Re: [tied] Vocative case in Romance

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 16671
Date: 2002-11-10

Since Lat. deus < *de.wos < *deiwos, I'd expect the _inherited_ vocative to have been *<di:ve> (< *de.:we < *deiwe), because *w did not normally drop before front vowels; thus e.g. gen.sg. <dei:> is analogical for *<di:wi:>. There seems to have been little use for the voc.sg. before Christianity; as for the early ecclesiastical writers, Tertullian used disyllabic <dee>, which was clearly analogical.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Vocative case in Romance

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:22:04 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:

>and Voc., and the nouns in -ius, with Voc. in -i: (for *-ie).  So too
>meus "my", Voc. mi: [and presumably the unattested Voc. of <deus>,
>which we would expect to have been *<dei:>]. 

*<di:>, rather.