa : poslovođo 'manager'.
Exemptions to this rule are male and female given names, which have a vocative equal to the nominative, e. g. Vera, Zorka, Olga, Marija, Gordana, Nataša, Nikola, Kosta, Ilija etc. However, this is different for twosyllabic names with an ascending accent such as female names Nâda, Zôra, Mîca, Nêna and male names Pêra, Bôža, Pâja, etc., which form vocatives with -o: Nâdo, Zôro, Mîco, Pêro, Bôžo, Pâjo, etc.
Denominations of relatives like mama 'mom', tata 'dad', baba 'grandmother', deda 'grandfather', tetka 'aunt' (parent's sister), ujna 'aunt' (mother's brother's wife), strina 'aunt' (father's brother's wife) have vocatives equal to the nominative. This also holds true for country names ending in -ska, -čka, -ška.
Nouns ending with the diminutive suffix -ica that consist of three or more syllables have a vocative with -e: učiteljica: učiteljice "female teacher", drugarica: drugarice "girlfriend", tatica: tatice "daddy", mamica: mamice "mommy". This also applies to female names Danica: Danice, Milica: Milice, Zorica: Zorice, and the male names Perica: Perice, Tomica: Tomice. Nouns of this class that can be applied to both males and females usually have a vocative ending of -ico (pijanica: pijanico "drunkard", izdajica: izdajico "traitor", kukavica: kukavico "coward"), but vocatives with -ice are also seen.
The use of vocative endings for names varies among Serbo-Croatian dialects. People in Croatia often use only nominative forms as vocatives, while others are more likely to use grammatical vocatives.[20]
Third declension
[edit]The third declension affects feminine nouns ending with a consonant. The vocative is formed by appending the suffix -i to the nominative (reč : reči 'word', noć : noći 'night').
Slovak
[edit]Until the end of the 1980s, the existence of a distinct vocative case in Slovak was recognised and taught at schools. Today, the case is no longer considered to exist except for a few archaic examples of the original vocative remaining in religious, literary or ironic contexts:
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation | Nominative | Vocative | Translation | Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boh m. | Bože | God | Ježiš m. | Ježišu | Jesus | mama f. | mamo | mother |
| Kristus m. | Kriste | Christ | priateľ m. | priateľu | friend | žena f. | ženo | woman |
| pán m. | pane | lord | brat m. | bratu, bratku | brother | |||
| otec m. | otče | father | syn m. | synu, synku | son | |||
| človek m. | človeče | man, human | ||||||
| chlap m. | chlape | man | ||||||
| chlapec m. | chlapče | boy |
In everyday use, the Czech vocative is sometimes retrofitted to certain words:
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| majster m. | majstre | maestro |
| šéf m. | šéfe | boss |
| švagor m. | švagre | brother-in-law |
Another stamp of vernacular vocative is emerging, presumably under the influence of Hungarian for certain family members or proper names:
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| otec m. | oci | father |
| mama f. | mami | mother |
| babka f. | babi | grandmother, old woman |
| Paľo m. | Pali | Paul, domestic form |
| Zuza f. | Zuzi | Susan, domestic form |
Ukrainian
[edit]Ukrainian has retained the vocative case mostly as it was in Proto-Slavic:[21]
| Masculine nouns | Feminine nouns | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation | Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
| бог boh | боже bože | god | матуся matusja | матусю matusju | minnie |
| друг druh | друже druže | friend | неня nenja | нене nene | nanny |
| брат brat | брате brate | brother | бабця babcja | бабцю babcju | granny |
| чоловік čolovik | чоловіче čoloviče | man | жінка žinka | жінко žinko | woman |
| хлопець chlopec' | хлопче chlopče | boy | дружина družyna | дружино družyno | wife |
| святий отець svjatyj otec' | святий отче svjatyj otče | Holy Father | дівчина divčyna | дівчино divčyno | girl |
| пан pan | пане pane | sir, Mr. | сестра sestra | сестро sestro | sister |
| приятель pryjatel' | приятелю pryjatelju | fellow | людина ljudyna | людино ljudyno | human, person |
| батько bat'ko | батьку bat'ku | father | |||
| син syn | сину synu | son | |||
There are some exceptions:
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| мати maty f. | мамо mamo | mother |
| божа матір boža matir f. | матір божа matir boža | God's Mother |
It is used even for loanwords and foreign names:
| Nominative | Vocative | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Джон Džon m. | Джоне Džone | John |
| пан президент pan prezydent m. | пане президенте pane prezydente | Mr. President |
It is obligatory for all native names:
| Masculine | Feminine | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | Vocative | Nominative | Vocative |
| Володимир Volodymyr | Володимире Volodymyre | Мирослава Myroslava | Мирославо Myroslavo |
| Святослав Svjatoslav | Святославе Svjatoslave | Ганна Hanna | Ганно Hanno |
It is used for patronymics:
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| Андрій Васильович Andrij Vasylovyč m. | Андрію Васильовичу Andriju Vasyliovyču |
| Ірина Богданівна Iryna Bohdanivna f. | Ірино Богданівно Iryno Bohdanivno |
Latin
[edit]
In Latin, the form of the vocative case of a noun is almost always the same as the nominative. Exceptions include singular non-neuter second-declension nouns that end in -us in the nominative case. An example would be the famous line from Shakespeare, "Et tu, Brute?" (commonly translated as "And you, Brutus?"): Brute is the vocative case and Brutus would be the nominative.
Nouns that end in -ius end with -ī instead of the expected -ie. Thus, Julius becomes Julī and filius becomes filī. The shortening does not shift the accent so the vocative of Vergilius is Vergilī, with accent on the second syllable even though it is short. Nouns that end in -aius and -eius have vocatives that end in -aī or -eī even though the -i- in the nominative is consonantal.
First-declension and second-declension adjectives also have distinct vocative forms in the masculine singular if the nominative ends in -us, with the ending -e. Adjectives that end in -ius have vocatives in -ie so the vocative of eximius is eximie.
Nouns and adjectives that end in -eus do not follow the rules above. Meus forms the vocative irregularly as mī or meus, while Christian Deus does not have a distinct vocative and retains the form Deus. "My God!" in Latin is thus mī Deus!, but Jerome's Vulgate consistently used Deus meus as a vocative. Classical Latin did not use a vocative of deus either (in reference to pagan gods, the Romans used the suppletive form dive).
Greek names in Latin texts conserve their Greek vocative form. E. g., the vocative of Andrēās is Andrēā.[citation needed]
Romance languages
[edit]West Iberian languages
[edit]Portuguese drops the article to form the vocative. The vocative is always between commas and, like in many other languages, a particle Ó is commonly used:
| Ó Jesus, ajude-nos! | O Jesus, help us! |
| Menino, vem cá! | Boy, come here! |
| Não faças isso, amigo. | Don't do that, [my] friend. |
In Extremaduran and Fala, some post-tonical vowels open in vocative forms of nouns, a new development that is unrelated to the Latin vocative case.
Catalan
[edit]Catalan drops the article to form the vocative.
French
[edit]Like English, French sometimes uses (or historically used) a particle Ô to mark vocative phrases rather than by change to the form of the noun. A famous example is the title and first line of the Canadian national anthem, O Canada (French title: Ô Canada), a vocative phrase addressing Canada.
Romanian
[edit]The vocative case in Romanian is partly inherited, occasionally causing other morphophonemic changes (see also the article on Romanian nouns):
- singular masculine/neuter: -e as in
- om: omule! (man, human being),
- băiat: băiete! or băiatule! (boy),
- văr: vere! (cousin),
- Ion: Ioane! (John);
- singular feminine: -o as in
- soră: soro! (sister),
- nebună: nebuno! (mad woman), also in masculine (nebunul)
- deșteaptă: deșteapto! (smart one (f), often used sarcastically),
- Ileana: Ileano! (Helen);
Since there is no -o vocative in Latin, it must have been borrowed from Slavic: compare the corresponding Bulgarian forms сестро (sestro), откачалко (otkachalko), Елено (Eleno).
- plural, all genders: -lor as in
- frați: fraților! (brothers),
- boi: boilor! (oxen, used toward people as an invective),
- doamne și domni: doamnelor și domnilor! (ladies and gentlemen).
