Which languages have the vocative case? The vocative case in Serbian. Features of the case form

), Baltic languages (for example: Latvian and Lithuanian). Of the Romanesque, the vocative form has been preserved only in the Romanian language. It is also present in some non-Indo-European languages such as Arabic, Georgian, Korean, and Chuvash. The Kvankhidatli dialect of the Andian language has also been preserved http://www.philology.ru/linguistics4/alekseev-99b.htm

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Polish from A TO Ż - Voctative (Lesson 14)

✪ GREEK. vocative

✪ Vocative case. Address in Polish

✪ Vocative case

✪ GREEK. NOMINATIVE

Subtitles

In the Indo-European language

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 language memory 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. 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):

Basis on -u-*

On the example of the word "son" (for the Greek πῆχυς "forearm"):

Basis 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

In the Proto-Slavic language, the vocative case had nouns of the first four declensions; declination on i.-e. occlusive ("mother", "lamb") and i.-e. brief u(“kamas”, “rhemes”) did not have a vocative form. In declensions on i.-e. long -*u- and on i.-e. -*i- the vocative form retained the form of the Indo-European stem (“son!”, “Guests!”), Inclination to -*about- retained the old ending -e(“husband!”, “older!”). In general, in Proto-Slavic, and after it Old Russian and Old Slavonic, the vocative case was formed as follows:

Ancient base on *-ā- :

-about -e- after a soft one: “wife!”, “sister!”, “soul!”, “maiden!”

Ancient base on *-about-:

-e- after a hard consonant -Yu- after the soft: “older!”, “Father!”, “horse!”, “Igor!”

Ancient base on *-u-:

-y: “honey!”, “son!”

Ancient base on *-i-:

-and: “nights!”, “lights!”, “Lord!”

In the process of inflection, there was an alternation of consonants according to the first palatalization: to - h("human" - "human"), G - well(“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 birch bark letters show, in the XIV-XV centuries. it was preserved solely as a form of respectful appeal to persons of a higher social rank: “lord!”, “mistress!”, “prince!”, “brother!”, “father!” By the middle of the XVI century. 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. In our time, 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 a nominative: “yesterday my father said to me”; "Vladyka Dositheus delivered a sermon." This causes indignation among the zealots of the purity of the language, who call for the complete abandonment of vocative forms.

Proponents of the "classical" variant of the Belarusian language (tarashkevitsa), on the contrary, usually emphasize the vocative case as a distinctive feature of the Belarusian language from Russian.

Examples: "brother" - "brother", "son" - "son", "Ivan" - "Ivan".

Polish language

In Polish, the 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. At the same time, in official business correspondence, it is preserved as a sign of respect for a partner, which is a direct analogy with the limited use of the vocative in the Russian language of the 14th-15th 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!, that is, mainly the 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, For example, 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

Genus	The ending	Nominative	vocative
M. r.	-to, -X, -sh, -well, -h, -c, -in	young man, husband, Bulgarian	-o: yunako, mzho, bulgarino
	-n, -l, -t, -R	con, teacher, zet, king	-Yu: horse, teacher, zet, king
	other consonants	people, brother, Vasil, Dimitar, father	-e: people, brother, Vasile, Dimitra, father
	-oh, -a, -I, -about, -and:		-no ending Good, Dobri, bascha, sidiya, chicho, uncle
J. r.	-a, -I	woman, mother, soul, earth	-o: babo, mamo, soul, zemyo
	-ka(personal names)	Bonka, Verka, Stefka	-e: Bonke, Werke, Stefke
	-ca	asterisk, Elitsa	-e: asterisk, Elice
	consonant	span, joy, spring	-no ending span, joy, spring
Wed R.	-o, -e	heap, baby	-no ending heap, baby

Other Slavic languages

As in modern Russian, the vocative case is not used in Slovene and Slovak, with the exception of a number of stable and partially obsolete phraseological units.

Latvian

In Latvian, the vocative case is important to memorize 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 singular in I. p. ends in -us, then in the vocative case it will end in -e: I. p. "barbarus" (barbarian) - Sound. n. "barbare". However, if the stem of the noun ends in -i(that is, the noun ends in -ius), then in the vocative case it has a zero ending: I. p. "Demetrius", Sound. n. "Demetri".

The vocative case of the pronoun meus (my) is mi: mi fili(appeal "my son")!

Georgian language

On the example of the word კაცი (rus. person) for both declensions of nouns:

Notes

Reformatsky A. A. Introduction to Linguistics / ed. V. A. Vinogradova. - M.: Aspect Press, 1998. - S. 488. - ISBN 5-7567-0202-4.
//
Beekes R.S.P. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction. - Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 2011. - P. 212.
Semereny O. Introduction to comparative linguistics. - M. : URSS, 2002. - S. 188.
Beekes R.S.P. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction. - Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 2011. - P. 203.
Larisa Marsheva, Professor, Doctor of Philology. Know how to call.
Bugaeva I.V. Functional, grammatical and semantic features nomination addressee in religious sphere.
Polonsky A.V. Egotive, vocative, nominative: subject and case paradigm. - Russian language abroad. - Moscow. - No. 3. - S. 27-35.
Suprun, V. I. Anthroponyms in vocative usage. - Bulletin of the Ural State University. - Yekaterinburg. - No. 20. - S. 92-96.
Karatkevich U. Chorny Zamak Alshansky (unavailable link since 25-03-2017 ).
Lietvārdu locīšana .

