Vocative O?
Gerald Smyth
using the vocative O?...g
Eric Walker
> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I using
> the vocative O?...g
Yes. Wikipedia:
"The vocative case is the case used for a noun identifying the person
(animal, object, etc.) being addressed and/or occasionally the
determiners of that noun. . . . In English, the vocative was historically
sometimes indicated by the prefix O."
Good to see you again, Gerald.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Gerald Smyth
Good to see you too, Eric, and I hope things are going well for you.
I'm happy you said that, because that was the example I used to
explain the vocative O to my daughter, who came across the phrase 'O
king' in an old lesson-book of mine. ('You know, it's the 'O' I use
when I call you...')
Later, I wondered if I'd been mistaken in choosing that as an example
because I'd also read that the vocative O was restricted to formal or
solemn contexts, far removed from the homely 'O John!'....g
Mark Brader
>>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I using
>>> the vocative O?
No.
>>> ...g
You are R.H. Draney and I claim my five pounds. :-)
Eric Walker:
>> Yes.
Gerald Smyth:
> I'm happy you said that, because that was the example I used to
> explain the vocative O to my daughter, who came across the phrase 'O
> king' in an old lesson-book of mine. ('You know, it's the 'O' I use
> when I call you...')
No, it isn't. The word you're using is "oh".
> Later, I wondered if I'd been mistaken in choosing that as an example
> because I'd also read that the vocative O was restricted to formal or
> solemn contexts, far removed from the homely 'O John!'
Exactly. "O John" is what you might use if you were praying to John.
But "oh, John" is what you use to get his attention from the next room.
(In the second one, only "John" is being used vocatively, so it has to
be set off by commas before and after. "Oh" is just an interjection.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Gadgetry abounded everywhere, almost all of which
m...@vex.net | he could justify." -- Robert Asprin
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Gerald Smyth:
>> I'm happy you said that, because that was the example I used to explain
>> the vocative O to my daughter, who came across the phrase 'O king' in
>> an old lesson-book of mine. ('You know, it's the 'O' I use when I call
>> you...')
>
> No, it isn't. The word you're using is "oh".
>
>> Later, I wondered if I'd been mistaken in choosing that as an example
>> because I'd also read that the vocative O was restricted to formal or
>> solemn contexts, far removed from the homely 'O John!'
>
> Exactly. "O John" is what you might use if you were praying to John.
> But "oh, John" is what you use to get his attention from the next room.
> (In the second one, only "John" is being used vocatively, so it has to
> be set off by commas before and after. "Oh" is just an interjection.)
Not so. As an example, Wikipedia further states "For example, in the
sentence, 'I don't know, John,' John is a vocative expression indicating
the party who is being addressed." Not very formal.
If Wikipedia won't do, here's MW:
1 : of, relating to, or being a grammatical case marking the one
addressed (as Latin Domine in miserere, Domine “have mercy, O Lord”)
2 of a word or word group : marking the one addressed (as mother in
“mother, come here”)
No reference to tone or formality.
Fowler on O and Oh:
"The present tendency is to restrict oh to places where it has a certain
independence, and prefer O where it is proclitic or leans forward upon
what follows; which means for practical purposes that as the sign of the
vocative . . . O is invariable, and as an exclamation the word is O when
no stop immediately follows it, but before any stop oh."
If Fowler seems old-fashioned, the Chicago (14th) says "A comma is
usually used after exclamatory oh or ah, but not after the vocative
O." (Which is what Fowler said, only said in reverse.)
Partridge remarks that "O without punctuation is an invocation (vocative
case) to some person or object named in the words that follow it, as in
Milton . . . . or in the humbler verse 'O lovely night!'"
Dean Alford (quoted by Partridge), complaining of the compositors' habit
of inserting unnecessary stops, said: "If one has written the words 'O
sir' as they ought to be written . . . our friend the compositor is sure
to write 'Oh' with a shriek [!] and to put another shriek after 'sir'."
I daresay "O lovely night" is plain enough, but "O sir" is even plainer.
While nowadays the O-form vocative is not common save in older text or
prose simulating it, it remains available for any vocative use, humble or
exalted. O dear, indeed it does.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
> using the vocative O?...g
I'm inclined to agree with Mark that you don't really call "O John!"
but "Oh, John!", so no, it isn't a vocative.