In formal speech, the vocative often simply copies the nominative/accusative form even when it does have its own form. That is because the vocative is often perceived as very direct and so can seem rude.
Romanesco dialect
[edit]In Romanesco dialect the vocative case appears as a regular truncation immediately after the stress.
Compare (vocative, always truncated)
- France', vie' qua!
- "Francesco/Francesca, come here!"
with (nominative, never truncated)
- Francesco/Francesca viene qua
- "Francesco/Francesca comes here"
Venetian
[edit]Venetian has lost all case endings, like most other Romance languages. However, with feminine proper names the role of the vocative is played by the absence of the determiner: the personal article ła / l' usually precedes feminine names in other situations, even in predicates. Masculine names and other nouns lack articles and so rely on prosody to mark forms of address:
| Case | Fem. proper name | Masc. proper name and other nouns |
|---|---|---|
| Nom./Acc. | ła Marìa ła vien qua / varda ła Marìa! 'Mary comes here / look at Mary!' |
Marco el vien qua / varda Marco! 'Mark comes here / look at Mark!' |
| Vocative | Marìa vien qua! / varda, Marìa! 'Mary, come here! / look, Mary!' |
Marco vien qua! / varda, Marco! 'Mark, come here! / look, Mark!' |
Predicative constructions:
| Case | Fem. proper name | Masc. proper name and other nouns |
|---|---|---|
| Pred. | so' mi ła Marìa 'I am Mary.' |
so' mi Marco / so' tornà maestra 'I am Mark. / I am a teacher again.' |
| Vocative | so' mi Marìa! 'It's me, Mary!' |
so' mi, Marco! / so' tornà, maestra! 'It's me, Mark! / I am back, teacher!' |
Arabic
[edit]Properly speaking, Arabic has only three cases: nominative, accusative and genitive. However, a meaning similar to that conveyed by the vocative case in other languages is indicated by the use of the particle yā (Arabic: يا) placed before a noun inflected in the nominative case (or accusative if the noun is in construct form). In English translations, it is often translated literally as O instead of being omitted.[22][23] A longer form used in Classical Arabic is أيّها ayyuhā (masculine), أيّتها ayyatuhā (feminine), sometimes combined with yā. The particle yā was also used in the old Castilian language because of Arabic influence via Mozarabic immigrations.[24]
Mandarin
[edit]Mandarin uses no special inflected forms for address. However, special forms and morphemes (that are not inflections) exist for addressing.
Mandarin has several particles that can be attached to the word of address to mark certain special vocative forces, where appropriate. A common one is 啊(Chinese: 啊; pinyin: a) attached to the end of the address word. For example, 日记(Chinese: 日记; pinyin: Rìjì) "diary" becomes 日记啊 (Chinese: 日记啊; pinyin: Rìjì a).
Certain specialized vocative morphemes also exist, albeit with limited applicabilities. For instance, the Beijing dialect of Mandarin Chinese, to express strong feelings (especially negative ones) to someone, a neutral tone suffix -ei may be attached to certain address words. It is most commonly applied to the word 孙子 (sūnzi, "grandson"), to form sūnzei, meaning approximately "Hey you nasty one!". Another example is 小子 (xiǎozi, lit. "kid; young one"), resulting in xiǎozei "Hey kiddo!".
Japanese
[edit]The vocative case is present in Japanese as the particle よ.[25] This usage is often literary or poetic. For example:
| 雨よ雪に変わってくれよ! Ame yo yuki ni kawatte kure yo! |
O Rain! Please change to snow! |
| 万国の労働者よ、団結しろよ! Bankoku no rōdō-sha yo, danketsu shiro yo! |
Workers of the world, unite! |
| 少年よ、神話になれよ! Shōnen yo, shinwa ni nare yo! |
Young boy, become a legend! |
In conversational Japanese, this same particle is often used at the end of a sentence to indicate assertiveness, certainty or emphasis.
Georgian
[edit]In Georgian, the vocative case is used to address the second-person singular and plural. For word roots that end with a consonant, the vocative case suffix is -o, and for the words that end with a vowel, it is -v like in Old Georgian, but for some words, it is considered archaic. For example, kats- is the root for the word "man". If one addresses someone with the word, it becomes katso.
Adjectives are also declined in the vocative case. Just like nouns, consonant final stem adjectives take the suffix -o in the vocative case, and the vowel final stems are not changed:
- lamazi kali "beautiful woman" (nominative case)
- lamazo kalo! "beautiful woman!" (vocative case)
In the second phrase, both the adjective and the noun are declined. The personal pronouns are also used in the vocative case. Shen "you" (singular) and tkven "you" (plural) in the vocative case become she! and tkve, without the -n. Therefore, one could, for instance, say, with the declension of all of the elements:
She lamazo kalo! "you beautiful woman!"
Korean
[edit]The vocative case in Korean is commonly used with first names in casual situations by using the vocative case marker (호격 조사) 아 (a) if the name ends in a consonant and 야 (ya) if the name ends with a vowel:[26]
미진이
Mijini
집에
jibe
가?
ga?
Is Mijin going home?
미진아,
Mijina,
집에
jibe
가?
ga?
Mijin, are you going home?
동배
Dongbae
뭐
mwo
해?
hae?
What is Dongbae doing?
동배야,
Dongbaeya,
뭐
mwo
해?
hae?
Dongbae, what are you doing?
In formal Korean, the marker 여 (yeo) or 이여 (iyeo) is used, the latter if the root ends with a consonant. Thus, a quotation of William S. Clark would be translated as follows:
소년이여,
sonyeoniyeo,
야망을
yamangeul
가져라.
gajyeora.
Boys, be ambitious.
The honorific infix 시 (si) is inserted in between the 이 (i) and 여 (yeo).
신이시여,
sinisiyeo,
부디
budi
저들을
jeodeureul
용서하소서.
yongseohasoseo.
Oh god, please forgive them.
In Middle Korean, there were three honorific classes of the vocative case:[27]
| Form | 하 | 아/야 | 여/이여 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Honorific | High | Plain | Low with added nuance of exclamation |
Hungarian
[edit]Hungarian has a number of vocative-like constructions, even though it lacks an explicit vocative inflection.
Noun phrases in a vocative context always take the zero article.[28] While noun phrases can take zero articles for other reasons, the lack of an article otherwise expected marks a vocative construction. This is especially prominent in dialects of Hungarian where personal proper names and other personal animate nouns tend to take the appropriate definite article, similarly to certain dialects of German detailed above. For example:
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| (Az) Olivér még beszélget. Oliver is still chatting. |
Olivér, gyere ide! Oliver, come over here. |
| Kiönthette voln’ a honfi megtelt szívét. Might have pour'd the full tide of a patriot's heart. |
Honfi, mit ér epedő kebel e romok ormán? Patriot, why do you yearn on these ruins?[29] |
| A szerelem csodaszép. Love is wonderful. |
Látod, szerelem, mit tettél! O Love, look what you have done! |
| (Az) Isten szerelmére! For the love of God! |
Isten, áldd meg a magyart! God, bless the Hungarians! |
With certain words such as barát ("friend"), hölgy ("lady"), úr ("gentleman, lord"), vocation is, in addition to the zero article, always[30] marked by the first person possessive:[31]
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| A nemesek báljára megérkeztek a hölgyek és az urak. The ladies and the gentlemen have arrived to the nobility's ball. |
Hölgyeim és uraim, kezdődjék a tánc! (My) Ladies and (my) gentlemen, let the dancing begin! |
| Ha az Úr nem építi a házat, hiába fáradoznak az építők. Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. |
Magasztallak Uram, felemeltél engem! I will exalt you, O (my) Lord, for you lifted me out of the depth! |
| A barát mindig segít. A friend always helps out. A barátom fiatal. My friend is young. |
Tudnál segíteni, barátom? Could you help out, (my) friend? |
Words like testvér ("sibling, brother") and other words of relation do not require the first person possessive, but it is readily used in common speech, especially in familiar contexts:
| Nominative | Vocative |
|---|---|
| A testvérek elsétáltak a boltba. The siblings walked to the shop. |
Kedves testvéreim! / Kedves testvérek! (My) dear brothers (and sisters)! |
| (Az) apához megyek. I'm going to dad. |
Apám, hogy vagy? / Apa, hogy vagy? Dad, how are you? |
The second-person pronoun[30] can be used to emphasize a vocation when appropriate: Hát miért nem adtad oda neki, te bolond? ("Why did you not give it to him, you fool?"), Te Karcsi, nem láttad a szemüvegem? ("Charlie, have you seen my glasses?"), Lógtok ezért még, ti gazemberek. ("You shall yet hang for this, crooks!"), etc.