Links

// Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.


Theory
List of cases

From the school bench, we clearly know that there are 6 cases in Russian. But it turns out that this is not entirely true, there are much more cases in grammar. Many of them have been preserved in a residual state, having come into the Russian language from Old Slavonic and Old Russian. One of these phenomena is the vocative case in Russian.

Vocative case: acquaintance

In order to designate an appeal to a person, object or object, the vocative case is used in Russian. The examples are quite varied:

Masha, go look at the cat!
Vit, bring firewood!
Van, call your dad soon!
Lord, help me in this difficult situation!
Oh God, give me strength!

The examples showed that the object in the vocative case is expressed by a noun, is its short form.

From the history of the case

In the Indo-European language - the ancestor of our modern one - this case was equal in rights with other cases. However, when Indo-European split into many language families, Sv. n. in most cases began to coincide with the nominative and ceased to be an independent case. However, in the grammars of 1918 this case was still mentioned.

Now for it is used by Him. n., but the vocative case is partially preserved in Russian. Examples are:

Marin, please bring a book from the library.

Compare: the use of Im. n. instead of Sound. n. will in no way affect the meaning of the sentence: Marina, please bring a book from the library.

Look around, old man, everything is destroyed and put on fire.

Here the vocative form "starche" is used to give the statement an elevated sound, this is the so-called high syllable. If we replace the form with Im. etc., then the meaning will not change, but the phrase will sound different.

Lord, help me walk this path.

Such a word form is used in religious texts and prayers, heard by native speakers, and is not perceived as something unusual.

Features of the case form

Let's single out several key features inherent in this case form:

Coincides in form with Him. P.
Used for the sole purpose of appeal.
Its function resembles an interjection.
It is perceived by a native speaker not as a noun, but as an exclamation.

The vocative case could be formed in various ways, the main ones are presented in the table.

When forming a new vocative case, endings in such words can be reduced:

Names, including a diminutive version (Van, Vanyush).
Terms related to the family (mom, aunt, dad, grandfather).
Some words form a vocative form even in the plural (guys, girls).

The methods of forming vocative forms cannot be called diverse, but they are often used in oral speech.

Vocative forms

In the table, we present the main forms characteristic of words in the vocative case.

In addition to truncating the endings of proper names, it is also possible to use short forms of the names of relatives. The vocative case is also formed in Russian. Examples are given below:

Mom, where is the tablecloth?
Dad, help solve the problem!
Aunt, when are you coming?

The form of the vocative case is also preserved in the words "grandfather", "daughter":

Daughter, come visit soon!
Grandpa, come here quickly, help!

Such sentences have a pronounced colloquial connotation.

The vocative case in Russian: an example and interesting facts

The second name Sound. p - vocative.
There is an old vocative (used as an equivalent case in the ancient form of the language) and a new vocative (formed in oral speech by native speakers by truncating the endings of nouns).
Initially, it was in many languages: Sanskrit, Latin and ancient Greek, but did not move into modern languages.
It has been preserved in some languages: in Romanian, Greek, Ukrainian, Serbian, Polish and others.
The vocative form disappeared from the Russian language quite early, in the 14th-15th centuries, remaining only as a respectful appeal to boyars and princes.

Only masculine and feminine singular nouns could form the vocative case in Russian. Examples: Friends! God! Prince!

Often vocative forms are used in stable phraseological turns: Lord God Jesus Christ (all four words in vowels), our lord.

In the literature of the 19th-20th centuries, the vocative case was also used for archaization. The examples are now quite diverse:

In Pushkin's text "What do you need, old man" the form is used to create the effect of archaization.
"Turn around, son." This form helps to recreate the peculiarities of the speech of the Ukrainian Cossacks.

The vocative case in Russian: the rule

Words in the vocative case in a sentence play the role of an address, so they are separated by commas in writing.

Here's an example:

Marus, come to the performance today.
Mom, help me wash the dishes!
Vanyush, where is the new book?

From the above examples, it can be seen that this rule applies to any sentence - declarative, imperative or interrogative.

Often, to give the text an ironic coloring, the vocative case in Russian is used. Example: Man! When will you take up your mind and work properly!

The vocative case in Russian, examples of which were given above, is an amazing grammatical phenomenon, indicating that our language changes over time. If many centuries ago this form was commonly used in oral speech, now it is often used only in religious texts or to give a sentence an elevated color.

vocative

vocative, vocative form, vocative(lat. vocativus) is a special form of a name (most often 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. The vocative case (vocative), traditional for the Slavic languages, is "the name of the object of thought (person) to which speech is addressed." Being a case that establishes contact between the speaker and the receiver of speech, it realizes the will of the speaker. The grammatical meaning of the vocative case is realized in its inherent special syntactic function - address.

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, an example of which can be Greek, Romany, many Slavic languages \u200b\u200b(Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) and some Celtic languages (Scottish and Irish) , Baltic languages (for example: Latvian and Lithuanian). Of the Romanesque, the vocative form has been preserved only in the Romanian language. It is also present in some non-Indo-European languages such as Georgian, Arabic and Korean.

The vocative case begins to die out quite early: already in the Ostromir Gospel (XI century), its confusion with the nominative is recorded. As birch bark documents show, 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! father! brother! By the middle of the XVI century. 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 Dositheus delivered 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 turns and other speech formulas, or passed into the category of interjections ( God, Creator, God, Jesus, hri?ste, vlady?ko, metropolitans, doctor, hundred?, o?tche, bra? those, sy? not, friend?, prince?, human other). 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, the regular and normative use of this grammatical form in Church Slavonic, which is the official language of worship in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the appearance of such in new religious texts in Russian, including (services, akathists, prayers, troparia to the newly glorified saints) affects speech 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 the grammatical norm, but preserving the tradition. Moreover, in the old vocative form, not only proper names are used, but also inanimate common nouns, such as ste? but, rule, image, protect, re? ko, tra? pese, praise, heat? then, hundred? lpe, lamp? before, stone, none, mo? ste other.

At the same time, sometimes the "modern vocative" (or "new vocative") is understood to mean word forms with a zero ending of nouns of the first declension, as Mish, Linen, Tan, Marin, granny, mom, dad etc., that is, coinciding in form with the plural declension of the genitive case. The status of this form of the word is still the subject of controversy among scientists: some are inclined to single out such a form as a separate grammatical category, while some oppose it.

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), showing its syntactic role in a sentence and linking individual words of a sentence. 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). There are direct cases (nominative and sometimes also accusative) and indirect cases (others). This terminology is associated with the ancient idea of “declension” (declinatio) as “deviations”, “falling away” from the correct, “direct” form of the word, and was supported by associations with dice (where one or another side falls out at each throw - in this case, one "direct" and several "indirect")».

Table of contents:

Terminology.

Greek and Latin terminology arose in connection with the development of grammar as a doctrine of language. For example, " Lavrenty Ivanovich Zizaniy (otherwise Lavrenty Tustanovsky; real name - doll; about 1570 - after 1633) - Orthodox archpriest, famous Western Russian scientist, writer, teacher, translator; brother of Stefan Zizania. Initially, he was a teacher at the Lvov fraternal school, from where he moved to Brest in 1592, then to Vilna (now Vilnius), where in 1596 he published the alphabet and Church Slavonic grammar. The grammar of Zizania is one of the first monuments of East Slavic philology. Written with a conscious focus on Greek and Latin patterns. Its purpose was to prove the equal importance of the Church Slavonic language with Greek; Zizaniy did not pursue descriptive or normative goals (his prescriptions sometimes deviate quite strongly from the real language practice of that time)" (Wikipedia, article "Zizaniy").

« In languages that do not have cases, there are alternative ways to indicate the role of a word in a sentence: word order, the use of prepositions and postpositions. In a number of languages, including Russian, cases and other ways are combined"(Wikipedia, article" Cases "). - About how the cases arose, Wikipedia does not report. But from it you can find out which parts of speech are covered by this term.

“In RL, names are declined (changed by cases): nouns, adjectives, numerals and pronouns. The declension is expressed by the ending.

The modern school grammatical tradition distinguishes 6 cases:

Russian name	Latin name	Auxiliary words	characterizing question
Nominative	Nominative
Genitive	Genitive		Whom? What?
Dative	Dative		To whom? What?
Accusative	Accusative		Whom? What?
Instrumental	Ablative (combines instrumental, locative and ablative)	Satisfied/Created
Prepositional	Prepositional		About whom? About what?; In whom? In what?

There is a strong opinion that in the Russian language there are several cases that are not mentioned when teaching at school. This is:

Cases not taken into account by school grammar.

Vocative(vocative, it also exists in other Slavic languages). " Its forms are used when referring to a person (named case: Anya; vocative: An!). This case was considered the seventh Russian case in grammars published before 1918. Also, the old vocative case (unlike the new one given as an example) is preserved in the words “God”, “Lord”, “older”, “father” and others. The third form of the vocative case has been preserved in the words “deda”, “daughter”, etc. The name of this form “case” is conditional, since in a strictly grammatical sense the vocative form is not a case. The vocative has also been preserved in Ukrainian: “Be good, my kobzar, good father, robish!” (Taras Shevchenko, "Kobzar") - in the vocative form, "kobzar" turns into "kobzar", and "father" turns into "father". In addition, for a limited number of words, the vocative exists in Belarusian».

quantitative-separating(partitive, or second genitive). !In this case, a noun is put, meaning the whole in relation to some part, also mentioned. We can hear this case in two equivalent forms of some phrases: for example, “head of garlic”, but also “head of garlic”; it is especially noticeable in relation to uncountable nouns: sugar, sand (not to be confused with the dative), etc. In the context, one can trace the separation of the genitive and the given case: “no sugar” and “put sugar”. In the generally accepted school system, all these forms belong to the genitive case. It is believed that this case is one of two that can be a direct object with a verb. Moreover, verbs can have as a direct object either only a noun in the partitive or in the accusative. (This often depends on the animacy and countability of the noun.)