In any case, does anyone use the traditional vocative other than in prayers?
In the unlikely event of my meeting the Queen, I'm supposed to call her
"Your Majesty" on first mention, and "Ma'am" thereafter -- no "O" in
either.
--
athel
Eric Walker
[...]
> In any case, does anyone use the traditional vocative other than in
> prayers?
O sir, indeed we do. On occasion, anyway.
James Hogg
quote:
>On 2009-09-07 04:21:16 +0200, Gerald Smyth <gerald...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>> using the vocative O?...g
>
>I'm inclined to agree with Mark that you don't really call "O John!"
>but "Oh, John!", so no, it isn't a vocative.
>
>In any case, does anyone use the traditional vocative other than in prayers?
Still heavily influenced by the Latin I learned at school, I
never fail to address certain items of furniture as "O table".
>In the unlikely event of my meeting the Queen, I'm supposed to call her
>"Your Majesty" on first mention, and "Ma'am" thereafter -- no "O" in
>either.
Even without the "O", it could still be argued that you are using
a vocative. Morphologically it just happens to be identical with
the nominative.
The Gaelic languages still use the vocative particle "a" before a
name. It causes lenition of the following consonant, so that the
Scots name Seumas (Shamus) becomes "A Sheumais", anglicised as
Hamish.
--
James
Peter Moylan
> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
> using the vocative O?...g
Looking back at the noun cases of Old English, I see nominative,
accusative, genitive, and dative. No vocative. As far as I know,
the language never had a vocative case.
Except, perhaps, for the special case "O mouse".
Some other languages - notably, Latin - do[1] have a vocative case,
but I don't think it's ever been a feature of Germanic languages.
[1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
R H Draney
>
>Gerald Smyth wrote:
>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>> using the vocative O?...g
Grammatically, you'd be using the vocative John, which in Modern English has the
same form as any other case of John's name....
Unless you mean "the vocative, O"....
>Looking back at the noun cases of Old English, I see nominative,
>accusative, genitive, and dative. No vocative. As far as I know,
>the language never had a vocative case.
>
>Except, perhaps, for the special case "O mouse".
>
>Some other languages - notably, Latin - do[1] have a vocative case,
>but I don't think it's ever been a feature of Germanic languages.
>
>[1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
O inconsistent!...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
James Hogg
>Peter Moylan filted:
>>
>>Gerald Smyth wrote:
>>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>>> using the vocative O?...g
>
>Grammatically, you'd be using the vocative John, which in Modern English has the
>same form as any other case of John's name....
>
>Unless you mean "the vocative, O"....
>
>>Looking back at the noun cases of Old English, I see nominative,
>>accusative, genitive, and dative. No vocative. As far as I know,
>>the language never had a vocative case.
>>
>>Except, perhaps, for the special case "O mouse".
>>
>>Some other languages - notably, Latin - do[1] have a vocative case,
>>but I don't think it's ever been a feature of Germanic languages.
>>
>>[1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
>
>O inconsistent!...r
"Address me as 'Domine'," said the Latin master provocatively.
--
James
Jeffrey Turner
> Peter Moylan filted:
>>
>> [1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
>
> O inconsistent!...r
Next up: O a taxi.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Peter Moylan
> R H Draney wrote:
>> Peter Moylan filted:
>
>>>
>>> [1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
>>
>> O inconsistent!...r
>
> Next up: O a taxi.
But hansom: no.
Frank ess
R H Draney wrote:
> Peter Moylan filted:
>>
>> Gerald Smyth wrote:
>>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>>> using the vocative O?...g
>
> Grammatically, you'd be using the vocative John, which in Modern
> English has the same form as any other case of John's name....
>
> Unless you mean "the vocative, O"....
>
>> Looking back at the noun cases of Old English, I see nominative,
>> accusative, genitive, and dative. No vocative. As far as I know,
>> the language never had a vocative case.
>>
>> Except, perhaps, for the special case "O mouse".
>>
>> Some other languages - notably, Latin - do[1] have a vocative case,
>> but I don't think it's ever been a feature of Germanic languages.
