In the formation of the vocative case, the consonants alternate [g], [k], [x] - [g], [h], [w]: friend - friend, Cossack - Cossack, Yavtukh - Yavtush.
alternate ts-ch sounds in some nouns with the suffix -ets: lad - lad, but: myslivets - myslivtsyu, unknowing - unknowing.
In the plural, the vocative case is the same as the form nominative case: sisters, brothers.
If the appeal consists of a name and a patronymic, then both words are used in the vocative case: Ivan Vasilovich, Marie Petrivno.
As a rule, both words take the form of the vocative case in appeals like: friend Petre; the surname in circulation always has a form coinciding with the nominative case: shanovny kolego Yurchuk, pane Piletsky.
Adjectives and pronouns in the composition of the address have a form coinciding with the nominative case: the road to Mary, my dear.
hard consonant -a sibilant -a soft consonant -i
II declension
final -o mom, Oksano -e soul -e earth, dawn -yuMarusya, donya -є Mariє, Nadіє, mrіє solid consonant -0 solid consonant -o as a rule, single-syllable -0 with suffixes -ik,
-ok -0
sizzling warp -0 soft warp -0 ultimate warp th -0
- eIvane, Petre, pigeon - at Yurka, dad, uncle
-udidu, sinu
- to a cat, to a sink - to a comrade, to Ivanovich - I forge, to a doctor - togay, Andriy III declension consonant -0 joy, love
!V declension -a
-I
horse
lamb
hard consonant -a soft consonant -i Using the chart above, answer the questions.
Why nouns female mom - mother, dawn - zіrko, donya - donechko, Nadіє - Nadya - Nadіyko have different endings in the vocative case?
Why do single-root masculine nouns have different endings in the vocative case: vovche - vovchik, lad - lad, wind - wind, Іvasyu - Іvasik?
Tee, (konik) crow,
Download and play!
Leave, (Bayda), baiduwati,
Marry my daughter and go and reign.
Oh, (Moroz), (Morozenko), glorious (Cossack)!
Behind you, (Morozenko), all Ukraine is crying.
Mother sent me to the cry:
“Bring, my (donya),
That little water."
Oh, (mama), (mama), (mama)
That little water.
(Girl), (Ribchina), (Chornobrivka) mine,
see, see, see, see sooner until the end...
Kudi їdesh, od’zhdzhaєsh, sizocrylius (eagle),
And who is me, young, up to my heart? Hump up, (girl), to the heart of another,
Don't tell him the truth, that I'm the only one.
Folk creativity.
Rewrite the sentences using the words in brackets in the vocative case.
1. Come from Ukraine, my only (friend), my (soul) pure, faithful (team), tell me, my (dawn), about that Marina. 2. Goodbye, (light), goodbye, (earth), hostility (land).
Forgive me, my (batechko), what I have done! Forgive me, my (blue), my (sokіl) dear! 4. (Dіd, heart, darling), play yaku-nebud. 5. Stay healthy, my high (poplar) and my christening (barvinochok)! 6. Give me, my (mother), that is not for the old, give me, my (heart), that for the young. 7. Oh (Dnipro) my, (Dnipro), wide and arched! Bagato ti, (father), by the sea wearing Cossack blood; you will carry, (friend)! (T. Shevchenko).
Read the expressions of the left and right columns in faces, using the nouns in brackets in the vocative case.
Good day to you, Vitayu, shanovny
(dear friend)! (Vasil Vasilovich, Ivan Pet
Rovich, Mikola Mikolayovich).
Let me feed you, I respectfully listen to you (shanny colleague). (pan professor).
Where are you going, (Petro, To the theater. Walk with us
Andriy, Sergiy, Lesya, (Vira Petrivna, Nadiya Semenivna,
Olya, Mariyka)? Olga Yosipivna).
How do you feel for yourself, Dyakuyu, (likar), already rich
(Semyon Yosipovich, shorter.
Irina Petrivna,
Maria Mikhailivna)?
I beg you, (pan, I accept, (shanovna
bulky, kind), kind)!
help me cross the street.
Read carefully the appeals that Ivan Franko used in his letters. They reflect traditions Ukrainian language in the use of the vocative case. Write down in Ukrainian five appeals to your relatives and friends. Write a short letter to the authors of this manual.
Highly esteemed Pane Professore! (appeal to famous historian, Academician M. Grushevsky). Velmishanovny (shanovny, high respect) goodness! (I. Franko used such appeals, for example, in letters to a famous Ukrainian scientist, public figure M. Drahomanov). Dear friend! Dear pan comrade! Dear pan Bogdana! Affectionate and loving kindness! Highly respected jeweler! Velmishanov's pane editor! Dear friend, great doctor! Highly respected pane philanthropist! Velmishanovna panі dobrodіyko (appeal to friends, acquaintances). My love, dear Olya! My love, Olenko! My star, my heart, my soul! My Olya is dear, my life is Kohane! My love! (referring to the bride). Our dear mother! Anno Road! Dear Taras! (appeal to wife, children). Highly respected gentlemen! (appeal to university youth). Velmishan's father! High respect Father goodness! (appeal to the priests). High Court! Holy Directorate of Police near Lvov (appeal to various organizations).
Read the poems aloud. Write down the nouns and determine their gender, declension, case, number. Learn the poem you like by heart.
Trees
Songs of summer and sun, At the ritual dance.
Raising the valleys uphill, I will rush you, anxious trees,
Kick up to the sky. Іz good children of the eyes!