Local(locative, or second prepositional). “The prepositional case combines the explanatory meaning (about what?) and the local (where?). Most words of the form coincide: “talk about the table” - “be on the table”. However, a number of words actually have two forms of the prepositional case: “about the closet” - “in the closet”, which makes it possible to single out a special local case. Due to the small number of words in which the forms do not match (a little more than a hundred), such a case is not distinguished in the academic tradition in Russian.

original(ablative). A case in which a noun is placed, meaning the place where the movement began, for example: "went out of the forest" (differs from the local case by stress).

« In addition to these cases, specialists (for example, V. A. Uspensky, A. A. Zaliznyak) sometimes distinguish several more (waiting, temporary, inclusive, counting, etc.). The exact number of selected cases depends on the selected case definition. An example of the accusative, prepositional and vocative cases shows that a characterizing question is not enough to determine the case of a noun. For the accusative there is not a single unique question, for the prepositional there is no general question (the preposition in the question depends on the preposition in the sentence), for the vocative there are no questions at all"(Wikipedia, article" Case ").

My comment.

On the one hand, this indicates that the system of characterizing questions, which is quite simple in its basis, does not cover all variants of case relations. It is possible that the Russian case system is very different from the case systems of other languages, and hence the conclusion follows that the Research Institute of the System of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Russian Academy of Sciences for the entire twentieth century could not solve this problem in theoretical terms. Which, speaking of academic science, is very strange and even regrettable to hear. Or, in other words, the Russian language turned out to be more complicated than the current theoretical ideas about it. Although in practice these additional cases are highlighted.

In practical terms, Ilya Birman tried to solve this problem. It is said about him: art director of the Artem Gorbunov Bureau Ilya Birman, also known as the creator of the reference site "Rules of the Russian Language" (together with Roman Parpalak and Shurik Babaev), developer of the popular typographic keyboard layout and a simple and convenient blog engine "Egea", DJ and podcaster, also works as a designer and blogger". I would like to comment on his article "Cunning Cases of the Russian Language", copied by a number of users, but first published on October 1, 2006 at http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/2006/10/01/2/.

Sly cases.

« 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 the 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 reasoning I will use my own sense of language, so I cannot promise absolute correctness, but I hope that all this will be interesting to someone. I will be very glad to competent comments or just the opinions of sympathizers».

Partitive.

« The cardinal 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 the dative case (to whom? To what?), but here it answers the question of the genitive (to whom? 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 even reformulate the sentence so as to use the accusative case (“Will you have tea?”). Here's another example: "set the heat." Rustic? Probably not. And the option "set the heat" cuts the ear. More examples: “pour juice”, “add speed”».

We see that the "quantitative-separative" case refers to the very partitive that was discussed in the Wikipedia article.

Depriving.

« The definitive 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”».

The superfluous case was not discussed in the Wikipedia article.

Waiting case

- « phenomenon is quite complex. 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. On the contrary, “wait for a letter” or “wait for mom” is 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 an expectant 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».

It seems that here the "deprivative" case is simply a kind of accusative or genitive. However, Ilya continues: 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 for the letter itself, but for the letter, the delivery of the letter, the arrival of the 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")».

It turns out that so far linguists are not particularly interested in the deprivative case, and Ilya did not find any details of its use.

local case

- « 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 the 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?) the square, and you can stand on the (whom? what?) square, think about the (who? what?) room, and be in the (who? 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».

It turns out that the local case is nothing like the prepositional and has its own characterizing question and its own ending. In this case, it is not clear why academic grammar does not include it among the cases of the Russian language.

vocative

« used when referring to an object expressed by a noun. Two groups of examples are given in different sources. One group includes short forms of names used only when addressing (Vas, Kol, Sing, Len, Ol) and some other words (mum, 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, the possessive case in Russian 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 “Olga”, but, in fact, is just an exclamation aimed at attracting attention».

An interesting observation. There are really a lot of interjections, and perhaps Ilya is right. Although this needs to be explored further.

Turning case

“(aka inclusive) is used in phrases like “went astronaut” 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. In English, 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, when analyzing the phrase “he went to astronauts”, we will assume that “cosmonauts” is a plural, then we need to put this word in the accusative case, and it turns out that “he went to (whom? 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 "cosmonauts" 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».

The Wikipedia article also does not talk about the transformative case.

Counting case

« occurs when some nouns are used with numerals. For example, we say “during (whom? What?) an hour”, 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 - allegedly, "two steps". But I think I would say "two steps", so it's not clear how correct this example is. An independent group of 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” and not “two chairs”; we use the plural only starting with five».

Indeed, from two to four, inclusive, we use remnants of the dual number. Note that the case ending here is the same as in the dual number, only the stress is transferred from the root to the ending. This is a very strange way of forming a case.

Total.