>>
>> [1] ObCrossThread: yes, present tense. Call me inconsistent.
>
> O inconsistent!...r
O my.
Arcadian Rises
> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
> using the vocative O?...g
What about the vocative "Yo!"?
Eric Walker
[...]
> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case in
English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English or just
Google on <vocative English>.
Mark Brader
>> Exactly. "O John" is what you might use if you were praying to John.
>> But "oh, John" is what you use to get his attention from the next room.
>> (In the second one, only "John" is being used vocatively, so it has to
>> be set off by commas before and after. "Oh" is just an interjection.)
> Not so. As an example, Wikipedia further states "For example, in the
> sentence, 'I don't know, John,' John is a vocative expression indicating
> the party who is being addressed."
You appear to be disagreeing with something that I did not say.
--
Mark Brader | Our censorship system has one inexplicable anomaly.
Toronto | One of the rating codes is M for "mature", but there
m...@vex.net | isn't any corresponding "I" code... --Peter Moylan
Peter Moylan
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>
> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case in
> English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English or just
> Google on <vocative English>.
That page is mostly about the inflections used for the vocative in a
variety of languages that have a vocative inflection. The (short)
section about English only serves to underline the difference between
English and languages that have a vocative case.
Eric Walker
> Mark Brader:
>>> Exactly. "O John" is what you might use if you were praying to John.
>>> But "oh, John" is what you use to get his attention from the next
>>> room. (In the second one, only "John" is being used vocatively, so it
>>> has to be set off by commas before and after. "Oh" is just an
>>> interjection.)
>
> Eric Walker:
>> Not so. As an example, Wikipedia further states "For example, in the
>> sentence, 'I don't know, John,' John is a vocative expression
>> indicating the party who is being addressed."
>
> You appear to be disagreeing with something that I did not say.
You are perfectly correct. Haste makes, &c.
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>>
>> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case in
>> English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English or
>> just Google on <vocative English>.
>
> That page is mostly about the inflections used for the vocative in a
> variety of languages that have a vocative inflection. The (short)
> section about English only serves to underline the difference between
> English and languages that have a vocative case.
If I am reading that aright, it continues the conflation of case and
inflection. English has a vocative case not manifested morphologically,
though sometimes marked with the modal particle "O". (It also has an
instrumental case, but who's counting?)
Jerry Friedman
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>
> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case in
> English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English or just
> Google on <vocative English>.
See also other thread. English has vocative expressions, my friend,
but maybe it doesn't have a vocative case.
--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt
> Eric Walker wrote:
>>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>>
>> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case
>> in English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English
>> or just Google on <vocative English>.
>
> That page is mostly about the inflections used for the vocative in a
> variety of languages that have a vocative inflection. The (short)
> section about English only serves to underline the difference between
> English and languages that have a vocative case.
One of the reasons I took a different first name upon obtaining citizenship
was because my original Latvian first name did have a vocative inflection in
Latvian. It was weird being called by my name in the nominative case. The
name change to an English one fixed that problem.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Glenn Knickerbocker
> One of the reasons I took a different first name upon obtaining citizenship
> was because my original Latvian first name did have a vocative inflection
Oddly, in Georgian the vocative "-o" is used only with common nouns, not
with names. Names may get a dozen different nicknames (Vladimeri is
Vladiko, Volo, Vova, Lado, etc.) and they're declined normally in the
other cases, but in the vocative each one's form is sacrosanct. Giving
a name a vocative inflection is like turning it into a nasty epithet.
�R
Robert Bannister
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>
> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case in
> English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English or just
> Google on <vocative English>.
>
>
But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
"O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling would
be used.
I had to laugh at some of the other language examples: giving the
vocative of "book" reminded me of some of the sillier moments in my
Latin primer.
--
Rob Bannister
Eric Walker
[...]
> But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
> being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
> suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
> "O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling would
> be used. . . .
The rule of thumb might be that if the "O/Oh" can be replaced by "Ah"
without gross silliness ensuing, then "Oh" was meant, whereas if it
cannot "O" was meant.
Another clue is whether the term is followed by punctuation: if so, it is
"Oh", if not it is "O". Regrettably, that is far from universal, in that
certain expressions--such as "Oh yeah?"--have come to be felt as integral
and are now rarely punctuated internally.