References
[edit]- Eleanor Dickey: Greek forms of address. From Herodotus to Lucian. Clarendon, Oxford 1996, ISBN 0-19-815054-7.
- Eleanor Dickey: Latin forms of address. From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002, ISBN 0-19-924287-9.
- Espinal, Teresa M. 2013. On the structure of vocatives. In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.). Vocative! Addressing between system and performance. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 261, 109-132 Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110304176.109
- Virginia Hill: Vocatives. How Syntax meets with Pragmatics. Brill, Leiden 2014, ISBN 978-90-04-26079-5.
- Hill, Virginia. 2007. “Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface”. In: Lingua 117.12, pp. 2077–2105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002.
- Ladd, Robert D. (1978). “Stylized intonation”. In: Language 54.3, pp. 517–540. DOI:http://www.jstor.org/stable/412785.
- Leech, Geoffrey N. 1999. “The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation”. In: Out of corpora. Ed. by Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 107–118.
- Maché, Jakob. 2025. “The diversity of vocative formation across languages” In: Catalan Journal of Linguistics 24.1, pp. 211–271. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.475.
- Portner, Paul. 2007a. “Imperatives and modals”. In: Natural Language Semantics 15.4, pp. 351–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9022-y.
- Portner, Paul. 2007b. “Instructions for interpretations as separate performatives”. In: On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Ed. by Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler. John Benjamins, pp. 407–426. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.22por
- Stavrou, Melita. 2013. “About the Vocative”. In: The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond. Ed. by Lilia Schürks, Anastasia Giannakidou, and Urtzi Etxeberria. Studies in Generative Grammar 116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 299–342. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.299.
- Zwicky, Arnold. 1974. ““Hey, Whatsyourname””. In: Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. April 19–21, 1974. Ed. by Michael La Galy,Robert A. Fox, and Bruck Anthony. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 787–801. URL: https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf.
- ^ Реформатский А. А. Введение в языковедение / Под ред. В. А. Виноградова. — М.: Аспект Пресс. 1998. С. 488. ISBN 5-7567-0202-4 (in Russian)
- ^ The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), ISBN 0-226-10403-6, s. 5.197.
- ^ "What is the Vocative Comma? Definition, Examples in the Vocative Case". Writing Explained. Retrieved 2022-07-13.
- ^ "Hello, vocative comma". Macmillan Dictionary Blog. 2020-01-06. Retrieved 2022-07-13.
- ^ a b Halmøy, Madeleine (2016). The Norwegian Nominal System: a Neo-Saussurean Perspective. Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:10.1515/9783110363425. ISBN 978-3-11-033963-5.
- ^ Johannesen, Janne Bondi; Garbacz, Piotr (2014). "Proprial articles" (PDF). Nordic Atlas of Language Structures. 1. University of Oslo: 10–17. doi:10.5617/nals.5362. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-29.
- ^ Håberg, Live (2010). "Den preproprielle artikkelen i norsk: ei undersøking av namneartiklar i Kvæfjord, Gausdal og Voss" [The preproprial article in Norwegian: a study of nominal articles in Kværfjord, Gausdal and Voss] (PDF) (in Norwegian). University of Oslo. pp. 26–28. hdl:10852/26729. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-29.
Ved personnamn i vokativ [...] vil den preproprielle artikkelen ikkje bli brukt.
- ^ Holton, David, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Peter A. Mackridge, Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language (Routledge, London and New York:1997), pp. 49–50 ISBN 0415100011
- ^ Shapiro, Michael C. (1989). A Primer of Modern Standard Hindi. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 263. ISBN 81-208-0475-9.
- ^ Kachru, Yamuna (2006). Hindi. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 65. ISBN 90-272-3812-X.
- ^ Miklosich, Franz (1876). Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vol. 3. Wien: W. Braumüller. p. 3.
- ^ Vondrak, Vaclav (1912). Altkirchenslavische Grammatik (2nd ed.). p. 397.
- ^ Bodollová, Květa; Prošek, Martin (31 May 2011). "Oslovování v češtině". Český Rozhlas.
- ^ Filinová, Tereza (9 September 2007). "Pátý pád: jde to z kopce?". Radio Prague International.
- ^ "'Bated,' 'Shod,' 'Boon,' and 7 Other Fossil Words". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2025-03-05.
- ^ Parrott, Lilli (2010). "Vocatives and Other Direct Address Forms: A Contrastive Study". Oslo Studies in Language. 2 (1). doi:10.5617/osla.68.
- ^ Andersen, Henning (2012). "The New Russian Vocative: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology". Scando-Slavica. 58 (1): 122–167. doi:10.1080/00806765.2012.669918. S2CID 119842000.
- ^ Barić, Eugenija; Lončarić, Mijo; Malić, Dragica; Pavešić, Slavko; Peti, Mirko; Zečević, Vesna; Znika, Marija (1997). Hrvatska gramatika. Školska knjiga. ISBN 953-0-40010-1.
- ^ Ivan Klajn (2005), Gramatika srpskog jezika, Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, pp. 50 ff
- ^ Alen Orlić (2011). "Vokativ osobnih imena u hrvatskom jeziku" (in Croatian). University of Osijek. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
- ^ Methodical instructions for learning vocative case in Ukrainian professional speech
- ^ Jiyad, Mohammed. "A Hundred and One Rules! A Short Reference to Arabic Syntactic, Morphological & Phonological Rules for Novice & Intermediate Levels of Proficiency". Welcome to Arabic. Archived from the original (DOC) on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
- ^ "Lesson 5". Madinah Arabic. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
- ^ Álvarez Blanco, Aquilino (2019). "EL ÁRABE YA¯ (یا) Y SU USO EN CASTELLANO MEDIEVAL. PROBLEMAS DE INTERPRETACIÓN Y TRADUCCIÓN". Anuario de Estudios Filológicos. XLII: 5–22 – via Dehesa. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Extremadura.
- ^ Shogakukan. 日本国語大辞典精選版 [Shogakukan's Japanese Dictionary Concise Edition] (in Japanese). Shogakukan.
- ^ 선철, 김 (May 2005). "'꽃아'의 발음". 새국어소식 / 국립국어원.
- ^ 양영희 (2009-12-01). "중세국어 호격조사의 기능 고찰". 사회언어학. 17. ISSN 1226-4822.
- ^ Alberti, Gábor; Balogh, Kata (2004). "Az eltűnt névelő nyomában". A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei. 6 (6): 9–31.
- ^ Makkai, Ádám, ed. (2000). In quest of the 'Miracle stag' : the poetry of Hungary / [Vol. 1], An anthology of Hungarian poetry in English translation from the 13th century to the present in commemoration of the 1100th anniversary of the Foundation of Hungary and the 40th anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 / with the co-operation of George Buday and Louis I. Szathmáry II and the special assistance of Agnes Arany-Makkai, Earl M. Herrick, and Valerie Becker Makkai (Second rev. ed.). Chicago: Atlantis-Centaur. ISBN 963-86024-2-2.
- ^ a b Láncz, Irén (July–August 1997). "A megszólítás nyelvi eszközei Mikszáth Kálmán műveiben" (PDF). Híd. LXI (7–8): 535–543. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
- ^ Albertné Herbszt, Mária (2007). "Pragmatika". In A. László, Anna (ed.). A magyar nyelv könyve (9 kiad ed.). Budapest: Trezor Kiadó. p. 708. ISBN 978-963-8144-19-5.
Vocative case
View on GrokipediaIntroduction
Definition
The vocative case is a grammatical category employed to mark nouns or noun phrases that directly address or call upon a person, animal, or object, serving primarily to attract or sustain the addressee's attention.[6] This case functions as a form of appellation, distinct from other cases in its pragmatic role of establishing or reinforcing interpersonal contact within discourse, rather than indicating core syntactic relations like subjecthood or objecthood.[3] In many languages, the vocative operates outside the standard argument structure of sentences, appearing as an interjection, appositive, or parenthetical element that interrupts or frames the utterance.[7] A key characteristic of the vocative is its morphological variability: it may share identical forms with the nominative case, especially in languages with rich inflectional systems, yet it holds a unique syntactic and discourse function.[8] Alternatively, it can be realized through dedicated suffixes, particles, intonation patterns, or even zero-marking, where no overt morphological change occurs, relying instead on contextual cues for identification.[1] This flexibility underscores the vocative's outlier status among cases, as its primary purpose is not to encode grammatical relations but to facilitate direct communication.[9] Illustrative examples from classical languages highlight these features. In Latin, the vocative of dominus ("lord") is domine, as in the address Domine, quid est? ("Lord, what is it?"), where the form diverges from the nominative to signal direct appeal.[8] Similarly, in Sanskrit, the vocative of rāmaḥ ("Rama") is rāma, used in expressions like he rāma ("O Rama!"), often identical to the nominative stem and functioning as an exclamatory call without altering the sentence's core syntax.[10] These instances demonstrate how the vocative prioritizes identificational and attentional roles over integration into predicate-argument structures, though it may align superficially with the nominative in some paradigms.[6]Grammatical Functions
The vocative case primarily functions to directly address an interlocutor, serving as a means to invoke, call upon, or emphasize the addressee within discourse. This role is evident in contexts such as commands, questions, exclamations, or initiations of dialogue, where the vocative identifies the recipient of the message without contributing to the propositional content of the utterance. For example, in Italian, a sentence like O Gianni, Maria sta abbracciando Pietro! uses the vocative O Gianni to summon attention to the addressee, independent of the clause's argument structure. This conative orientation, directing communication toward the addressee, aligns with Jakobson's framework of linguistic functions.[10][11] Syntactically, the vocative demonstrates notable independence, often detaching from the sentence's core thematic grid and core arguments, allowing it to stand alone or insert into various positions without disrupting grammatical relations. Vocatives typically occupy a peripheral slot in the left periphery of the clause, higher than the Force phrase in the complementizer domain, and can appear sentence-initially, medially, or finally, with prosody or intonation enhancing their salience. In Yemeni Arabic, for instance, yaa ʕali, taʕaal! places the vocative yaa ʕali initially to address the imperative without affecting the verb's subject or object roles. This detachment distinguishes vocatives from integrated nominals, though they may corefer with pronominal arguments like subjects or objects. Exceptions occur in limited cases, such as adjunct roles with specific verbs, but the general pattern underscores their extrasentential quality.[10][12] Pragmatically, vocatives encode interpersonal dynamics, including politeness, familiarity, and emotional tones, while facilitating phatic communication to establish or sustain contact between speaker and addressee. They signal respect through formal titles, endearment via diminutives, or urgency in exclamations, often modulating the relational power or solidarity in the exchange. In languages without a morphological vocative case, dedicated particles perform similar appellative roles, such as the English hey or French hé, which invoke attention without case marking. For example, in Yemeni Arabic, the particle yaa combined with ħabiib (beloved) conveys affection, contrasting with honorific ʔustaað (professor) for deference. This pragmatic layer adds emotive or social nuance, reinforcing the vocative's role beyond mere identification.[11][12] Cross-linguistically, the vocative case exhibits variations in its interaction with gender, number, and honorifics, adapting to encode social and morphological distinctions in address forms. Gender often influences vocative marking, as in Romanian where masculine addressees receive the particle bă(i) and feminine fă(i), or in Somali with gender-specific honorific suffixes like -èey for females and -òw for males. Number alignment varies, with plural vocatives frequently mirroring nominative forms in Indo-European languages, though languages like Dinka use dedicated suffixes such as -ke for plural distal addresses. Honorifics integrate deeply, as in Korean where particles like (y)a denote intimacy for children and i(si)e signal reverence for deities or elders, or in Classical Nahuatl where male speakers employ the vocative -é for polite address while females use prosodic shifts. These features highlight how vocatives tailor address to cultural norms of hierarchy and familiarity across language families.[1]Historical Development
Proto-Indo-European Vocative
In Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the vocative case was primarily used for direct address, serving to call upon or invoke a person, deity, or entity in contexts such as ritual invocations, narrative appeals, and everyday discourse.[13] Evidence for this function is drawn from early daughter languages, including Vedic Sanskrit, where vocatives appear in hymns addressing gods (e.g., ágne "O fire!"), and Hittite, which preserves vocative forms in direct calls within texts.[14] This case marked the addressee without integrating it into the core argument structure of the sentence. Morphologically, the PIE vocative singular was often identical to the bare stem or closely resembled the nominative but lacked its characteristic ending, particularly in athematic declensions where it took a zero ending (*-Ø) (e.g., nominative *ph₂tḗr "father" versus vocative *ph₂ter "O father!").[14][15] For thematic o-stems, the vocative featured the e-grade of the thematic vowel with a zero ending, reconstructed as *-e (e.g., nominative *deiwós "god" versus vocative *deiwé "O god!").[14] In i-stems, it ended in *-i, reflecting the stem vowel (e.g., *dʰéh₁i- "put" stem yielding vocative *dʰéh₁i), while u-stems similarly used *-u.[15] These patterns show stem-specific adaptations, with the vocative prioritizing the root or stem form for emphatic pronunciation in address, as attested in Vedic (e.g., indra from indras) and Hittite (e.g., atta "O father").[15] Plural vocatives were less distinctly marked and often merged with nominative forms, indicating a primary focus on singular usage.[14] Syntactically, PIE vocatives functioned as extrasentential elements, positioned outside the main clause and not serving as arguments or complements to verbs, unlike the nominative or other cases.[13] They could appear at the beginning, end, or medially within a sentence, but lost their inherent accent when not initial, underscoring their peripheral status (e.g., Vedic examples where medial vocatives are unaccented).[13] This detachment allowed vocatives to interrupt or frame the sentence without altering its valency, a pattern reconstructed from Vedic prose and Hittite narrative texts where they invoke participants independently of the predicate.[13]Evolution Across Language Families
The vocative case, reconstructed as a distinct category in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) with forms often identical to the nominative singular for most stems but marked by specific endings in others, exhibited varied trajectories across Indo-European branches following the family's early diversification.[16] In eastern Indo-European branches such as Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, the vocative persisted as a morphologically distinct case, retaining dedicated endings that preserved its function for direct address.[17] Conversely, in western branches like Germanic and Romance, the vocative largely merged with the nominative or was lost entirely, reflecting broader patterns of case syncretism where specialized forms eroded over time.[18] Several factors contributed to the loss or transformation of the vocative in these western branches. Phonological erosion, driven by prosodic shifts such as stress movements and vowel reductions, led to the neutralization of distinct vocative markers, causing mergers with other cases like the nominative.[18] Syntactic simplification further accelerated this process, as languages increasingly relied on word order and prepositions rather than inflectional morphology to convey grammatical relations, rendering the vocative's specialized role redundant.[17] In response, particles emerged as functional equivalents; for instance, English developed interjections like "O" (borrowed from Latin) and "hey" to signal direct address, compensating for the absence of case marking.[1] Outside Indo-European, vocative-like forms developed independently in non-related families, uninfluenced by PIE inheritance. In the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages, such as Georgian, a dedicated vocative case exists with suffixes like -o for direct address, serving a parallel function to the IE vocative but arising from the family's agglutinative morphology.[19] Uralic languages, while rich in cases, typically lack a formal vocative, instead using nominative forms or particles for address.[20] These evolutionary patterns trace back to the divergence of Indo-European branches, which began around 4000–3500 BCE with the early Anatolian split, followed by branches like Tocharian around 3300 BCE.[21] In modern times, colloquial revivals of vocative forms have appeared in some retaining languages; for example, contemporary Russian has innovated a "new vocative" in informal speech, such as shortening names like Máša to Másh for direct address, enhancing expressiveness in everyday interaction.[22]Indo-European Languages