« Of all these cunning cases, only the locative and the transformative seem to me to be complete. Waiting also makes some sense, since I don’t like waiting by the sea for “weather”. 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 the example with the hour seems to be the only one».

The word "glitch" here is slang. Ilya, apparently, wanted to say that there are a number of features of the Russian language that are not so easy to explain.

Comments on the article by Ilya Birman.

Oleg I propose to find out the meanings of 13 cases in Estonian and 16 (I think) in Finnish, and compare with these. Although I don't like the cases. I like how Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian), English, Esperanto and Toki Pona work. There are no cases (with the exception of the indirect pronouns yo/mi, je/moi, io/mio, I/me, etc.), and all of the above relations are expressed using a variety of prepositions and articles».

Ilya Birman " The functions of cases and even their names are very similar. I also read that in old English there were more cases, but they gradually disappeared. I like cases very much».

V.Ch. I like them too, because they convey subtle relationships within a sentence.

Siberex. " The example with the steps made me think... I would say “Yes, there are only three steps to step ...” and “He walked two steps; and turned around. ”, but why it’s so different - I don’t know myself". - I would say that people feel the difference, as native speakers, as practitioners, but they are not linguists, not theorists.

Yms. " Came across here by accident. I think that the existence of several of them is greatly exaggerated. In the case of "deprivative" and "waiting" there are simply rules for the use or non-use of the genitive case

in some cases. (Each case is entitled to such rules.) For example, saying "Odessian" ("I have them!"), the use of the genitive case can be greatly expanded In the case of local case - he former case. Today, like the old vocative in the word "father", it is not productive. You can say “in the snow” or “in debt”, but neither in the literary language nor in the network jargon do they say “on the site” or “on the blog of Ilya Birman”».

This reader believes that it is difficult to distinguish a "language game" like the Odessa joke "you want songs - I have them" from stable but rare usages. And he believes that the grammatical phenomena of the distant past do not have surviving forms, or they do, but you should not pay attention to them.

He continues: “ Counting case ”is the remainder of the dual number, which is used with numbers from 2 to 4. Although, of course, nothing prevents us from considering it the former case. (Former - because, again, today for new nouns they simply use the genitive case)»

Ilya Birman. " In the snow "it is not possible to say, but necessary; but "in the snow" - it is impossible. It's just that the words "snow" and "site" are inclined differently. The local case of the words "website" or "blog" coincides with the explanatory case, while the words "snow" or "year" do not match, which is not surprising. If "chair" in the accusative case is "chair", this does not mean that the accusative case is not productive, right? Another question is that there are not very many words in which the explanatory differs from the local one. But I don't know exactly how many words are needed to recognize the case».

This is where linguists have to say their weighty word.

Yms. " No, it won’t work like that: we can’t say that the Russian language has all 18 Hungarian cases, but “they just coincide” with one of the existing ones. The point is not that it "coincides" or "does not coincide", but that today it does not exist at all, since it is not formed in new words, but is preserved only in old ones, i.e. in stable constructions". Ilya Birman: " If 18 cases always match, then we can say that this is one case, which has just 18 functions. But if they do not always coincide, and there is a clear functional difference between them, then it seems to me that these are quite separate cases. I'm not sure that the unformability of new words is a criterion for the absence of a case. Moreover, I am not sure that tomorrow such a word (such a word?) will not appear, which suddenly again people will begin to use differently in explanatory and local senses.».

BOLK' But what about Albany cases? Author > author».

In my opinion, it makes no sense to study the grammatical features of this miscarriage by Dmitry Sokolovsky from Bobruisk. Albansky is a conscious attempt to wean a certain number of young people from the skill of Russian spelling.

Alexander Ivlev. " Strongly... Although the sign of referring the form of a noun to one of the cases, like any clustering rule, is limited only by an agreement (formal) on the signs of a generally accepted classification. Perhaps there are more of them in Russian than 13. Or even 113 ... But everything that goes beyond the "legislative 6" falls into the category of "exceptions", and there, in fact, it is in the minority". Ilya Birman: " Not sure so. It seems to me that this is an artificial simplification of things. Because of this, many people think that “a cup of tea” is somehow wrong, because there should be “(who? What?) Tea.” That is, at first they came up with a system that was obviously simpler than in reality, and then they began to adjust reality to fit it».

I agree with Ilya Birman. On the other hand, it is clear that Russian grammar should be divided into a number of levels. Six cases is the level of the Russian-speaking population. The remaining cases are the level of ethnic Russians.

Alexander Ivlev, quotes Birman: " It seems to me that this is an artificial simplification of things. But it doesn't seem to me. I know it. Well, for a more complete understanding, I will quote: "Consent is the product of an agreement in the absence of mutual opposition of the parties." The parties that study Russian agreed that there are 6 cases, and formally fixed this in the rules and regulations. Based on these norms and rules, textbooks were created».