You are updating your skin. I'm the first day, and the night, and the evenings, and the wounds, I'll spend the rest of my life... Don't forget that your two hands
Ludino! If the tree is hundred-handed No mother can rest in peace. Dove the sky, wind and spring,
* *
How good are those who are not afraid of death, I do not feed, what is my important cross,
What before you, judges, I do not bow In front of the undoubted versions
Who is alive, loving and not picking up filth,
Hate, curse, kayattya.
My people, I will return to you,
Like in death I will turn before life to His suffering and unscrupulous appearances.
Like a son, I will deviate from the ground, I will honestly look at your honesty, and in death I will go to the native land.
V. Stus.
Criticism (both here and abroad) highly appreciated poetic creativity Vasyl Stus (1938-1985), which miraculously survived, for he wrote in prisons and camps under severe supervision and complete defenselessness. The poet created his lines secretly and feverishly, using every millimeter of white space, dreaming that they would somehow get to those who know the value of the human spirit, free thought and talented poetic word. - achieve (something)
Key
1) coat, 2) teachers, 3) tattoo, 4) at home, 5) Vasil, 6) grocery store, 7) Kovalenka, 8) Frank, 9) walking around people, 10) furniture, 11) university, 12) faculty , 13) strong, strong, toothy, 14) tall, 15) candidates, 16) purple ink, 17) strong, 18) scientific, 19) mathematics, 20) coughing, 21) at the funeral.
Read and memorize the expressions!
1) At any cost to achieve,
No price (anyone)
It's priced now
What do you value this thing?
Value good worker
Material values
Valuable gift
Securities
for every price reach, reach (chogos)
prices cannot be folded (to someone)
now the price is high, now the price is high, now the price is high
for how many do you appreciate qiu rich?
tsіnuvati, shanuvati good practitioner
material values
valuable (koshtovny) gift (darunok)
tsіnі paperi Accentuate correctly! Kilim, quarter, parterre, driver, donka, back, smartly, sieve, teapot, catalog, monologue, dialogue, pіzninnya, vchennya.
Comparing the expressions of the first and second columns, construct questions and give answers to them. Use for questions and answers the words and expressions placed in the third column.
NEXT I
Chi you savor ..
Can you make borscht for you?
Wine is savory.
What are you calling on a friend?
Live flour stray
what is porridge?
II
Snack for us ... . Particularly appropriate. Please call me first....
Maybe you have є m "jaso liver ....
Painful...
I love... ІІІ
Lettuce, vegetable salad, radish salad, ribi salad (ribbed salad), tomato salad, sauerkraut.
Tomato soup, capusnyak, broth with lokshina.
Beefsteak.
Vareniki, mlintsi with sir, sirniki; Greek porridge, Vivsyan porridge.
Recently I came across a mention of the fact that there are more cases in Russian than the six that we studied at school. I began to dig further and, in general, counted as many as thirteen of them. This allowed me to deeply feel the essence of the concepts of case and declension, and even more to fall in love with the Russian language.
We more or less “know everything” about six official cases, so I’ll immediately write about what I managed to dig up about the other seven: quantitative-separative, deprivative, expectant, local, vocative, transformative and countable. I will comment on everything without references to sources, because I don’t remember them at all; all this information can be collected bit by bit by slipping the names of cases to Yandex and paying attention to the fact that in the places found it was about the Russian language. In all discussions I will use own feeling language, so I can’t promise absolute correctness, but I hope that all this will be interesting to someone. I would be very glad to competent comments or just the opinions of sympathizers.
quantitative-separating the case is a variation of the genitive, in the sense that it answers its own questions and indicates some of its functions. Sometimes it can be easily replaced by a parent, but sometimes it will sound clumsy. For example, you offer a cup of (whom? What?) tea or (whom? What?) Tea? Note that of the classic six cases, the form "chau" falls under dative(to whom? why?), but here she answers the question of the genitive (who? what?). Some will say that the form "tea" sounds somehow archaic, rustic. Not sure if this is true; I would rather say "tea" than "tea" or reformulate the sentence altogether to use accusative(“Will you have tea?”). Here's another example: "set the heat." Rustic? I think no. And the option "set the heat" cuts the ear. More examples: “pour juice”, “add speed”.
depriving the case is used together with the negation of the verb in phrases like "not to know the truth" (but "to know the truth"), "not to have the right" (but "to have the right"). It cannot be said that in the negative version we use the genitive case, because in some cases the words remain in the accusative form: “do not drive a car” (and not cars), “do not drink vodka” (and not vodka). This case arises only if we believe that any one specific case must correspond to each function of a noun. Then the deprivative case is such a case, the forms of which can correspond to the forms of the genitive or accusative. Sometimes they are interchangeable, but in some cases it is noticeably more convenient for us to use only one of the two options, which speaks in favor of the superfluous case. For example, “not a step back” (meaning “not to do”) sounds much more Russian than “not a step back”.
expectant the case is a rather complicated phenomenon. We can wait (be afraid, beware, be shy) for someone or something, that is, it seems that we must use the genitive case with these verbs. However, sometimes this genitive case suddenly takes the form of an accusative. For example, we are waiting for (whom? What?) Letters, but (whom? What?) Mom. And vice versa - “wait for a letter” or “wait for mom” - somehow not in Russian (especially the second one). Of course, if these forms are considered acceptable, then there is no waiting case, just with the verb wait (and its counterparts) you can use both the genitive and accusative cases. However, if these forms are not recognized as acceptable (which I, personally, tend to), then the waiting case arises, which for some words coincides with the genitive, and for some - with the accusative. In this case, we need a criterion for how to inflect a given word.