R H Draney
>
>But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
>being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
>suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
>"O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling would
>be used.
Which reminds me: I recently managed to miss Laurie Anderson and her husband in
my area (she had cancelled two previous concerts for logistic reasons)...I doubt
she would have performed "O Superman (for Massenet)" at this one, though....r
Adam Funk
> But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
> being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
> suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
> "O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling would
> be used.
"Hey" is also easy to say in Finnish and Swedish (hei, hej).
--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."
Paul Wolff
>Eric Walker wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>> OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. But yes, there is a vocative case
>>in English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English
>>or just Google on <vocative English>.
>>
>
>But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
>being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
>suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
>"O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling
>would be used.
A case can be made out for "Hi" as a vocative marker in e-text
communications. It seems to have no other function than to point out
that the name or noun phrase following designates the person or group
being addressed.
Hi guys, who's going to the game tonight?
"O guys" doesn't quite cut the mustard any more (anymore).
--
Paul
Leslie Danks
[...]
> A case can be made out for "Hi" as a vocative marker in e-text
> communications. It seems to have no other function than to point out
> that the name or noun phrase following designates the person or group
> being addressed.
>
> Hi guys, who's going to the game tonight?
>
> "O guys" doesn't quite cut the mustard any more (anymore).
Are you sure? I think I shall try it for a while. I suspect it will
attract more attention than the awful "Hi", and it might even provoke
people to read my e-mails.
--
Les (BrE)
Arcadian Rises
> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote
>
> >Eric Walker wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
> >> �[...]
>
> >>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
> >> �OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. �But yes, there is a vocative case
> >>or just �Google on <vocative English>.
>
> >But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
> >being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
> >suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
> >"O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling
> >would be used.
>
> A case can be made out for "Hi" as a vocative marker in e-text
> communications. It seems to have no other function than to point out
> that the name or noun phrase following designates the person or group
> being addressed.
>
> Hi guys, who's going to the game tonight?
>
> "O guys" doesn't quite cut the mustard any more (anymore).
> --
> Paul
I always thought that "hi" is a salutation, like "hello" or its German
homophone "Heil". Which brings the question: is the subject of the
salutation in the vocative case? i.e. "Hello, Father"
Jerry Friedman
Is it in the vocative in Romanian?
--
Jerry Friedman
Arcadian Rises
I don't know. I guess if the subject of salutation is in the vocative,
then vocative it is, in any language that acomodates the vocative
case. If not, then negative.
James Hogg
>On Sep 9, 6:52?am, Paul Wolff <bounc...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote
>>
>> >Eric Walker wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:04:53 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> >> ?[...]
>>
>> >>> What about the vocative "Yo!"?
>> >> ?OK, OK, we've all had our laughs. ?But yes, there is a vocative case
>> >>in ?English. ?Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#English
>> >>or just ?Google on <vocative English>.
>>
>> >But it is used so rarely that most people would assume that "oh" was
>> >being said unless it were in the Bible or some other old text. I would
>> >suggest that "Hey" is a more likely way of attracting attention than
>> >"O", while if speaking to a superior some other form of grovelling
>> >would be used.
>>
>> A case can be made out for "Hi" as a vocative marker in e-text
>> communications. It seems to have no other function than to point out
>> that the name or noun phrase following designates the person or group
>> being addressed.
>>
>> Hi guys, who's going to the game tonight?
>>
>> "O guys" doesn't quite cut the mustard any more (anymore).
>> --
>> Paul
>
>I always thought that "hi" is a salutation, like "hello" or its German
>homophone "Heil". Which brings the question: is the subject of the
>salutation in the vocative case? i.e. "Hello, Father"
"Hello" is not related to German "Heil", although you may have
seen the suggestion that it comes from an Old English phrase
meaning "Hail be thou" or something.
"Hello" and its many variants (hallo, hullo, hillo, hilloa, etc.)
and related verbs (hallow, hollow, holler) began as a way of
shouting to attract someone's attention and later became a
salutation.