That's right - linguists, theorists agreed among themselves, but not users, not the Russian people. I continue to quote Ivlev: “ Later, “big” and “small yus”, “fert”, “fita”, “izhitsa”, “yat”, etc. were thrown out of these textbooks. Someone took this as a tragedy, and someone - as a reform. Nothing can be done, Ilya. There is a so-called. "scientific mafia", which first agrees among themselves, and then presents the "products of the agreement" to everyone else. By the way, I will be very grateful to you if you suddenly stumble upon a study: “The Scientific Mafia and Its Language”, made at Harvard (?) at the end of the last century. In short, we are talking about a system of "identification" "friend or foe" based on the possession of professional "academic bullshit" in American universities. I have been periodically thinking about him for several years and trying to find references to this work. Obviously, all traces in the network were wiped by the mafia. Omerta».

But this is curious: Ivlev considers linguists to be a mafia!

Siberex. " Well, yes, of course, how could I not have guessed, because this is all the scientific (scientific?) mafia tried. And then there are the scientific terrorists and the scientific government — they, of course, are all fighting with each other (fighting?), and mere mortals have to disentangle the results of this struggle. The letter “Yo” was also probably invented by the scientific government, and the scientific mafia is actively fighting against it, which once managed to defeat the symbols “yat” and “izhitsa”. Hmm…»

And this is already a replica against conspiracy theories and the presence of mafia structures in linguistics.

Alexander Ivlev. " Of course, how did I not guess, ”do not simplify! As for the letter "ё" - absolutely correct. In 1783, at a meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it was proposed to be used by Dashkova, the first Russian female academician. (However, some attribute it to Karamzin, who, however, was also an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences). PS. And what kind of "mafia" did he say - you really ... Not very ... Or give another definition to a group of people who satisfy their curiosity at the expense of the state by falsifying scientific knowledge in their own interests - and I will be the first to support you. (I'm joking, although, according to scientometrics, the discipline of scientific knowledge, about 40% of studies are falsified to one degree or another or based on the findings of falsified studies ... Although this statement can also be falsification) (just kidding). P.P.S. “All of the above is a joke. And just a joke. After all, the right to judge belongs to God. And only to him. Except for the critics." Dogma. View Askew».

Vladimir Igonin " Luyudk, but Ludk!” "Love and pigeons". Thanks for the interesting research. You would make a good linguist... or mathematician».

Paata Badrievich Dzhikidze « With numbers in Russian, too, not everything is simple. There were three of them in Old Church Slavonic: -single -dual (it is also small) - example: years - this is few -multiple (truly plural) - example: years - this is a lot. Years will pass, and maybe even years... Everything is clear with the only one. The dual was characteristically used to designate paired objects (sleeves, eyes...). In declension it is very noticeable: 1 eye, 2 eyes, 3 eyes, 4 eyes, 5 eyes ... - 1 city, 2 cities, 3 cities, 4 cities, 5 cities ... Under one of the reforms of the language (Petrine, as far as I remember ) reduced the number of numbers (damn!) to the European standard. The cap is clear, a lot of non-obvious rules immediately appeared. By the way, this is why four coconuts are not a bunch! Hello, Martyshka! Western European logic is binary, while Russian logic is ternary. Yes, no, maybe all that. Therefore, in order to expel redundant interpretations, it is convenient to conduct negotiations in European languages, and to interpret “for life” in Russian. Question to linguists: what about Asia on this topic? With Africa? Thank you all, paata.moikrug.ru. P.S. I once heard that in Chinese there is only one time. I think they're running. And if formally and so, then somewhere this complexity will come out. Not in grammar, but in phonetics. There is a suspicion that any language has an invariant level of complexity. No matter how you describe it, you can't simplify it. It's like crushing a "hernia" on a basketball - everything is one somewhere and it will come out...».

It would be more correct to say "up to the European standard". I note that the reform did not concern the language, but linguistics, that is, the rules for the design of the oral language in writing. So far, unfortunately, the oral language (that is, the original language, the language of the people) passes in linguistics as a "spoken language", that is, as if as a special kind of language, and a later and more standardized written language - as "proper language" .

As for the trinity of the PR - this is worth thinking about!

Recapitulator. " As for the vocative case - I just feel sorry for him, because at least he really was a case in his time, which is noted in the old use of “Lord”, “God”, etc. The funny thing is that this is the only case , preserved in the Bulgarian language, and applies to any object: not only “lady” (from “lady”), “master” (from gentleman), “choveche” (from “chovek”), but also “planino” (from “planina ”), and even “Balgariyo” (from “Bulgaria”). Sometimes it's sorely missed…».

Weird! If oral language is primary, then why not use the appropriate forms?

Seeker. " Very interesting! Should greatly help foreigners in learning the language. Because sometimes it sounds very funny how they speak strictly according to the rules, but it doesn’t sound Russian at all. But the simplification of the rules was originally done to simplify the study of the language, which in itself is a very positive moment - the simpler the language, the more people will speak it. But the language itself turned out to be against it, not wanting to obey the new rules. By the way, there is such an effect (regarding workshops, for example) when the use of a word was formed at one glance at it, and when the word changed, the use remained. Here, for example, "coffee" - its use should coincide, for example, with the word "field". But it remained a noun, since it originally had the form "coffee" by analogy with the word "tea". Therefore, the words "tea" and "coffee", and not "field" and "coffee" are formed in the same way.". - It is clear that the word "tea" had in as a correspondence to this noun, the imperative form "tea!" from the verb "tea". But the verb "kofit" with the imperative form "coffee!" was not in the Russian language, so this form of the noun turned out to be alien to the Russian ear.

wiz. " 73 more cases and we'll catch up with Ithkuil...". Yosha. " Somehow, while working in one office, I pestered one of the linguists about the archaisms of the Russian language. In addition to phonetics, he named the presence of 2 cases: local and vocative. The vocative case is found in Russian natives (eg Ukrainian) and cousins (eg Latvian). The local case remained degenerate: on the bridge, on the snow, in Ukraine (so that the brothers would not speak there».