Let's try to understand the difference between the expressions "wait for a letter" and "wait for mom." When we wait for a letter, we do not expect any activity from the letter. We are not waiting the letter itself, namely letters, the delivery of a letter, the arrival of a letter, that is, some phenomenon associated with its appearance in our mailbox. Writing plays a passive role here. But when we are waiting for mom, we are not waiting for “the delivery of mom by a taxi driver to the place of our meeting,” but rather mom herself, hoping that she will hurry to arrive on time (while it is quite possible that she will use a taxi). That is, it turns out that if an object expressed by a noun can influence its own appearance, then we are waiting for it in the form of an accusative case (it will be “guilty” if it is late), and if the object itself cannot do anything, then we We are waiting in parental form. Perhaps it has something to do with the concept of animation? It may well be, it happens; for example, in the accusative case there is also a similar effect - for inanimate objects in the second declension, it coincides with the nominative ("sit on a chair").
Local case is the most understandable of all special cases. It exists, it is used by each of us, its forms are obvious, they cannot be replaced by other words, and therefore it is very strange that it is not included in school list. The prepositional case can be divided into two functions (there are more, but we will ignore this): an indication of the object of speech and an indication of the place or time of the action. For example, you can talk about (whom? what?) Square, and you can stand on (whom? what?) Square, think about (whom? what?) room and be in (whom? what?) room. The first case is called "explanatory case" and the second case is called "local". For the square and the room, these forms do not depend on the function. But, for example, at the nose, forest, snow, paradise, years - they depend. We talk about the nose, but the weekend is on our nose; we think about the year, but the birthday is only once a year. You can't walk in the forest, you can only walk in the forest.
The funny thing is that here it is not the preposition that controls the case, but the meaning. That is, if we come up with a construction with the preposition "in", when being in the corresponding place is not meant, we will definitely want to use the explanatory, and not the local case. For example, "I know a lot about the forest." If you say “I know a lot about the forest”, then it immediately seems that you know a lot only when you are in the forest, and, moreover, you forgot to say what exactly you know a lot about.
Vocative case is used when referring to an object, pronounced noun. AT different sources two sets of examples are given. One group includes short forms names used only when addressing (Vas, Kol, Sing, Len, Ol) and some other words (mom, dad). Another group includes obsolete (female) or religious (God, Lord) forms of address. I don't like the idea of taking this as a case, because it doesn't seem to me that the resulting word is a noun at all. Therefore, by the way, possessive in Russian it is not a case, since the words "Vasin" or "mother" are not nouns, but adjectives. But what is the part of speech then "Ol"? Somewhere I met the opinion that this is an interjection, and, perhaps, I agree with this. Indeed, "Ol" differs from "hey" only in that it is formed from the name "Olya", but in fact it is just an exclamation aimed at attracting attention.
transformative case (also inclusive) is used in phrases like "went to astronauts" or "ran for president." At school, we were told that all cases except the nominative are indirect, but this is a simplification; the essence of indirection is not entirely in this. The word is put into one of the indirect cases when it is not the subject. AT English language there is only one indirect case, which is why it is sometimes called “indirect”. Its forms differ from direct only in a few words (I/me, we/us, they/them, etc.).
If, analyzing the phrase "he went to astronauts", we will assume that "cosmonauts" are plural, then we need to put this word in the accusative case, and it turns out that "he went to (who? What?) Astronauts." But they don’t say that, they say “he went to the astronauts”. However, this is not a nominative case for three reasons: 1) there is a preposition before “cosmonauts”, which does not exist in the nominative case; 2) the word "cosmonauts" is not a subject, so this case should be indirect; 3) the word "astronauts" in this context does not answer the questions of the nominative case (who? what?) - you can’t say “who did he go to?”, Only “who did he go to?”. Therefore, we have a transformative case that answers the questions of the accusative, but the form of which coincides with the form of the nominative in the plural.
counting case occurs when using some nouns with numerals. For example, we say “during (whom? What?) Hours”, but “three (whom? What?) Hours, that is, we use not the genitive, but a special, countable case. As another example, the noun "step" is called - supposedly, "two steps". But I think I would say “two steps”, so it is not clear how correct this example is. independent group examples are nouns formed from adjectives. In the counting case, they answer the questions of the adjectives from which they originated, and in the plural. For example, “there is no (whom? what?) workshop”, but “two (what?) workshops”. Note that the use of the plural here is not justified by the fact that there are two workshops, because when we have two chairs we say “two chairs”, not “two chairs”; we use the plural only starting with five.
Total. Of all these tricky cases only local and transformative seem to me full-fledged. Waiting also makes some sense, since I don’t like waiting for the “weather” by the sea. Quantitative-separative and deprivative are too slippery and can often be replaced by a genitive, so they can be considered simply options that are preferred in certain cases. I am not ready to consider the vocative as a case at all, because, as I said, it does not seem to me that "uncle" is a noun. Well, and countable - the devil knows. The effect with nouns formed from adjectives can be considered just a glitch of the language, and there seems to be only one example with the hour.
