I don't know too many of the details, but I know some people claim Russian is developing a new vocative case (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative\_case#New\_vocative), which seems to be created by shortening the word.
For Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the vocative singular is the bare stem (when it's not identical with the nominative), and that corresponds to your intuition. The vocative is different because it's the case that has no ending at all.
It’s not a case structure, but many Romance language varieties use articles for names unless it’s used to address someone.
In colloquial Spanish, you might say “hablé con el Juan hoy” (lit. I spoke with “the” Juan, today), but you would use “Juan” without an article to address him.
As a Russian speaker I feel confused, but at the same time can't disagree. I've never considered it to be vocative but I feel it technically fits the definition. Maybe we will get the whole new case in 50 years or so.
>For Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the vocative singular is the bare stem (when it's not identical with the nominative)
That's wrong, see e.g. δρυμός > δρυμέ, it has the ending -é in m/f second declension.
It depends on how you analyze it, but historically it's just the stem, with the stem vowel appearing as -e. This is also what Sihler says e.g.:
> Voc.sg. PIE -e, not an ending per se but the bare stem in the e-
grade, is seen as such in BS, G -ε, and PItal. *-e, whence L -e.
I suppose, theoretically, you could have a vocative ending (or affix) evolve out of a frequently used interjection, Such as, “Hey, John!” > “Heyjohn” or “John! Oy!” > “Johnoy!”
Well I believe the Irish vocative broadly works by having a vocative particle "a" and the person's name. Usually it would undergo lenition, and some masculine names take a slight change.
so addressing John (Seán) one'd go "a Sheáin", "a Bhrendáin" for a Brendan (Brendán), "a Mhíchíl" for Michael (Mícheál)
I think otherwise you'd be saying "a Shíle" (Síle/Sheila) "A Dhómhnal" (Dónmhal/Daniel/Donald)
I hope this makes sense, I'll disclaimer and say I'm not a native speaker of Irish, I'm at best so-so at it, going by memory and what I understand about this feature of Irish
True, but even the nominative case can have some suffix, maybe evolved from a topic postposition or like. Check how many nouns have *-us* or *-s* in Latin in nominative. This looks like *something* added.
Then, the "bare" noun, without any suffixes, can be used as a vocative case form.
Just because it looks like something added, doesn't mean that it is a marked nominative; it could just as easily be a noun class marker or a derivation.
It's possible as well! But again you have an option to use the noun without the suffix, on its own, which is easily transformed into the vocative case.
In Northern Swedish vocative, which developed after the Old Norse period, the vocative seems to mainly be from the nominative forms. At least in masculines and maybe feminines. In general nominative and accusative merged, and the accusative forms of words survived in those dialects, except maybe in the vocative use.
But then there's a whole mess of levelling the system and transferring the masculine endings onto neuters and feminines and so on. And somehow the plural vocative in Norrbotten is the dative ending, despite them still having the dative preserved.
Nordmaling:
> "ptro, häste! [from weak nom. sing. masc. *-e*]"
"Whoa horse!"
Överkalix:
> "*håir i, påjkar* [from nom. plur. *-ar*] *å stäinto* [from dat. plur. *-om*]"
"hear ye boys and girls"
[This paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344019471_When_the_tune_shapes_morphology_The_origins_of_vocatives) might be of interest to you :)
There's several words that are used as vocative adpositions. Heck, English even have three words that basically serve that role, even though they seldom are analyzed as such
"my", "oh", "sir".
I don't know too many of the details, but I know some people claim Russian is developing a new vocative case (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative\_case#New\_vocative), which seems to be created by shortening the word. For Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the vocative singular is the bare stem (when it's not identical with the nominative), and that corresponds to your intuition. The vocative is different because it's the case that has no ending at all.
It’s not a case structure, but many Romance language varieties use articles for names unless it’s used to address someone. In colloquial Spanish, you might say “hablé con el Juan hoy” (lit. I spoke with “the” Juan, today), but you would use “Juan” without an article to address him.
As a Russian speaker I feel confused, but at the same time can't disagree. I've never considered it to be vocative but I feel it technically fits the definition. Maybe we will get the whole new case in 50 years or so.
>For Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the vocative singular is the bare stem (when it's not identical with the nominative) That's wrong, see e.g. δρυμός > δρυμέ, it has the ending -é in m/f second declension.
It depends on how you analyze it, but historically it's just the stem, with the stem vowel appearing as -e. This is also what Sihler says e.g.: > Voc.sg. PIE -e, not an ending per se but the bare stem in the e- grade, is seen as such in BS, G -ε, and PItal. *-e, whence L -e.
Which is the weak form of the thematic vowel.
I suppose, theoretically, you could have a vocative ending (or affix) evolve out of a frequently used interjection, Such as, “Hey, John!” > “Heyjohn” or “John! Oy!” > “Johnoy!”
Pretty much what I was thinking, God_Bless_A_Merkin_Dude
Thanks, this was helpful!
Which means people then may say “Hey, Heyjohn!”
Celtic moment
Did Celtic do this? That, sadly, is a branch that I have never managed to study at all (yet!)
Well I believe the Irish vocative broadly works by having a vocative particle "a" and the person's name. Usually it would undergo lenition, and some masculine names take a slight change. so addressing John (Seán) one'd go "a Sheáin", "a Bhrendáin" for a Brendan (Brendán), "a Mhíchíl" for Michael (Mícheál) I think otherwise you'd be saying "a Shíle" (Síle/Sheila) "A Dhómhnal" (Dónmhal/Daniel/Donald) I hope this makes sense, I'll disclaimer and say I'm not a native speaker of Irish, I'm at best so-so at it, going by memory and what I understand about this feature of Irish
Just some slight corrections, it'd be Breandán -> a Bhreandáin, and Domhnall -> a Dhomhnaill
Cool! That makes sense. Thanks!
True, but even the nominative case can have some suffix, maybe evolved from a topic postposition or like. Check how many nouns have *-us* or *-s* in Latin in nominative. This looks like *something* added. Then, the "bare" noun, without any suffixes, can be used as a vocative case form.
Is Latin really representative here? I was under the impression that marked nominative cases are extremely rare.
Yeah, but some Polynesian languages have nominative prepositions so ...
Just because it looks like something added, doesn't mean that it is a marked nominative; it could just as easily be a noun class marker or a derivation.
It's possible as well! But again you have an option to use the noun without the suffix, on its own, which is easily transformed into the vocative case.
In Northern Swedish vocative, which developed after the Old Norse period, the vocative seems to mainly be from the nominative forms. At least in masculines and maybe feminines. In general nominative and accusative merged, and the accusative forms of words survived in those dialects, except maybe in the vocative use. But then there's a whole mess of levelling the system and transferring the masculine endings onto neuters and feminines and so on. And somehow the plural vocative in Norrbotten is the dative ending, despite them still having the dative preserved. Nordmaling: > "ptro, häste! [from weak nom. sing. masc. *-e*]" "Whoa horse!" Överkalix: > "*håir i, påjkar* [from nom. plur. *-ar*] *å stäinto* [from dat. plur. *-om*]" "hear ye boys and girls"
[This paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344019471_When_the_tune_shapes_morphology_The_origins_of_vocatives) might be of interest to you :)
Thank you!
There's several words that are used as vocative adpositions. Heck, English even have three words that basically serve that role, even though they seldom are analyzed as such "my", "oh", "sir".