[lit-ideas] Re: vocative particles
- From: Harold Hungerford <hh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:54:34 -0800
Then there is the opening word of _Beowulf_, "Hwaet!," often translated
as Lo! and irreverently as "Listen up!".
The problem is that Latin had a vocative case, formally differentiated
from the other five cases by special endings. So we can speak of a
Latin vocative. In the sentence spoken by one of the Caesars to a
losing general, "O Vare, Vare, ubi sunt milites mei?" no Latinist would
call the "O" a vocative, though the two occurrences of "Vare" certainly
are vocative (the nominative is Varus). The sentence can be translated
"O Varus, Varus, where are my soldiers?".
English, like other modern European languages, does not have a vocative
case. So if we want to signal that we're addressing someone we can use
a bewildering variety of words or even phrases. Obviously all proper
names are available; so are a lot of oppobrious terms prefaced by
"you," as in b*st*rd, b*tch; so are a lot of tags preceded by "hey,"
like y*u, b*st*r, f*lla, st*p*d.
Calling these vocatives doesn't help. Language is indeed much cleverer
than we make it out to be. Particles, in particular, have been the sand
in the gears of many an attempt to construct a grammatical system.
Harold Hungerford
On Jan 29, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Robert Paul wrote:
> Mirembe:
>
>> Forgot to ask:
>
>> What troubles me about Mirembe's list of 'English' vocative particles
>> is...<
>
>> Why 'English' rather than just English, O Robert?
> --------------------------------------
> Hai! Mirembe! Because it seemed to me that the examples given although
> used by
> English-speakers were not especially English words. I now wonder if
> 'Ahoy!' Oy!
> are related to the ubiquitous O! (and if so how). Not every word used
> by
> English-speakers is an English word. Sometimes words swim from one
> live language
> to another: noblesse oblige.
>
> Grammar can be prescriptive, but linguistics, one hopes, is
> descriptive. So it
> would not be an a priori truth but an empirical discovery that a
> word--a
> particle--was used vocatively by hipsters, flipsters, and
> finger-poppin'
> daddies.
>
> 1963 V. NABOKOV Gift iii. 181 His trick of garbling Russian, in
> imitation of a
> farcical Jewish accent as when he said..`Oy, vat a mudnik [sic]!'
>
> 1968 L. ROSTEN Joys of Yiddish 14 Two A[lteren] K[ockern] had sat in
> silence on
> their favorite park bench for hours, lost in thought. Finally, one
> gave a long
> and languid `Oy!' The other replied, `You're telling me?'
>
> 1968 L. ROSTEN Joys of Yiddish 273 Oy is often used as lead-off for
> `oy vay!'
> which means, literally, `Oh, pain', but is used as an all-purpose
> ejaculation to
> express anything from trivial delight to abysmal woe.
>
> Now, is this Oy the Oi of David Ritchie's kinsman? I wouldn't know how
> to answer
> that. If one says Oy! in order to address someone or to get their
> attention it
> seems to me that the speaker's language (as might be revealed by what
> followed)
> is a matter of indifference. Rapping a glass with a spoon after a
> banquet in
> order to get the attention of the assembly is neither English nor
> non-English.
> That it does its vocative job in settings in which the assembly is
> made up of
> English-speakers does not make it one or the other, even though Hey!
> (allegedly
> an English VP) could have been rudely substituted for it. Language is
> much
> cleverer than we make it out to be.
>
> Robert Paul
> Reed College
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