Search
vocative
| Cases |
|---|
|
| Cases in Russian |
|
| Other cases |
|
Abessive (Privative). Ablative (Original) . Absolute Aversive (Evitative).. . Adessive. Allative. . . . Vialis. ( English) . . . (English) ((English)) . Illative. . Inessive Instruction. ( English) . . Caritive. Comitative. ( English) . . (English) . . (English) . . . Possessive . . . (English) ((English)) . Longitudinal (Prosecutive).. Prolativ. ( English) . . . . . . Sublative. . . . . . Translative. . . . Elative. Ergative. Essive (( English) . (English)) |
| Cases in other languages |
|
Czech. ( English) . Deutsch. ( English) . (English) . (English) . (English) . (English) |
Vocative case, vocative form, vocative(lat. vocativus) — special shape name (usually a noun) used to identify the object being referred to. The name of this form "case" is conditional, because in a strictly grammatical sense, the vocative form is not a case.
Historically, the vocative form was an element of the Indo-European case system and existed in Latin, Sanskrit, and ancient Greek. Although it was subsequently lost by many modern Indo-European languages, some languages have retained it to our time, for example, Greek, Romany, many Slavic languages \u200b\u200b(Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) and some Celtic languages \u200b\u200b(Scottish and Irish) , Baltic languages (for example: Latvian and Lithuanian). Of the Romanesque, the vocative form survived only in Romanian. It is also present in some non-Indo-European languages such as Arabic, Georgian, Korean and Chuvash.
In the Indo-European language
The vocative case in the Indo-European proto-language had only words singular(although in Sanskrit the vocative case also exists for the plural) masculine and feminine. Neuter gender, as a descendant of an inanimate family, could not have a vocative case. From the very beginning of Indo-European studies, it was noted that the Proto-Indo-European forms of the vocative case in most cases have a zero ending and represent a pure stem. The stems in *o and *a also have a special alternation of the last vowel of the stem: (Greek νύμφη - νύμφα!; Λύχο-ς - λύχε!). At the same time, the ending of the vocative case characteristic of the bases on *o - e, became the most characteristic and widespread: it alone survived from the forms of the vocative case in Latin (lupus - lupe!), And it is also the most common, well-known and partially preserved in the language memory form in Russian (wolf!). Declension into a consonant did not have a special vocative form. But it is assumed that the Indo-European vocative case was also distinguished by a special accentuation (the emphasis was transferred to the first syllable: oh, mother! = Skt. mâtar, Greek. μήτερ).
By latest research, vocative in Indo-European reconstructed as follows:
Thematic nouns (stem on - *o -)
On the example of the word "wolf"
Base on - *a -
On the example of the words "horse" (for Sanskrit), "hand" (for Old Church Slavonic and Lithuanian)
Base on - *u -
On the example of the word "son" (for the Greek πῆχυς "forearm")
Base on - *i -
On the example of the words "sheep" (for Sanskrit, ancient Greek and Lithuanian) and "guest" (for Old Church Slavonic and Gothic)
Proto-Slavic, Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages
In the Proto-Slavic language, the vocative case had nouns first four declensions; declensions in i.-e. occlusive (mother, lamb) and i.e. short u (kams, rhemes) did not have a vocative form. In declensions in i.u. long - *u - and in i.-e. - *i - the vocative form retained the form of the Indo-European stem (son! guests!), in the declension to - * o - the ancient ending -e was preserved (husband! elder!). In general, in Proto-Slavic, and after it Old Russian and Old Slavonic, the vocative case was formed as follows:
- Ancient stem in *-ā-:
O after a hard consonant, -e after a soft one: woman! sister! soul! de vice!
- Ancient base on *-o-:
E after a hard consonant, th after a soft one: old! father! horse! Igor!
- Ancient stem on *-u-:
W: honey! son!
- Ancient stem on *-i-:
I: night! the lights! God!
In the process of inflection, there was an alternation of consonants according to the first palatalization: k - h (human - human), g - f (god - god, friend - friend), x - sh (vlah - vlashe).
Modern Russian
The vocative case begins to die out quite early: already in the Ostromir Gospel (XI century), its confusion with the nominative is recorded. as show birch bark letters, in the XIV-XV centuries. it was preserved solely as a form of respectful address to persons of a higher social rank: mister! mistress! prince! brother! father! To mid-sixteenth in. he finally disappeared from living speech, remaining only in the forms of addressing the clergy ( father! lord!) . Until 1918, the vocative case was formally listed in grammars as the seventh case of the Russian language. Nowadays, the loss of the idea of the vocative case leads to the fact that in live speech the archaic forms of the vocative case are often used as nominative: “Father told me yesterday”; "Vladyka Dosifey preached a sermon". This causes indignation among the zealots of the purity of the language, who call for the complete abandonment of vocative forms.
In modern Russian, it exists in the form of several archaisms, for the most part included in phraseological units and other speech formulas, or passed into the category of interjections ( God, creator, God, Jesus, Christ, lord, metropolitan, older, father, son, brother, friendlier, prince, human and others). Sometimes found in the literature or for the purpose of archaization ( “… what do you want, old man?”- Pushkin), or in quotations from Church Slavonic texts and prayers ( "King of heaven, save me..."- Lermontov), or to "Ukrainize" the speech of Ukrainian heroes ( "Turn around, son!"— Gogol; "Where are you from, man?"- Bagritsky). However, regular and normative usage this grammatical form in Church Slavonic, which is official language worship in Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the appearance of such texts in new religious texts in Russian, including (services, akathists, prayers, troparia to the newly glorified saints), affects the speech of modern Orthodox believers, in connection with which we can note the activation of the archaic vocative form. An analysis of modern hymnographic texts written in Russian indicates that the vocative form is consistently used when addressing, violating grammatical norm but keeping the tradition. Moreover, in the old-calling form, not only proper names are used, but also inanimate names common nouns, such as wall, rule, image, protected, river, meal, praise, pillar, lampado, stone, nivo, bridge and others.
At the same time, sometimes "modern vocative"(or "innovative") word forms with a zero ending of nouns of the first declension are understood as Mish, Linen, Tan, Marin, granny, mom, dad etc., that is, coinciding in form with the plural declension genitive, but in other cases one uses special ending: Tanyush, Vanyush etc. The status of this form of the word is still the subject of controversy among scientists: some tend to single out such a form as a separate grammatical category, some are against it.
Also, such colloquial forms of address as “son”, “daughter”, “grandfather”, “granddaughter” can be considered as a vocative. [source not specified 57 days] .
Ukrainian language
AT Ukrainian grammar vocative ( nickname vodminok, previously common form) is preserved for the first, second and third declensions.
In the first declension, the endings -о, -е, -є, -ю are used: mother — mamo, Earth — earth, Maria — Mary, granny — granny.
In the second declension, the endings -y, -u, -e are used: father — dad, Andriy — Andriy, Dmitro — Dmitre.
In the third declension, the ending -e is used: nothing — at night. However, third declension nouns are usually inanimate and are not used in the vocative case.
The word "pan" (master) has a vocative case and in sp. the plural is “Panov”, which corresponds to the Russian address “lord”. This happened due to the borrowing of the Polish form of the nominative case plural as an address. hours from pan - panowie.
Belarusian language
Usually in the modern Belarusian language (the so-called "People's Commissar" or the official version) there is no separate vocative case. In fiction (for example, in Korotkevich), the vocative case has been preserved.
Proponents of the "classic" version Belarusian language(tarashkevytsy), on the contrary, usually emphasize the vocative case as distinguishing feature Belarusian language from Russian.
Examples: Brother - brother, son - son, Ivan - Ivan.
Polish language
AT Polish vocative case (usually referred to as the "vocative form", wolacz) is preserved for all masculine and feminine singular nouns. However, in real modern language usage, especially in oral speech, it dies off and is often used only in frozen phraseological units. However, in the official business correspondence it is preserved as a sign of respect for the partner, which is a direct analogy with limited use vocative in the Russian language of the XIV-XV centuries.
The first declension (masculine, in the nominative case ends in a consonant), according to the solid version, ends in - "e, with softening and / or alternation of the final consonant of the stem: chlop — clopie!, people — people!, author — autorze!(Exceptions: dom — domu!, syn — synu!, dziad — dziadu!, i.e. mostly words of the former declension with I.-e. basis for a long u). A similar ending is observed in words with a stem on -ec, for example chlopiec — chlopcze!. If the final sound of the base is soft, back-lingual ( -k, -g, -ch) or hardened ( -rz, -cz etc.) - ending -u: koń — koniu!, robotnik — robotniku!, patalach — patalachu!, piekarz — piekarzu!(Exception: God — Boze!).
The second declension consists of neuter nouns and therefore does not have a special vocative form. Third declension (masculine in -a, -o, feminine on -a, -i) usually -o: zona — Zono!, poeta — poeto!; affectionate forms — -u, eg. babcia — babciu!, Kasia — Kasiu!; forms with an ending -i do not have a special form, for example. pani!, gospododyni!.
The fourth declension (feminine, in the nominative case ends in a consonant) ends in -i: Crew — krwi!.
Bulgarian language
Other Slavic languages
Like modern Russian, the vocative case is not used in Slovenian and Slovak, with the exception of a number of stable and partially obsolete phraseological units.
Latvian
AT Latvian the vocative case is important to remember for I, II, III and IV declensions.
For example:
For V, VI cl. the vocative case is formed only when the word has a diminutive suffix; when it is formed, the ending is discarded. For example: Ilze — Ilz it e-Ilz it!, zivs - zivt in a-zivt in!
Latin language
In Latin, the vocative case (casus vocatīvus) of nouns coincides with the nominative in all cases, except for one: if the noun of the second declension of the singular in I.p. ends in -us, then in the vocative case it will end in -e: I.p. barbarus (barbarian) - Sv.p. barbare. Moreover, if the stem of a noun ends in -i (that is, the noun ends in -ius), then in the vocative case it has a zero ending: I.p. Demetrius, Sv.p. Demetri.
The vocative case of the pronoun meus (my) is mi: mi fili(appeal "my son")! Exists special word o, which is used in the call. It can be considered an indicator of the vocative case.
Georgian language
On the example of the word კაცი (rus. human) for both noun declensions:
Notes
Links
- Vocal case // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
Wiktionary has an article "vocative"
The vocative case in the Indo-European proto-language had only words of the singular (although in Sanskrit the vocative case also exists for the plural), masculine and feminine. The neuter gender, as a descendant of an inanimate gender, could not have a vocative case. From the very beginning of Indo-European studies, it was noted that the Proto-Indo-European forms of the vocative case in most cases have a zero ending and represent a pure stem. At the bases on *about and *a there is also a special alternation of the last vowel of the stem: ( Greekνύμφη - νύμφα!; Λύχο-ς - λύχε!). At the same time, characteristic of the bases on *about vocative ending -e, has become the most characteristic and common: it is the only form of the vocative case in Latin (lupus - lupe!), and it is also the most common, well-known and partially preserved form in the Russian language ("wolf!"). Declension into a consonant did not have a special vocative form. But it is assumed that the Indo-European vocative case was also distinguished by a special accentuation (the emphasis was transferred to the first syllable: “Oh, mother!” = Skt. matar, Greek μήτερ) .