Baltic Languages
The Baltic languages exhibit a notable retention of the vocative case inherited from Proto-Indo-European, with Lithuanian demonstrating the most conservative and distinct forms compared to other branches.[23] In Lithuanian, the vocative remains clearly differentiated from the nominative, particularly in the singular, where it serves to directly address persons or animate entities. Masculine nouns typically take endings such as -e or -i, as seen in the nominative vyras ("man") shifting to vocative vyre. Feminine nouns often employ -e or retain the nominative form with stress adjustment, such as nominative motina ("mother") to vocative motine. This case agrees in gender and number, with plural forms like -ai for masculines and -os for feminines, and it appears frequently in everyday speech for direct address, though it is especially prominent in formal contexts, poetic expressions, and certain dialects where its use is obligatory.[23][24] Latvian, while sharing this Baltic heritage, shows a partial merger of the vocative with the nominative, resulting in less systematic distinction across noun classes. Vocative forms are often derived from the nominative by minor alterations, such as truncating the final consonant in certain masculines (e.g., nominative Mārtiņš to vocative Mārtiņ!) or retaining the nominative for feminines like Ieva!. Historical evidence from the extinct West Baltic language Old Prussian reveals preserved vocative traces, including interjections like O Deiwe ("O God"), which influenced the development of address forms in modern East Baltic languages. In contemporary Latvian, the vocative handles direct address with gender and number agreement, but colloquial usage frequently supplements it with particles such as oi for emphatic or informal calls, alongside the nominative in casual speech.[25][26][27]Slavic Languages
The vocative case in Slavic languages originates from Old Church Slavonic, the earliest attested form of the language family, where it functioned as one of seven distinct cases used for direct address. In Old Church Slavonic, o-stem nouns typically took the singular vocative ending -e, as seen in bogъ (nominative 'god') becoming bože (vocative 'O god!'). This case marked nouns for calling or invoking, with endings varying by stem type, such as -u for u-stems, reflecting Proto-Slavic inheritance.[28] Across Slavic languages, vocative forms often exhibit gender-specific endings, particularly for masculine nouns, where o-stems end in -e (e.g., otĕcъ 'father' to otče) and u-stems in -u (e.g., synъ 'son' to synu). These patterns persist variably, emphasizing direct address in formal or emphatic contexts, though the case has undergone significant reduction or merger with the nominative in many modern varieties due to phonological simplification and contact influences.[28] In East Slavic languages, the vocative has largely syncretized with the nominative in standard grammar, but colloquial forms in Russian informal speech include truncations of feminine names ending in -a, such as Maša to Maš, used as a marker of intimacy or emphasis in spoken usage.[29] Ukrainian retains more distinct vocative endings, with masculine o-stems using -e (e.g., brat 'brother' to brat e) and feminine a-stems often -o (e.g., sestra 'sister' to sestro), employed when calling or greeting individuals.[30] West Slavic languages show greater retention of the vocative, though with regional variation in frequency. Polish requires the vocative for direct address of names and titles, as in Jan (nominative) becoming Janie (vocative 'O Jan!'), a rule upheld in both spoken and written forms to convey politeness or urgency.[31] In Czech, the vocative remains morphologically distinct, particularly for masculine nouns (e.g., pán 'sir' to pane), but its use is declining in casual speech, where nominative forms or particles substitute in informal settings.[32] Slovak parallels Czech in formal retention but exhibits even less frequent application in everyday conversation, often limited to literary or religious contexts. South Slavic languages demonstrate advanced merger of the vocative with the nominative, supplemented by particles for address. In Serbo-Croatian, distinct vocative endings (e.g., -e for masculine o-stems) are archaic or dialectal, with modern usage relying on nominative forms alongside exclamations like hej ('hey!') to attract attention without case marking.[33] Bulgarian preserves the vocative as its sole surviving case, applying endings like -e for masculine (e.g., prijatel 'friend' to prijatel e) and -o for feminine (e.g., majka 'mother' to majko), primarily for personal address in spoken and written language.[34] A shared trend among contemporary Slavic languages is the decline of dedicated vocative forms in informal contexts, driven by Western European linguistic influences and simplification in urban dialects, leading to nominative defaults or pragmatic particles for direct address.[35]Germanic Languages
In Proto-Germanic, the vocative case, used for direct address, was reconstructed primarily in the singular and merged with the nominative early in the language's development due to the weakening of unstressed endings and the fixed initial stress accent, leading to its loss as a distinct category in most daughter languages.[36] This merger is evident in the limited survival of distinct vocative forms only in Gothic, where for ja-stems like atta ("father"), the vocative is identical to the nominative, while in other branches like West and North Germanic, the nominative form generalized for vocative use.[37] By the early stages of the attested Germanic languages, the vocative had effectively disappeared as a morphological category, with standard modern varieties relying on nominative forms or particles for address functions.[38] In English, the vocative merged with the nominative already in Old English, where no separate forms existed, and direct address employed nominative nouns or pronouns, often with weak adjectives for emphasis, as in Hwæt sæġst þū, ierþling? ("What do you say, farmer?") or lēofa dryhten ("dear lord").[39] Modern English retains no morphological cases, using the base (nominative-equivalent) form for vocatives, such as "John, come here," with archaic literary expressions occasionally employing the particle "O" (as in Shakespeare's O Romeo, Romeo!), derived from Middle English interjections influenced by Latin and French vocative markers.[40] This particle serves to highlight emotional or formal address but does not alter noun morphology.[1] Some German dialects preserve vestigial vocative-like features absent in standard High German, which uses nominative forms for address. In Bavarian and Alemannic varieties, a suffix -e appears on masculine nouns in direct address, as in Middle Bavarian Hansä (addressing "Hans") or modern Bavarian Bauere ("farmer!"), reflecting a partial retention of older Indo-European vocative endings adapted to dialectal phonology.[41] Standard German, however, mirrors the nominative merger, employing particles like lieber ("dear") before nouns for vocative effect, without dedicated inflection.[42] Among North Germanic languages, Icelandic maintains a rich case system with four cases (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive) but no distinct vocative, using nominative forms for address, such as guð ("God!") preserving Old Norse nominative morphology.[43] In contrast, continental Scandinavian languages like Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish have largely lost case inflections and employ particles or possessive constructions for vocatives; for example, Norwegian hei, gutt! ("hey, boy!") uses the interjection hei, while predicational vocatives like Swedish din dumma pojke ("you stupid boy") incorporate a second-person possessive pronoun to frame the address, emphasizing familiarity or rebuke.[44] Vocative elements occasionally revive in Germanic literature for archaic or poetic effect, such as Old High German-style endings in medieval German epics or the "O" particle in English Romantic poetry, evoking historical depth without restoring full morphological cases.[45]Celtic Languages
In Celtic languages, the vocative case has undergone significant simplification, merging morphologically with the nominative while retaining functional marking through particles or initial consonant mutations, a process that distinguishes it from the intonation- or zero-marking strategies common in Germanic languages.[46] This evolution reflects broader insular Celtic innovations, such as sound mutations, unlike the particle-based systems derived from Latin in Romance languages.[47] In the Goidelic branch, encompassing Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx, the vocative is typically signaled by the particle a (historically from Proto-Celtic o), which triggers lenition (a form of soft mutation) on the following noun, particularly for proper names and terms of address.[48] For example, in Irish, "Seán" becomes "a Sheáin" when addressing someone named Seán, with the initial s lenited to sh.[49] This construction is formal and prevalent in literature, poetry, and traditional storytelling, as seen in West Kerry folklore collections where vocatives like "a fheara" (O men!) preserve dialectal richness.[50] Historically, Old Irish (c. 600–900 CE) featured distinct vocative endings differing from the nominative (e.g., nominative mac "son" vs. vocative a maccu), but these inflections eroded by Middle Irish (c. 900–1200 CE), leading to reliance on the a particle and lenition for distinction.[46] In Scottish Gaelic and Manx, similar patterns hold, with a prompting lenition, though usage has declined in casual speech outside cultural contexts like songs and narratives.[48] Gender does not alter the mutation type but influences name forms, as female names often end in slender vowels that facilitate lenition.[49] The Brythonic branch, including Welsh, Breton, and Cornish, marks the vocative primarily through soft mutation of the initial consonant, without a dedicated particle in modern forms, though an archaic a once existed.[51] In Welsh, for instance, a common noun like plant (children) mutates to blant in vocative use, as in addressing a group: "Blant, tarwch yma" (Children, come here).[52] Proper names generally resist mutation in contemporary spoken Welsh, but traditional or literary address may apply it selectively (e.g., English loan "David" adapting to mutated Dafydd in context).[51] Breton employs analogous soft mutations for vocatives, such as leniting b to v in names, but this feature is waning amid language shift. Cornish, as a revived language, mirrors Welsh patterns in formal texts.[46] These mutations are especially prominent in storytelling, folk songs, and poetry, where gender-neutral application underscores direct address, though overall vocative marking is less obligatory in everyday conversation compared to Goidelic varieties.[52]Indo-Iranian Languages