So far, there are no well-known studies on the local case.

Yosha. " Seeker: "But the simplification of the rules was originally done to simplify the study of the language." - I do not think that for simplification, rather for use. Living language evolves towards simplification. Searching the Internet, I found a mathematical description of the cases of Kolmogorov-Zaliznyak. In addition to the local and vocative, it is also called the expectant, countable, deprivative, and inclusive cases.. Website address: http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu.html».

Ilya Birman. " Very funny, but I mentioned them».

T Sugar. " So, insignificant, but in a linguistic sense it can be important. A light note on one of the examples. "Weekend on the nose" as well as "hack on the nose" have nothing to do with the nose being on the face. A nose (from the word “wear”) was a wooden tablet that was worn in ancient times around the neck, tied with a rope, and on which notches were made for marking when collecting taxes, or, for example, when counting soldiers in the army. The phrase "hack on the nose" refers to the literal process of putting a notch on a wooden plank. Weekends that we keep in the plan can equally be marked there. At least, it seems to me more likely than the figurative definition of proximity. After all, when we point out a missed, but obvious detail, we say "it was right in front of my nose." Or "I did it right under his nose." Here it is more likely that the nose is indicated as part of the face.».

KGH. " You are forgetting the double case. for example, we say “we are already in porridge” or “he is in shit in the morning” or “I’m just in feces” instead of “we are in porridge”, “he is in shit” and “I am in feces” without meaning the scene. this new form for the language is the best proof of the constant development of the language».

This KHG deliberately gives hooligan examples. He doesn't like RA.

Ilya Birman. " This case is called accusative.". Seeker. " KGH, bravo! Worth adding to the list". - And this is already a hint of a new intellectual game: the search for new cases.

Paat Badrievich Dzhikidze. « 1. case, about the case - it is not a case, but a case. In this way, you can generate random jokes. For example: - name the verbal (!) adjective from the noun (!) owl! - ADVISORY!!! with exclamation marks bust came out. Only one and a half times less than in the general military charters of the built forces of the USSR there are nine, all in the anthem; 2. In the trash, in rags, etc. - this is not a case, but a reduced form. that is, part of the words fell out of the phrase. some a long time ago, some recently. like: I [eat] [[drunk]] in rags. because the most hit forms of the dictionary are reduced, probably. so it looks like the adjective "drunk" competed with the verb "to be." Sakatochny Russian carcass...3. inspired. and which is correct - in a slurp or in a slurp? and why ... a linguistic question».

Note that the discussion from the linguistic one turns into a humorous chat.

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 the "encyclopedic dictionary of a philologist" dated May 28, 2008 (http://slovarfilologa.ru/227/).

« Sound - the most natural form of the existence of 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 preserve it for a long time led to the invention of writing - written speech appeared. At first, the written language was only a recording of sounding speech, "stopped by a 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 have begun 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 so, 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. Oral language skills - folklore, propaganda, rumors. Everything else - politics, science and learning, fiction in all its genre richness - is served by written language. So, in the simplest case, the relationship between oral and written language is similar to the relationship between an object and its reflection. In more complex 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 written form, while dialects, some socialects, slang, vernacular, unwritten languages exist in oral form. 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 orthography exists in a small number of Slavic languages, for example, Belarusian and Serbian. Simplifying writing, this orthography (that is, a specific way of translating spoken language into written language) makes it difficult to understand.

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 this arose a 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. Different linguistic and social cultures have different forms of address. In organizations engaged 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 the singular. In written speech, the pronoun "You", addressed to a specific interlocutor, is capitalized. 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 address "na you" gradually came into use from the 18th century due to the strong influence of the French language and culture, primarily in the circles of the aristocracy. There are theories that originally "You" was an appeal to the enemy. Prior to that, traditional Russian speech etiquette was used 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 as “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 adopted. 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. An 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: " The form of address associated with family relations implies a mention of family 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 have been asked to address them as “you”, because then they seem to rejuvenate, become the same age as the young participants in the conversation.

In addition, the form of address of parents to children is not shown, where diminutive variants 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 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 then speaks of the "social form" of conversion. “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 detailing 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 of 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. In German, a waiter called Kellner is called HerrOber!, "Mr. Senior!", implying that he is a "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 (buddy, 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. In the Russian army, the appeal comrade has been preserved since Soviet times.

There is also an addition: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Russian organizations chose to address by name as their form of address, as is customary in many English-speaking countries. However, according to the rules modern business language, the correct address is considered formal. That is, by name and patronymic».

From the discussion of this article on Wikipedia, it is clear that address is a special form of a sentence. A close understanding is given by the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (website http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lingvistic/appeal), which notes: “Appeal is a word or combination of words that names a person (less often an object) to whom speech is addressed. Appeals are the proper names of people, the names of people by degree of kinship, by position in society, by profession, occupation, position, rank, by nationality or age, by relationships between people, etc .; names or nicknames of animals; names of objects or phenomena of inanimate nature, usually personified in this case; 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 for the sun's 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 substantiated 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. With a purely formal approach, one might think that we are talking about a prepositional case, but in it the examples given will look different: “about the first lily of the valley”, “about the sky”, “about a 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: " Addresses are characterized by different types of intonation: a) vocative intonation (pronouncing the address with increased stress and a higher tone, with a pause after the address).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 last type of appeal is applicable to a declarative sentence (with a water word, appeal), and the middle type is applicable 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 a complex form of address “Highly respected and dear, beloved by all employees of our department, Pavel Nikolaevich, wit and heartthrob", a simple form" Pavel Nikolaevich", friendly form" Pasha"and the truncated form" Pash". In this case, a proper name should be considered as a special kind of 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.

The Russian language, as one of the most difficult languages in the world, still has many “blank spots”, which, on the one hand, distinguishes it from many European languages in terms of complexity, and, on the other hand, indicates the weakness of the academic position that tries to fit it under the peculiarities of Greco-Roman grammar.

Doctor of Philology.

All lectures of the cycle can be viewed .

When we turn to Church Slavonic material, it often rightly seems to us that the difficulties that may arise in those who turn to an ancient text are related to the understanding of grammatical phenomena.
Naturally, the grammatical system of the ancient language developed quite actively, and in the modern language, grammar has been simplified in many ways, compared to the ancient period. Nevertheless, the remnants and fragments of the grammatical system of antiquity of the same Church Slavonic language can be found by us in the material of the modern language.
This applies to such interesting grammatical phenomena associated with the nominal system of the Church Slavonic and Russian languages, for example, with the case system or the number system. Historically, in addition to the six cases known to us, there was also a vocative case, or a vocative form, that is, a case that had a meaning and performed the function of referring to persons or objects. In fact, as soon as we compare this material with the modern language, we see that it also has a certain vocative form, when we take the words of the first declension, cut off the endings from them and get a form like: “mum”, “dad”, "Mash", "Sash". This is the form that we use to address, but it does not have a sign that we would perceive as a case, that is, a special ending. There is simply a clipping of the ending, and this is not a fact of the modern literary language, but a fact of the spoken language. Nevertheless, functionally this is also an appeal, however, in this way we only address a person, and historically it was possible to address both persons and objects. But here, too, we can see that archaic forms of the vocative case are presented in the modern language, which are sometimes even used, but not as appeals, but as interjections. These are traditional examples like "Lord", "God", "Father". As you remember, in Pushkin's famous fairy tale, a fish swims up and asks: "What do you need, old man?" Not “old man”, but “older”, not “father”, but “father”, not “God”, but “God” - there is a special ending “e”, and in the form “Lord” - “Lord” ending. We see that historically this vocative form, or vocative case, had a definite ending, two of which are quite distinct in modern language: "God" and "Lord." Apparently, historically these were different declensions, so they have different endings.
If we take the forms of set expressions, for example, about a person who must first pay attention to himself, solve his own problem, and then deal with solving the problems of others, we say “doctor, heal yourself.” This is an expression from the Gospel, which Christ uses as an expression that already then had a proverbial character. “Doctor” and “doctor” - we see that there is one more ending - “y”. If both the modern words “doctor” and “God” and the historical ones are one declension, but they have different endings, apparently, this means that each declension had its own peculiarities that forced the use of different endings. This was due to the fact that words like “God” have hard final consonant stems, while “doctor” has just a soft one, but this is a special, mixed variety in Church Slavonic. In any case, we see that the difference in endings shows that within one declension there could also be special cases and varieties.
If we take the well-known prayer “Virgin Mary, rejoice”, then in the words “Virgin Mary”, “Devo”, “Mary-e” we see how the vocative case is presented in forms that in modern language belong to the 1st declension ( on "a" feminine, masculine), and in Church Slavonic grammar this is the second declension. We can observe these forms, and such an attentive attitude can point us to the ancient picture in a larger way.
The form of the dual number - the use of some special form of number in relation to two persons or objects - is also quite preserved in the Russian language. For example, in the form “with my own eyes”, which literally means “in two eyes”, some special ending “yu”, also marking some fragment of the ancient system. Or cases like: “two eyes”, “two slaves”, etc., where we think that this is the genitive case of the singular, and historically this is the form of the dual number, which was simply rethought in the language as a construction with a genitive case of a singular noun.
When we turn to an ancient text, we observe that some phenomena and elements are completely preserved in the modern language, but at the same time, perhaps, they have undergone some kind of rethinking. As we can see, the form of "two slaves", which was historically, has not visually changed even now.