According to the latest research, the vocative case in the Indo-European language is reconstructed as follows.
Thematic nouns (based on -*o-)
For example, the word "wolf":
Basis on -*a-
On the example of the words "horse" (for Sanskrit), "hand" (for Old Church Slavonic and Lithuanian): Sound.
Basis on -*i-
On the example of the words "sheep" (for Sanskrit, ancient Greek and Lithuanian) and "guest" (for Old Church Slavonic and Gothic).
Cases are known to serve to organize words into a sentence. Wikipedia writes about it this way: Case in languages of an inflectional (synthetic) or agglutinating system is a category of a word (usually a name) that shows it syntactic role in a sentence and linking individual words suggestions. Cases are called both the functions of words in a sentence and the forms of words that correspond to them. The term case, like the names of most cases, is a tracing paper from Greek and Latin - other Greek. ptῶσις (fall), lat. casus from cadere (to fall). Allocate direct case (nominative and sometimes also accusative) and indirect cases(rest). This terminology is associated with antique performance about “declension” (declinatio) as “deviations”, “falling away” from the correct, “direct” form of the word, and was supported by associations with a game of dice (where one or another side falls out at each throw - in this case one "direct" and several "indirect")».
Table of contents:
- Regarding the vocative case. This is just quite a case, especially in terms of proper names. So, for example, in the Ukrainian language, which is very close to Russian, the “oklichny” (oklychny) case is included in the group of main cases (accordingly, the main ones are 7) and is mandatory for use. For example: Oleg - Olezh. But in Russian, he did not take root. But anyway, this is not another noun, but still a case».
Ilya Birman. " I have nothing against address, against the fact that they differ from mere names. I say that this word is not a noun, and, therefore, the use of the word case is not entirely correct».
Discussion.
In my opinion, when discussing the problem, the distinction between oral and written language was lost. Therefore, I will give a note “Oral, written language" from " encyclopedic dictionary philologist” dated May 28, 2008 (http://slovarfilologa.ru/227/).
« The sound is the best natural form the existence of the language for a long time was the only one. The language was only spoken. But such speech is momentary, it sounds only “here” and “now”. The need to transmit speech at a distance and store it on long time led to the invention of writing - written speech appeared. At first the written language was only writing sounding speech, "stopped moment". Then it turned out that the difference - to sound and to be written - is so huge, its consequences were such that it became possible to talk about two languages - predominantly sounding, oral, and predominantly written. Written language is more capacious for intellectual information, oral - for expressing emotions, moods, relationships. Actually, the linguistic differences between written and oral speech are, first of all, syntactic differences. Oral language does not tolerate difficulties, but it cultivates innuendo. Written, on the contrary, requires complete utterance and, moreover, coherence, therefore, it allows a variety of inclusions, attachments, explanations. But most importantly, the written language required the establishment of rules for writing and reading. Thanks to him, grammatical arts arose in the names we are used to - spelling, punctuation. An indispensable property of a written language is the obligatory norms prescribing how to write and read».
In my opinion, the author exaggerates the opposition too much. There are also rules on how to speak. But both those and other norms are invented by the people, while linguists only identify and describe them. True, in recent times linguists began to take on the role of judges and even legislators. But I will continue quoting. " The very laws of oral and written communication are different. Therefore, even in the same situation, it is almost impossible to say and write the same way. This is how it is played out in a letter from the playwright A. N. Ostrovsky to his friend N. A. Dubrovsky: “Nikolka! Why don't you lead Vetlitsky, and where the hell are you yourself? Will you listen to me? Well, you wait! You can’t write like that, I just thought that, but you need to write like this: “Dear Sir Nikolai Alexandrovich, would you like to welcome me today directly from the office to the dinner table, which will greatly oblige A. Ostrovsky, who deeply respects you and devoted».
Here, however, it is not so much the difference between written and oral speech that is played up, but different ethical situations: the difference between the ordinary form of address and the official one. After all, in the end, both of these appeals were drawn up in writing by Ostrovsky!
« The distribution of spheres between oral and written language is essential not only for communication, but also for culture. possessions spoken language- folklore, propaganda, rumors. Everything else is politics, science and learning, fiction in all its genre richness - is served by written language. So, in the very simple case the relationship between oral and written language is similar to the relationship between an object and its reflection. In more difficult situations the symmetry of these relationships is broken. At the same time, there may be “objects without reflection” - dialects, vernacular, unwritten languages. There are also “reflections without an object” - these are Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin and other dead languages».
In my opinion, there is a certain simplification here. Dead languages exist in writing, while dialects, some socialects, slang, vernacular, unwritten languages exist in oral. Let us note, however, that Latin may well develop even today in the writings of Catholic theologians.
Simply, we are accustomed to the fact that, according to social requirements, the written language has become preferable, and when we say the word "language", we mean its written variety. Observations of linguists are directed primarily here. In oral speech, many prohibitions of linguists do not have much force, and it does not matter to a person how to write: HEAR, HEAR or even HEAR, since the last vowel in this word is pronounced reduced. But phonetic spelling exists in a small number Slavic languages, for example, in Belarusian and Serbian. Simplifying writing, this spelling (i.e., specific way translation of spoken language into written language) complicates understanding.
Note that language borrowings from foreign languages in our time are mostly carried out in writing, so that the task of creating secondary oral speech arises - through reading. From here arose special science(a specific way of translating written speech into oral speech) - orthoepy.
As for the vocative case, as a result of discussions, Ilya Birman himself came to the conclusion that we have one of the forms of address before us. Is the form "KOL! MASH! Vasya! noun? One of the features of nouns is the ability to match them with an adjective. Is it possible to say DEAR KOL or DEAR MASH? - Not today. Therefore, these forms can hardly be considered nouns. And if so, then the concept of case does not apply to them.
Wikipedia has devoted a special article to conversion, "Forms of Address": " Form of appeal is a word or combination of words that names the person to whom the speech is addressed. It is in the nominative case and can be placed anywhere in the sentence. in various languages and social cultures exist various forms appeals. In organizations involved in any professional activity, the form of address is determined by law, charter or corporate policy, which may be unique to a particular organization».
Further, the forms of appeal to “You” and “You” are traced. " The most common distinction is between formal and informal. Officially, formal address in modern Russian is made with the use of the second person plural pronoun "You", addressed to the respondent in sole person. In written speech, the pronoun "You", addressed to a specific interlocutor, is written with capital letter. Addressing using the pronoun "you" is considered informal. For brevity, a formal appeal is often called “an appeal to you”, an informal one, respectively, “an appeal to you”, although this is not entirely correct and does not always correspond to reality.».
There is another, more formal form of address, for example, "Comrade Colonel" or "Your Honor" (appeal to the judge). For some reason, it is not marked in this Wikipedia article and, apparently, has not been fully explored by linguists.
Further, the emergence of forms on "you" and "you" is considered. By default, it is assumed that the form on "you" was the original one. " It is believed that the appeal to you first began to be applied in relation to the Roman emperors, in connection with the presence of several persons in power at the same time (see Tetrarchs). Sometimes the plural is considered a very ancient metaphor for power and authority. In Russian, the appeal “to you” gradually came into use from the 18th century due to strong influence French and culture, especially in the circles of the aristocracy. There are theories that originally "You" was an appeal to the enemy. Prior to that, traditional Russian was used speech etiquette with its own system of familiar and formal addresses. Thus, the pronoun "you" could even be addressed to the king: "you, king-father ...". The "Petition" (Petition of workers and residents of St. Petersburg to submit to Nicholas II) also uses "you", addressed to Tsar Nicholas II».
In this passage, there is no fairy-tale material, where it was usually said: "You, the king-father." On the other hand, children addressed their parents and spouses addressed each other with “you”, probably before the 18th century, but this layer has not been studied by linguists (or the author of the Wikipedia article).
« In English, starting from the 15th century, the appeal “to you” (English you) was almost universally accepted. As a result, the normative forms of pronouns of the second number ceased to differ, thus, the appeal "to you" disappeared from English as an independent form. The exception is archaic or poetic speech: religious texts, prayers (when referring to God), poems where the pronoun "you" is used (eng.thou) ».
Wikipedia also highlights a special "related" form of address: " Contact form associated with family relations, implies a mention marital status(father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt)". However, there is no correlation of these forms with the forms for “you” and “you”. Meanwhile, the younger ones addressed the elders with “you”, while the older ones addressed the younger ones with “you”. But this was until the twentieth century, when gradually the appeal to “you” between relatives disappeared. And in some European countries, for example, in Spain, recently strangers they ask to address them as “you”, because then they seem to rejuvenate, become peers of the young participants in the conversation.
In addition, the form of address of parents to children is not shown, where diminutive versions of the name or words of kinship prevail: son, docha, Gosh, Masha, Mashulya, Natulya, Irisha, Vanechka, etc.
There is also an “underlined-familiar” form of address: “ The form of address associated with the degree of friendly relations implies a simplification or stylized mutation of names (Mikhail - Misha, Mikhon; Pavel - Pasha, Pashok, Pashka; Natalia - Natasha, Natusya, Tusya, etc.), the formation of derivatives from the name, surname or patronymic (Pavlovich - Palych, Alexandrovich - Sanych, etc.) There are also - as a rule, on the basis of friendly relations - humorous options, in which the formation is also made from the first name, surname or patronymic (Arthur - Arturishe, Tsapkin - Tsap- Tsarapkin, Stepanovich - Stepanych - Stakanych (mentioned in the movie Parade of the Planets), etc.). The underlined-familiar form of address is common mainly among the older generation, who use it when referring to their closest acquaintances and friends. Among the younger generation, it is often considered rude and incorrect, sometimes "gopnicheskoy"; in such groups, rude, emphatically simplified and “mundane” addresses are considered acceptable, akin to nicknames (Khripunov - Khriply or Khripaty, etc.)».
The term "emphatically familiar" is, in my opinion, inaccurate. After all, familiarity refers to unmotivated friendly relations. And in this case, it is the friendly component of relations that is emphasized, so it would be better to call these relations “emphasized friendly”. Even with outwardly "mundane" nicknames from surnames.
And it is precisely in this category of “emphatically friendly” forms of address that truncation of the name can be included, so that a kind of paradigm is formed: Mikhail Ivanovich-Mikhail-Misha-Mish!, Pavel Petrovich-Pavel-Pasha-Pash! and etc. Hence, instead of the “vocative form of the case”, it makes sense to speak of the “vocative form of address”.
It goes on to say " social form» appeals. “A form of address associated with civil, social, political or professional status or rank (citizen, comrade, sir, mister, colleague, doctor, soldier, warrior, etc.) with possible combinations (for example: comrade major).” There is no detail of this form of address, associated with the forms of address of the elder on the social ladder to the younger, which existed before the 20th century: “man!” (to the sex in the tavern), "dearest!" (to the driver), "Vanka, Masha!" (to the serfs), etc.
The “inflated” form of address is not distinguished, for example, “doctor!” to any physician, even a paramedic, as if he were a doctor medical sciences, "Chief! commander!" to a taxi driver who is not a commander for the client, “chief!” to any Russian worker from the side of a worker-guest worker, “father!” or "mother!" when referring to any cleric, "sister" or "brother" when referring to nurses, "girl!" when contacting an elderly saleswoman, etc. AT German the waiter, who is called Kellner, is called HerrOber!, "Mr. Senior!", implying that he is the "head waiter" (Oberkellner).
But the “gender form” stands out: “The form of address associated with gender (man, woman, girl, young man, citizen, citizen, etc.)”. Here one could add the appeals “boy” and “girl”, as well as “mother”, “father” when referring to older people. In the same category, I would also include the “anti-gender form” of address identified by the author of the Wikipedia article: “A form of address that is emphatically unrelated to gender (friend, comrade, etc.).” This also includes the appeals "Stakhanovite", "party member", "front-line soldier" and a number of others.
The subsection “In Russia” stands out in particular: “In formal address, the name and patronymic are used ( Elena Sergeevna), when informal - only the name, often its diminutive forms ( Elena or Lena). In a formal address, a surname or position or title can also be used in combination with one of the address words ( mister, comrade etc.): Mr. Ivanov, Mr. President, comrade major. AT Russian army appeal comrade has been preserved since Soviet times.
There is also an addition: After the collapse Soviet Union many Russian organizations have chosen to address by name as a form of address, as is customary in many English speaking countries. However, according to the rules contemporary business language, formal address is considered correct. That is, by name and patronymic».
From the discussion of this article on Wikipedia, it can be seen that address is a special form of a sentence. A close understanding gives the Dictionary linguistic terms(website http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lingvistic/appeal), which notes: “Appeal is a word or combination of words that names the person (less often the subject) to whom the speech is addressed. Appeals are proper names people, names of persons by degree of kinship, by position in society, by profession, occupation, position, rank, national or age sign, according to the relationship of people, etc .; names or nicknames of animals; names of objects or phenomena inanimate nature, usually in this case personified; geographical names etc. Do not sing, mower, about the wide steppe(Koltsov). A young mare, an honor of the Caucasian brand, why are you rushing, daring?(Pushkin). O first lily of the valley, from under the snow you ask sun rays (Fet). Sing, people, cities and rivers. Sing, mountains, steppes and seas(Surkov). Appeals are expressed by nouns in the form of the nominative case or by substantivized words. Sleeping in a coffin, sleep peacefully, enjoy life, living(Zhukovsky). Hello, in a white sundress made of silver brocade!(Vyazemsky). Well, you, move, otherwise I'll heat up with a butt(N. Ostrovsky).
In particular, here is a form with a special preposition of address "O": " O first lily of the valley!» You also often see the forms “Oh heaven!”, “Oh my God!”, “Oh my God!” etc. In a purely formal approach, one might think that we are talking about prepositional, but in it the given examples will look different: “about the first lily of the valley”, “about the sky”, “about the deity”, “about the Lord”. The Wikipedia article, as well as the arguments of Ilya Birman, do not consider the preposition “O” as a preposition of address. Otherwise, one more case would have to be singled out, “Reverse”, with the characterizing question “About who?” or "About what?".
Moreover, the entry "conversion" from the dictionary notes the presence of different intonations: " Applications are characterized different types intonation: a) vocative intonation (pronunciation of the appeal with increased stress and a higher tone, with a pause after the appeal).Guys! Forward on a sortie, for me!(Pushkin); b) exclamatory intonation (for example, in a rhetorical address).Fly away, memories!(Pushkin); c) introductory intonation (decrease in voice, accelerated pronunciation rate).Me, comrades. once(Panova)».
It follows from this that if the latter type of invocation is applicable to declarative sentence(with a water word, appeal), and medium type- to an exclamatory sentence, then the first type is the authors of the article (Rosenthal D. E., Telenkova M. A.) is called "vocative". So the investigation of the problem, whether there is a vocative case, led us to the assumption of the existence of a vocative type of sentence, which is characterized by the absence of a verb.
In this case, the vocative sentence may consist of complex shape of the appeal “Highly respected and dear, beloved by all the employees of our department, Pavel Nikolayevich, wit and heartthrob", a simple form" Pavel Nikolaevich", friendly form" Pasha"and the truncated form" Pash". In this case, the proper name should be considered as special kind noun with an extended and somewhat peculiar paradigm.
The remaining cases of nouns exist, but are more often used in oral speech, so they should be considered, most likely, in the course of Russian ethnolinguistics.
Conclusion.
Russian language, as one of the most complex languages world, while it has many "blank spots", which, on the one hand, distinguishes it from many European languages on the level of complexity, and, on the other hand, testifies to the weakness of the academic position, trying to fit it to the features of Greco-Roman grammar.