In the Indo-Iranian branch, the vocative case is prominently retained in ancient languages like Sanskrit and Avestan, where it serves as a distinct morphological category for direct address, often in ritual and poetic contexts. In Vedic Sanskrit, the language of the Rigveda hymns composed around 1500–1200 BCE, the vocative is formed based on the noun's stem, with specific endings that differentiate it from other cases. For masculine a-stem nouns like deva ("god"), the singular vocative typically mirrors the nominative form deva, but variations occur in i- and u-stems, such as agne (vocative singular of agni, "fire") used to invoke deities in hymns like Rigveda 1.1, emphasizing its role in liturgical address. Stem-based endings include -e for certain consonant stems and -ai for feminine i-stems (e.g., devyai from devī, "goddess"), reflecting Proto-Indo-Iranian inheritance and underscoring the vocative's centrality in Vedic poetry for calling upon divine entities.[53] In Avestan, the sacred language of Zoroastrian texts from roughly the same period, the vocative case exhibits strong parallels to Sanskrit, maintaining a similar declensional system with stem-dependent forms. For instance, masculine a-stems like daēuua ("demon") take a vocative singular daēuua akin to Sanskrit deva, while i-stems use endings like -i or -e, as seen in invocations to Ahura Mazda. This similarity arises from their shared Proto-Indo-Iranian origins, with Avestan preserving the vocative's unstressed nature and use in ritual chants, much like Vedic hymns.[54] Among modern Indo-Iranian languages, the vocative has evolved differently across branches, often shifting from morphological marking to particles or simplified suffixes, influenced by contact and simplification trends. In Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani), a New Indo-Aryan language, the traditional case system has eroded, leaving no dedicated vocative inflection; instead, address is conveyed through particles like arey ("hey") or oy for informal calls, as in arey dost ("hey friend"), with gender agreement in some colloquial forms (e.g., arey ladke for males). These particles derive from older interjections and are used for direct address without altering the noun's form.[55] In the Iranian branch, retention varies by dialect. Avestan-like features persist more in conservative forms, but modern languages show reduction. In Sorani Kurdish (Central Kurdish), there is no distinct vocative, using the nominative form for direct address, as in birak ("O brother!"). In Kurmanji Kurdish (Northern Kurdish), the vocative is marked, typically with -ê for masculine singular nouns, as in birê ("O brother!") from bira ("brother"), adding emphasis or familiarity. Honorifics further modulate these forms, with respectful prefixes or alternatives (e.g., hawalan for "sir" in Kurmanji) influencing address in social hierarchies.[56] Overall, Indo-Iranian languages demonstrate a trend of vocative retention in ancient liturgical varieties like Sanskrit and Avestan, where it supports poetic and ritual invocation, contrasted with modern shifts toward particles in Indo-Aryan (e.g., Hindi-Urdu) and partial suffixation in Iranian dialects like Kurmanji, driven by phonological simplification and honorific conventions.[57] This evolution highlights the branch's divergence from stricter case preservation in other Indo-European families while preserving functional direct address.[58]Hellenic Languages
In Ancient Greek, the vocative case served primarily to indicate direct address, often marked by the particle ὦ for emphasis or politeness, and featured distinct morphological endings depending on declension. For second-declension masculine nouns ending in -ος, the singular vocative typically replaced this with -ε, as in ἀδελφός (adelphos, "brother") becoming ἀδελφέ (adelphé).[59] Similarly, for third-declension nouns like θεός (theos, "god"), the nominative singular θεός shifted to the vocative θεέ (theé), facilitating invocations in religious or poetic contexts. In plural forms across declensions, the vocative generally merged with the nominative, such as ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι (andres Athēnaioi, "men of Athens").[59] The vocative held particular prominence in epic poetry and drama, where it underscored dramatic tension and personal appeals, especially in Homer's Iliad. Homer frequently employed it to address gods and heroes, invoking their attention amid battle or divine intervention, as in appeals to Zeus (Ζεῦ πάτερ, "Zeus father") or Hector (Ἕκτορ διογενές, "Hector, Zeus-born").[60] This usage not only highlighted the hierarchical relationships between mortals, heroes, and deities but also contributed to the oral-formulaic style of the epics, where vocatives integrated seamlessly into hexameter lines to maintain rhythm.[61] During the Koine period, encompassing the Hellenistic era through early Medieval Greek, the vocative underwent partial merger with the nominative, particularly in plural and neuter forms, though distinct singular endings persisted in formal or literary registers. In New Testament Koine, for instance, the vocative often coincided with the nominative for direct addresses like κύριε (kyrie, "Lord"), reflecting a simplification that reduced overt morphological distinctions while retaining functional clarity in speech.[62] This evolution maintained the case's utility for addresses in religious texts and everyday discourse, even as overall case syncretism accelerated.[18] In Modern Greek, the morphological vocative case has largely disappeared, with nouns no longer inflecting distinctly for address; instead, intonation, word order, and particles convey vocative function. Common particles include ρε (re) and its variants like βρε (vre) or μωρέ (moré), which add emotional nuance—affectionate among familiars or emphatic in casual speech—as in φίλε ρε (phile re, "hey friend").[1] These particles, derived from interjections, mark direct address without altering the noun's form, and gender or number may influence their selection for politeness or familiarity.[63] Cypriot Greek dialects exhibit some retention of older vocative forms, distinguishing them from Standard Modern Greek's full loss of inflection. Personal names and certain animate nouns often use vocatives identical to the nominative or shortened in masculine singulars, such as a stem form without final consonants, preserving echoes of Ancient Greek morphology in colloquial usage.[64] This partial conservation reflects Cypriot's conservative features amid broader Hellenistic dialectal convergence.[65]Italic and Romance Languages
In Latin, the vocative case served primarily for direct address, marking the person or thing spoken to, and was morphologically distinct from other cases only in specific declensions. For second-declension masculine and neuter nouns ending in -us or -um, the singular vocative form ended in -e, as in dominus (lord) becoming domine (O lord), while it was identical to the nominative in the plural and for most other declensions, such as first-declension puella (girl) remaining puella.[66][4] This partial distinction reflected its pragmatic role in invoking attention, particularly in oratory and poetry, where vocatives were frequent for rhetorical emphasis, as seen in Cicero's speeches addressing audiences directly.[8] As Latin evolved into the Romance languages, the vocative case underwent significant simplification, with inflectional endings largely lost due to the erosion of the case system overall, leading to reliance on particles, preposed articles, or intonation for marking address.[67] In most Romance varieties, the form converged with the nominative, but contextual cues like rising intonation or discourse particles compensated for the loss, reflecting a shift from morphological to prosodic and syntactic strategies.[1] In West Iberian languages like Spanish and Portuguese, the vocative is generally identical to the nominative, with no distinct endings, though particles such as Spanish ¡o! or Portuguese ó (a contraction of Latin o) may precede the addressee for emphasis, as in Spanish ¡O señor! (O sir!) or informal zero-marking for names like Juan.[68] Informal addresses, especially proper names, remain unchanged, relying on context or intonation to signal direct address.[69] Catalan employs particles like ei or eh to highlight vocatives, often before the noun, as in Ei, amic! (Hey, friend!), while the form itself matches the nominative; French, having fully abandoned case distinctions, uses only nominative forms with intonational contours, such as a rising pitch in Monsieur! (Sir!), without any morphological or particle marking in standard usage.[70][71] Romanian uniquely retains a morphological vocative among Romance languages, adding the suffix -o to feminine nouns ending in -ă or -e, as in fată (girl) becoming fată-o (O girl!), a feature attributed to partial preservation from Latin and possible Slavic influence, though it is increasingly supplanted by nominative forms in modern speech.[72][73] For masculine nouns, it aligns with the nominative, but the feminine marker distinguishes it, often used in emphatic or affectionate calls.[74] In Italian dialects such as Romanesco and Venetian, vocative expressions frequently incorporate particles like guarda (look) or via (go on) for colloquial address, as in Romanesco Guarda, bello! (Look, handsome!), serving to attract attention in informal settings and compensating for the standard Italian's reliance on intonation alone.[75] These particles derive from imperative verbs and vary regionally, enhancing expressiveness in spoken dialects.[76]Other Indo-European Branches
In Albanian, the vocative case is typically formed using the particle o added before or after the noun, often involving a shift away from the definite article form to the indefinite stem, as in burrë (man) becoming o burrë or burrë o to address a man directly.[77] This construction is attested in both Tosk and Gheg dialects, though usage varies regionally, with greater frequency in informal speech.[77] The form is gender-sensitive, employing distinct particles or intonational patterns for masculine and feminine addressees, such as o grua for a woman, reflecting adaptations from Proto-Indo-European vocative markers influenced by Balkan sprachbund dynamics.[1] Classical Armenian lacks a fully distinct vocative case, generally employing the nominative form for direct address, though some nouns, particularly in o-stem declensions, exhibit a specialized ending like -o in earlier texts, as seen in poetic or ritual contexts (e.g., mard-o for "O man").[78] In modern Eastern and Western Armenian, the vocative merges with the nominative but is revived through particles for emphasis or endearment; for instance, the term jan ("soul") is suffixed to names or kinship terms in affectionate address, as in Hayrik jan ("Dear father"), conveying intimacy without morphological alteration.[79] This particle-based system highlights a trend toward analytic structures, possibly under Caucasian substrate influences.[78] Among extinct Indo-European branches, Tocharian partially retains a dedicated vocative as one of its primary cases, distinct from the nominative and oblique, with endings like -e or -i for singular forms in both Tocharian A and B (e.g., ñem-e "O name" in B).[80] This preservation underscores Tocharian's conservative nominal morphology amid broader case syncretism. In the Anatolian branch, Hittite shows limited vocative-like forms, primarily substituting the nominative but occasionally using -ue for u-stem nouns in early texts, such as LUGAL-ue ("O king"), though this is non-productive by the Empire period and often replaced by context or particles.[81] Evidence for the vocative in Illyrian remains sparse due to fragmentary attestation, with no unambiguous forms identified in onomastic or inscriptional data, though potential Indo-European parallels suggest merger with the nominative similar to neighboring branches.[82] Across these peripheral Indo-European branches, a common pattern emerges of vocative merger with the nominative due to phonological erosion and simplification, yet functional revival occurs via particles or prosodic shifts, as in Albanian o or Armenian jan, often shaped by contact with non-Indo-European neighbors like Caucasian or Balkan languages.[78][1]Non-Indo-European Languages
Semitic Languages
Modern Semitic languages generally lack a dedicated vocative case as found in Indo-European languages, instead employing preposed particles or zero-marking to indicate direct address.[83] These constructions serve to summon or emphasize the addressee, often without altering the noun's inflectional case.[84] In Arabic, the primary vocative particle is yā (يَا), which precedes the addressed noun and translates to "O" in English, as in yā rajul ("O man").[85] This particle appears in both Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic, where it typically places the following definite noun in the nominative case, though indefinite nouns may take the accusative.[86] For dual and plural forms, yā agrees in gender and number, such as yā sayyidāni ("O two gentlemen," masculine dual) or yā sayyidāti ("O ladies," feminine plural).[87] The construction is used for emphatic address, particularly in poetry, religious invocations, and formal speech, where it heightens emotional or rhetorical impact.[88] Other Semitic languages exhibit varied vocative strategies. In Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew, vocatives are often unmarked, with proper names standing alone or common nouns retaining the definite article, as in yaʿăqōb ("O Jacob") or hāʾîš ("O man").[89] An exclamatory particle hôy (הוֹי) introduces vocative phrases with a tone of woe or urgency, such as hôy ləʾōmar ("Woe to the one who says").[90] Amharic employs the particle yä- before the noun for direct address, similar to Arabic, as in yä nägä ("O king"), reflecting Ethio-Semitic innovations. In historical Ge'ez, the vocative is marked by the particle ʾo, used to call attention, as in ʾo mäläk ("O king"), though the language retained more robust nominal case distinctions than modern descendants.[91] These vocative particles in Semitic languages often agree with the addressee in gender and number where applicable, enhancing precision in address, and are prominently featured in poetic and liturgical contexts for expressive emphasis.[92] The Arabic yā construction has influenced other Afro-Asiatic languages through Islamic liturgical practices, promoting its adoption in prayer and supplication across the family.[93]Kartvelian Languages
The vocative case in Georgian, the most widely spoken Kartvelian language, functions as one of seven grammatical cases alongside nominative, ergative, dative, genitive, instrumental, and adverbial. It is primarily marked by the suffix -o appended to the nominative form of nouns, particularly common nouns ending in consonants or specific vowel patterns, as in madl-o ('O girl') from madl-i ('girl'). For proper names and nouns ending in vowels, the vocative often employs zero marking, utilizing the bare stem for direct address, such as Levan! to call out to someone named Levan. This case extends to both singular and plural forms, with plurals incorporating -eb-o, exemplified by shvil-eb-o ('O children') from shvil-eb-i ('children').[94] Usage of the Georgian vocative is prevalent in everyday speech for addressing people, kin terms, or titles, and it extends to abstract nouns in expressive or poetic contexts, such as ocnebo ('O dream') from ocneba ('dream') or siqvarulio ('O love') from siqvaruli ('love'). Integrated into Georgian's split-ergative case system, the vocative remains syntactically independent, typically appearing in sentence-initial position or set off by intonation to denote the addressee without altering core argument roles. Historically, it has maintained stability from Old Georgian onward, emerging as a distinct category in the early period (5th–8th centuries) without merging into the nominative, unlike some cases in related families.[95][96] In the other Kartvelian languages—Svan, Mingrelian, and Laz—the vocative exhibits similar morphological strategies rooted in Proto-Kartvelian patterns, including the -o suffix for common nouns and zero marking for proper names or singulars. Svan and Mingrelian largely parallel Georgian, employing -o or bare stems for direct address, often in narrative or poetic discourse, as in Svan examples like dede mi ('O mother of mine') where possessive elements enhance the vocative function without dedicated inflection. Laz retains the vocative partially, with -o marking in some dialects but showing erosion in others due to phonological simplification, aligning with its overall reduction in case distinctions.[97] Across Georgian dialects, the vocative remains robust in rural varieties, where it occurs frequently in informal interactions, but experiences decline in urban centers like Tbilisi, influenced by multilingual contact and leading to truncation phenomena, such as shortening polysyllabic names (e.g., Nino to Ni!). This urban-rural divergence highlights ongoing variation within the Kartvelian family, yet the case's core function for address persists across all branches.[98]Uralic Languages
In Uralic languages, there is no dedicated vocative case, unlike in many Indo-European branches; instead, vocative functions are typically realized through zero-marking of the nominative form, intonation patterns, or dedicated particles and interjections for addressing or calling attention.[1] These constructions reflect the family's agglutinative morphology, where postpositional elements or suffixes occasionally adapt for direct address, particularly in informal contexts, without marking gender—a feature absent across Uralic due to its non-Indo-European origins.[99] Contact with neighboring Indo-European languages has influenced some usages, such as borrowing particles for emphatic calls, but core strategies remain tied to the nominative base.[100] In Hungarian, a Ugric language, vocative expressions employ the unmarked nominative form of nouns, often without the definite article, though possessive constructions may include it for familiarity (e.g., barátom 'my friend!' or a barátom in emphatic address).[101] Particles like hé serve as conative interjections to attract attention, functioning similarly to English "hey" in calls, and are frequently paired with rising intonation contours (L+H*!H-L%) for vocative chants.[102] This particle-based system adapts the agglutinative structure, avoiding dedicated suffixes, and is used primarily for informal summons or endearment.[100] Finnic languages such as Finnish and Estonian similarly lack a distinct vocative case, relying on zero-marking of the nominative alongside particles like hei for greetings or calls to attention, which integrate into discourse without altering nominal inflection.[103] In Finnish, with its 15 cases, historical texts from Old Finnish (pre-16th century) occasionally show traces of vocative-like forms influenced by Scandinavian or Baltic contacts, but these have merged into nominative usage in modern varieties.[104] Estonian follows suit, using unmarked nouns or intonation for address, emphasizing contextual informality over morphological distinction.[1] Among other Uralic branches, Sami languages exhibit occasional vocative-like uses of possessive suffixes, such as first-person singular endings on nouns for intimate address (e.g., in North Sami, adapting -më for "my [kin]!"), though no systematic case exists amid their 7–9 cases.[99] In Mordvin (Erzya and Moksha), partial vocative forms appear in definite conjugations or with kinship terms, where nominative bases combine with objective markers for direct reference, but these are non-productive and context-bound.[105] Mari, another Volgaic language, employs a limited suffix -j attached to nominative kinship nouns (e.g., äča-j 'mother!') for close calls, restricted to intimate or familial contexts within its 9-case system.[1] Overall, these adaptations highlight how Uralic agglutinative systems prioritize particles and postpositions for vocative roles, favoring informal, relational functions over formal marking.[20]Koreanic Languages
In Korean, the vocative particle -아/야 serves as the primary marker for direct address, attached to nouns or proper names to call out to the addressee. This particle takes the form -아 when following a noun ending in a consonant and -야 when following a vowel, as in 민자야 (Minja-ya) for addressing someone named Minja. It is typically optional for human proper names but obligatory for inanimate nouns in vocative contexts, conveying intimacy and informality. Unlike subject particles such as -이/가, the vocative -아/야 triggers morphosyntactic haplology, where an adjacent subject marker -이 is dropped (e.g., 셀린이야 → 셀린아, Celin-a), distinguishing it as a dedicated address form rather than a case marker integrated into nominal morphology.[106] The usage of -아/야 is predominantly casual, employed to address inferiors, equals, or close relations in everyday dialogue, and it is incompatible with formal honorifics or full official names. For more respectful or polite address, alternatives like the suffix -씨 (ssi, akin to "Mr." or "Ms.") or -님 (nim, a higher honorific) are preferred, often combined with names or titles (e.g., 민자 씨, Minja-ssi). This particle appears frequently in spoken Korean, particularly in family or peer interactions, but its application reflects Korea's hierarchical social structure, where direct naming without qualifiers can imply familiarity or even rudeness if misused. Korean lacks grammatical gender, so the vocative operates uniformly across all addressees without sex-based distinctions.[106][107][108] Historically, the -아/야 particle traces back to Middle Korean (roughly 10th–16th centuries), where it functioned as the non-honorific vocative alongside an honorific counterpart -하 (ha), which has since been lost in modern varieties. This system distinguished levels of deference in address, with -아/야 retaining its role for intimate or plain calls. In contemporary Korean, the particle remains distinct from subject or topic markers, though it may interact prosodically in chants or emphatic calls. Dialectal variations are minimal, with the Seoul standard form -아/야 prevailing across major dialects like Gyeongsang or Jeolla, though regional accents may affect pronunciation slightly without altering the morphology. No significant gender-based differences exist in any dialect.[106][109] In modern contexts as of 2025, the vocative -아/야 is prominently featured in Korean media, especially K-dramas, where it underscores casual relationships and character dynamics through frequent, naturalistic dialogue. Productions like those from the 2020s often employ it to depict informal calls among friends or family, enhancing emotional intimacy, though translations into other languages sometimes omit or adapt it due to cultural differences in address norms. This usage mirrors real-life trends toward more egalitarian naming in workplaces and media, influenced by shifting social norms.[108][110][111]Japonic Languages
The Japonic languages, comprising Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages, do not possess a morphological case system, including no dedicated vocative case; instead, vocative functions are realized through sentence-final particles, direct nominal address, and prosodic features like intonation.[112] In these languages, addressing someone typically involves placing the addressee's name, title, or kinship term at the end of a sentence or utterance, often modified by honorific suffixes such as -san (polite address) or -chan (affectionate diminutive), which convey social hierarchy and intimacy. For instance, in modern Japanese, one might say "Sensei!" (Teacher!) to call a teacher, or "Tarō-san, kite kudasai" (Tarō, please come), where the vocative element integrates with politeness levels influenced by context and relationship dynamics.[113] These forms reflect the languages' agglutinative structure, where particles and suffixes handle relational nuances rather than inflectional cases.[112] In Classical Japanese, specific particles marked vocative expressions for direct address in literary texts: よ (yo), や (ya), and こそ (koso), which served to call out to or emphasize the addressee. Examples include "Shōnaigon yo" (O lesser counselor!) using よ for summoning, "Asomi ya" (O noble!) with や for invocation, and "Kitadono koso" (Indeed, the northern hall!) employing こそ for emphatic address. These particles functioned as case markers in the older grammar, attaching to nouns to signal the vocative role, though their usage declined in modern forms.[114] Modern Japanese continues this tradition with versatile sentence-final particles like よ (yo), や (ya), and ね (ne), which draw attention or seek confirmation while facilitating address, as in "Tarō yo" (Tarō!) to hail someone emphatically. Usage is highly contextual, relying on intonation for urgency or affection—rising pitch for questions or calls—and is prevalent in everyday speech, literature, and popular media such as anime and manga, where exclamatory addresses like "Oi, sensei!" heighten dramatic effect. Honorifics further modulate these expressions, with formal titles (e.g., -sensei) used reciprocally in professional settings and casual forms (e.g., first names with -kun) in close relationships, underscoring the social embeddedness of vocative strategies.[115][112] Ryukyuan languages exhibit similar patterns, lacking morphological cases and employing address nouns (e.g., ʔupu 'grandfather', jaka 'elder brother') often with particles or special markers for pluralization in vocative contexts, such as the additive plural -[taa] in Yoron-Ryukyuan (e.g., jaka-[taa] 'elder brothers!'). Archaic forms persist in some varieties, mirroring Classical Japanese particles for summoning, though documentation is limited; intonation and direct nominal placement remain key, as in Okinawan dialects where titles or kin terms end utterances for address. These features highlight continuity with Japanese while adapting to local social structures.[116]Sino-Tibetan Languages
In Sino-Tibetan languages, which are predominantly analytic and lack robust inflectional morphology, vocative constructions typically do not involve a dedicated case marking system. Instead, address forms rely on contextual cues, intonation, or optional particles to signal direct address, often in informal or emphatic contexts such as familial or colloquial speech. This pattern holds across major branches, though specific realizations vary by language and dialect. Mandarin Chinese exemplifies this analytic approach, with no morphological vocative case; nouns or names used for address remain unchanged, and vocative force is conveyed through postposed particles like 啊 (ā) for general exclamation or 呀 (yā) for endearment or familiarity, as in "Xiǎo Míng a" ("Little Ming!") to call a child informally. These particles can be omitted, relying solely on rising intonation to indicate address. Usage is primarily informal, softening commands or expressing affection in everyday interactions, and regional variations occur, such as the particle 欸 (ēi) in southern Mandarin dialects for emphatic or surprised address. Historically, such constructions evolved from exclamatory interjections in Classical Chinese, where direct address often incorporated particles like 乎 (hū) or 哉 (zāi) for rhetorical effect, transitioning to modern colloquial forms through discourse shifts in Ming and Qing periods.[117][118][119] In Tibetan, vocative marking is similarly non-inflectional in Classical and standard forms, where the addressed noun appears in its nominative form, distinguishable only by context or accompanying interjections like ཀྱེ་ (kye, "O!") or ཀྭ་ཡེ་ (kwa ye, "hey!"), as in "Kye lha’i lha" ("Oh, gods of gods!"). Some dialects exhibit occasional suffixes for emphasis, such as -le or -po in certain eastern varieties for respectful or diminutive address, though these are not systematic cases but pragmatic extensions. Burmese follows a comparable pattern, expressing the vocative through the bare noun without affixes, occasionally prefixed with အို (o, "O!") in formal or grave discourse, as in "O shara" ("O teacher!"), emphasizing solemnity rather than constituting a true grammatical case. These particles in Burmese and Tibetan, like those in Mandarin, serve informal or relational functions, such as hailing kin or superiors, with no obligatory marking across the family.[120][121] Such vocative strategies have influenced diaspora varieties of Sino-Tibetan languages, particularly in overseas Chinese communities, where Mandarin particles like ā and yā persist in colloquial address within multilingual settings, maintaining cultural intimacy amid language shift.[122]References
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Grammar_of_the_Burmese_Language
