Re: [tied] Vocative case in Romance

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Vocative case in Romance


> For non-soft a:-stems, yes (except in Slavic lgs. which have
lost the
> Vocative, where Nom. -a is used).
>
> The full array of Vocative endings is:
>
> i-stems: Voc -i
> u-stems: Voc -u
> C-stems/u:-stems: (Voc. = Nom.)
> a:-stems: Voc -o
> ja:-stems: Voc -(j)e
> o-stems: Voc -e
> jo-stems: Voc. -(j)u
>
> >Are slavic languages the only languages with vocative in
"o"?
>
> Probably not, but the only relevant ones.

[Moeller]
the new researches speaks about nonslavic influence until the
X centuries in the romanian languages. If someone like I will
give the reasons for these suppositions but here is
interesintg just the vocative.
So, we have a slavic vocative in "-e" for words ending in "o"
and slavic vocative in "o" for words ending in "a". I dont
know if there are exceptions from the rules but I suppose
there are not many if the full array which you gave could make
a rule.

Rom. words ending in "o"
In romanian words ending in "o" are hard to find.But if we
assume that someon will be called Mr. Brown= Dl. Maro, we will
have one and in this case we cann call him so, we can use the
vocative. A romanian will call Maroule so we have maro-maroule
just like in slavic.But this is wrong becuse the MAro is with
the article and not simply Maro .That means the "e" is not the
vocative stem for "o" , but the vocative stem for words ending
in a consonants like in romanins this usual the case is.
(Pãtrul voc. Pãtrule, Costin=voc. Costine, Mihai=voc.
Mihaie).Here is shown hos the supposed slavic rule doesnt
match for romanian.

Rom. words ending in "a".There is too hard to find any because
rom. doesnt end in "a" but mostly in "ã".
I discussed them before. Interesting is the case of masculine
words which end in "ã" like tatã=dady.
tata.= voc. tatã but never tato.
How I said, the normaly vocative is "ã" for words ending in
"ã" and "o" appears in a part of Romania from time to time
with no rule ( maybe there is one but still not found :-)
Here the slavic rule doesnt apply too to romanian.
In this case we can just constate there is an slavic vocative
in "o" and nothing more. Nothing can be used as argument for a
slavic influence.More as to constate in slavic is a vocative
in "o" and in romaninan too but for different stems-ending ,
you cannot do here.

2) about relevance

Of course one will insist on the bilinguisms of
slavo-romanians, billinguism which in my opinion was probable
just south of Donau and which ended in the assimilation of the
romanins in the slavic masses. That means just the some
features of romanians was loaned in south slavic languages
from assimilated romanian population .The same can be said
about the slavic influence in romanian , slavic features which
were loaned by rumanians from the slavs which were assimilated
north of Donau by romanians. The only difference is here:
- south of Donau we know about valachians begining with the X
centuries.
- north of Donau we dont know about slavs but we assume they
must have been due the hidro & toponyms (still the accepted
explanation). Was there a bilingvismus? That cannot be said
for sure.
For these reasons if we can agree about romanian loans from
south slavic due bilingvismus, we cannot say the same about
slavic loans by romanians due bilingvismus but we cann
consider as probably such loanings. The slavic rules which
does not apply to romanian language will say that aour
assumption may be wrong.
In this case the relevance is not a relevance and just a
posibility.The fact that in romanian the vocative in "o" is
very few used and mainly in south of Romania will speaks for a
linguistic calque but not for influence. Or is calque =
influence?:-)