[lit-ideas] Vocative Particles as a Class of Interjections

 
 
In a message dated 1/29/2005 12:49:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
nantongo@xxxxxxxxx writes:
That  aside, Robert says (I think) that if a particle is not dedicated  
exclusively to a vocative function, it can't formally be a vocative  
particle. To my untrained eye, this position is contradicted by JL's OED  
entry, which seems to have no problem attributing more than one function  to 
the same grammatical entity, as in: "Lithuanian o, vocative particle,  
expression of surprise or emotion" etc.




----
 
The problem here may be that English-speaking grammarians are not very  
strict when it comes to the grammar of languages _other_ than English, and one  
wonders if Lithuanian native speakers would agree with calling "o" a 'vocative  
particle'. 
 
Under 'interjection', the OED lists some of the things, notably "O" which  is 
defined in its own entry as a 'vocative particle', so it seems best to treat  
'vocative particles' (so-called) as a class of 'interjections'. 
 
I agree with R. Paul that there is some arbitrariness in calling a thing  
like "O" an English thing, when it's _not_ Anglo-Saxon and obviously derived  
from the Latin. Anglo-Saxon (Old English) possibly had its share of 'vocative  
particles', though -- and in runic script, too.
 
I append below the relevant passage under the OED explanation for  
'interjection'. 
 
The idea that Lithuanian 'o' is an "expression of surprise or emotion" is  
touching and poetic. But then, so is "I love you, darling", hardly a vocative.  
Everything (or anything) expresses something, and we must go beyond the  
so-called "ho-ho" theory of the origin of language (as in A. Sayce, who thought 
 
that ALL language originates via the 'vocative' function). 
 
To call someone (to 'vocate' her) is not just to _Express_ an Emotion. It  is 
to express an _audience-_ or _addressee_-directed Emotion. Trick is that the  
utterer can be her own addressee ("O, J.L., you have it wrong again", as I 
tell  myself, etc.).
 
I propose that Mirembe does right the thing, with the good qualifications  
pertaining the case: that so-called English vocatives are for Prof. Paul not  
'English', and not vocatives for Prof. Speranza, etc. Then she can list them 
and 
 number, and propose a quizz too, as to how "O" directly translates to, say,  
Arabic.
 
J. M. Geary knows a lot about the interjectional nature of Natural Speech,  
but he's writing a novel.

Cheers,
 
JL
 
---
 
   OED:
    'interjection'
 
 
  A natural ejaculation expressive of some feeling or emotion, used or  
viewed as a Part of Speech.
So called because, when so used, it is interjected between  sentences, 
clauses, or words, mostly without grammatical connexion. But the  interjection 
O is 
often construed with the vocative or nominative of  address, and alas, hey, 
hurrah, woe, etc. with the  prep. for or to and an object. Beside the simple 
interjections, as  ah!, oh!, ha!, ho!, hulloa!, psha!,  whew!, and the like, 
substantives, adjectives, adverbs, and short phrases  or sentences are often 
used 
interjectionally; e.g. marry!,  fiddlesticks!, fiddle-de-dee!, the devil!, O 
dear!,  dear me!, well, well!, Gad's 'ooks!, God ha'  mercy!, bless my soul!  



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: