My question is this: most of the case endings of nouns in highly inflected languages do serve a purpose, in that they express the relationships of the nouns in a sentence while allowing free rein as to word order. In languages that have lost inflection, the job of providing the semantic “glue” in a sentence is taken over by rigid word order. I don’t know much Latin, but I’m sure you could say the equivalent of
*The Knights Who Say Nee told Arthur and his knights to chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring *
in a variety of word orders, because the inflectional endings on the nouns would convey the fact that the tree was to be chopped down by the knughts using, and not the other way around. In English we’re pretty much stuck with the word order I gave above, or else we might be saying
The herring told the tree to chop down Arthur and his knights with the Knights who Say Nee.
So you have the classic cases of nouns in inflected languages:
nominative – the agent (Arthur and his knights)
accusative – the target of direct action (chopping down a tree
dative – indirect object, i.e., giving something to a person
possessive – possession
instrumentive – with a herring
etc.
But in Latin there’s also the vocative case, which you use when addressing somebody. Hence, Et tu, Brute?, instead of Et tu, Brutus?. Evidently it was already somewhat dying out, because it was only used with masculine names. But why was it ever necessary to have a special inflection so someone would know you were adressing them? Brutus and Caesar both knew exactly who was being spoken to. So to me, the vocative seems like it couldn’t ever have really been of any use, unlike the other cases which really do communicate useful meaning.
Irish also has the vocative case. If you’re addressing Maira, it becomes “Mhaira.” That’s how we get the variations and “Seamas” and “Hamish” (Sheamas) for “James.”
Note that Latin is very liberal as word order is concerned.
In English more information is conveyed by the syntax (word order, basically), less by the morphology (forms of words - endings, prefixes…)
Most of the time the function of a word can be inferred from it’s position in the sentence.
In more heavily inflected languages like Latin and German, my native language, the word forms (e.g. cases of nouns) convey more information about the functions within the sentence but in turn almost sentences like Yoda you may form.
This does not explain vocative specifically but it is a reason why inflected languages have applications for forms that seem unnecessary in a less inflected language.
You need many specific forms to reduce ambiguity without creating restrictive rules for the syntax.
Perhaps such a case was necessary to distinguish between speaking to someone and speaking about someone to others in their presence. Something like:
case 1 Brutus, you post too rarely on the SD message board
case 2 Brutus posts too rarely on the SD message board (Brutus is with you and the people you are addressing)
In English there is little reason for ambiguity, but maybe in Latin (I don’t know Latin)
Why any case? The simple answer is that it distinguishes, by ending, what role the noun is playing in the sentence. I presume that the Vocative makes clear to a hearer of a language with a vocative case that he or she specifically is being addressed. It’s as different from being the subject of the verb as is the indirect object or the instrument being wielded.
There appear to have originally been eight cases in Proto-Indo-European; the Finno-Ugric languages multiply that number severalfold, so I understand (I’ve never studied Suomi or Mordvinian).
Best point made in this thread. Grammar, across all of human language, is rife with arbitrariness. There is a lot of grammatical detritus out there which is not based on logic. For a detailed discussion, see Chapter X of Frederick Bodmer’s The Loom of Language. It should be available in your public library, or in a large bookstore.
Finnish (*aka * Suomi) has 15 cases, two of which are little used in modern Finnish. These cases, however, can be legitimately analyzed as bound postpositions.
Kellner, I understand that Latin has liberal word order, and does so because the complex inflected case system allows it. I speak German myself, and I understand the communicative value of cases there, though I note that even in German most case marking shifts to the article. Aside from the genitive, dative plural, and dative masculine/neuter endings, most nouns themselves do not carry inflection. And, IIRC, the masculine and neuter datives, e.g. meinem Freunde, are more or less optional these days.
But I still don’t understand the communicative value of a vocative, even in Zimaane’s example. So I’m together with Brutus in a group of people, and I tell the crowd that Brutus doesn’t post enough. This is clearly different from “Brutus, you don’t post enough”, since I’m obviously addressing him directly. But I don’t see why an inflection would be needed.
This explanation must be rejected, since Indo-European grammar evolved long before the existence of writing. The vocative is an Indo-european case which some languages lost, some didn’t. Latin has it, Ancient Greek had it. In fact in Greek it is more developed than in Latin, where, as mentioned before, there is only 1 declension (2nd declension) where it even has a different ending than the nominative.
My best guess is that we should imagine an “Indo-European” society somewhere in the past where it was considered very important whether you were addressing someone directly or not. Perhaps religion is key here; addressing teh gods, who are not present and might not otherwise know you were invoking them?
I don’t think there’s a definitive answer to be found.
In ancient Greek there are 5 cases and in modern 4.
The 4 cases are (in order): nominative, possessive, accusative, vocative
I don’t know what exactly is the fifth case in ancient Greek, but I remember that this case exists in German. For one thing, using this fifth case in modern greek, makes sentences much shorter. (You can mix some forms of ancient greek in modern greek, but its tricky.) Another thing is that some of the cases sound the same, so you still need correct word order and/or context so the sentences make any sense.
Sorry, but I can’t explain it any further Language is not my strong point!
I think the missing link might be found, not in the words, but in the punctuation.
In English and German, the vocative case does not have a spelling or ending that is distinct from the nominative (subject), but one could argue that it nonetheless exists as a gramatical form, marked by setting the noun off with a comma.
So, Klaus, kommst du mit?
So, Klaus, are you coming with us?
In earlier forms of classical Latin, punctuation was not used to the same degree. Every student has encountered more than a few paragraphs that begged for a comma (to our sensibilities), even after application of the sometimes arcane local case usage at the time and place of the writing. [Well-punctuated modern English and German sentences are not necessarily unambiguous, either]
Over subsequent centuries, the comma and other “modern” punctuation slowly entered the Latin of academic and international discourse. As I was taught it, “Et tu Brute?” would have been more authentic for early Latin, but “Et tu, Brute?” would be more common in medieval Latin or modern Latin classrooms. I seem to recall the vocative being used with a comma in writings that were roughly contemporaneous with Iulius Gaius, but I have no idea how universal it was, or when the transtion began.
I would welcome correction, and especially links to example passages in early classical texts, if this distant recollection is incorrect.
One thing I think is important is that the ancients didn’t have a sense of grammar like we do. Can some classicist correct me or give details? Am I right in remembering that Plato was the first person (in Greek, anyway) to distinguish between a noun and a verb?
Not knowing any Latin, this is just a wild shot in the dark.
Could it be related in any way to the fact that in some languages you address people in the third person when using formal speech. Maybe using the vocative was a more familiar way of speaking.
Another thought: The example in the OP - et tu brute - expresses the concept of “***you * ** are being spoken to” twice: once with the word “tu” and once by using the vocative. In English you would only use the word “you” (You too, Brutus). So my assumption (again, based only on the examples in the OP, not any grounding in Latin) is that simply saying “Et brute” would have been sufficient. Quite a neat little word ending if you ask me, simply expressing “You, Brutus” more efficiently. Maybe the extra “tu” was for added emphasis?
Language is not my strong point!