This seems to happen a lot. "Hey" as a call to attract attention
seems to have become a mere greeting for many Americans (not to
mention Scandinavians). And while "Hi" is a greeting for most
English speakers, in Ulster it's still a way to call for
attention. It too tends to suffer from attempts at popular
etymology; I've heard it claimed that it comes from "hiya"
meaning "how are you".
--
James
Jerry Friedman
I'm surprised there could be more than one possibility for "Hello,
Father" in a language with a morphologically distinct vocative. Shows
you what I know.
For a further surprise, the Wikipedia article says that the majority
of urban Romanians consider the vocative unrefined and use the
nominative instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_grammar#Case
--
Jerry Friedman
Arcadian Rises
> Quoth Arcadian Rises <Arcadianri...@aol.com>, and I quote:
I didn't think it was. I was refering to "hi" and its German homophone
"Heil", which I don't think are related either. But you are somehow
right to misunderstand my ambiguous statement, although the context
("homophone") makes it very clear that I did not refer to "hello".
James Hogg
I confess I misconstrued you.
I should say ten "Hi, Mary"s.
--
James
Jerry Friedman
Or at least fly some kind of penance.
--
Jerry Friedman
Arcadian Rises
That's all right, it happens to me quite often (to misconstrue
myself).
>
> I should say ten "Hi, Mary"s.
Five will do it, provided you sing them on the tune of Bach- Gounod.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
What makes you think they don't, O Les?
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Robin Bignall
I have the same feeling now as I did yesterday when Dr Rey mentioned
'polysemous'. Why would Peter want to tango with a one-eyed giant?
Eric Walker
[...]
> . . . Which brings the question: is the subject of the
> salutation in the vocative case? i.e. "Hello, Father"
Considering that the example the Wikipedia article gives for the vocative
case is "I don't know, John," one would think so.
Robert Bannister
> I always thought that "hi" is a salutation, like "hello" or its German
> homophone "Heil". Which brings the question: is the subject of the
> salutation in the vocative case? i.e. "Hello, Father"
Yes.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Ah weh, Maria.
--
Rob Bannister
Adam Funk
> I have the same feeling now as I did yesterday when Dr Rey mentioned
> 'polysemous'. Why would Peter want to tango with a one-eyed giant?
"Help! No man is dancing with me!"
--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Gerald Smyth <gerald...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>> using the vocative O?...g
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Mark that you don't really call "O John!"
> but "Oh, John!", so no, it isn't a vocative.
>
> In any case, does anyone use the traditional vocative other than in
> prayers?
Yes, O wise one. But typically only in jest.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law.
|If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine,
(650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to
|escape from jail, you'll be shot.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
R H Draney
>
>On 2009-09-09, Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> I have the same feeling now as I did yesterday when Dr Rey mentioned
>> 'polysemous'. Why would Peter want to tango with a one-eyed giant?
>
>"Help! No man is dancing with me!"
Arthur Murray taught me dancing in a hurry.
I had a week to spare;
He showed me the ground work, the walk - a - round work,
And told me to take it from there.
Arthur Murray then advised me not to worry,
It would come out all right.
To my way of thinkin', it came out stinkin' --
I don't know my left from my right.
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk filted:
>>
>>On 2009-09-09, Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>>> I have the same feeling now as I did yesterday when Dr Rey mentioned
>>> 'polysemous'. Why would Peter want to tango with a one-eyed giant?
>>
>>"Help! No man is dancing with me!"
>
> Arthur Murray taught me dancing in a hurry.
> I had a week to spare;
> He showed me the ground work, the walk - a - round work,
> And told me to take it from there.
>
> Arthur Murray then advised me not to worry,
> It would come out all right.
> To my way of thinkin', it came out stinkin' --
> I don't know my left from my right.
And there was the Smothers Brothers' perfect waltzer...
--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
Nick
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> writes:
>
>> Gerald Smyth <gerald...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>>> using the vocative O?...g
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree with Mark that you don't really call "O John!"
>> but "Oh, John!", so no, it isn't a vocative.
>>
>> In any case, does anyone use the traditional vocative other than in
>> prayers?
>
> Yes, O wise one. But typically only in jest.
Sometimes slightly less than jest, but with a certain waggish humour.
I've heard it used in the British Civil Service: "you can hardly go and
say 'O Treasury, give me another million pounds' until you can tell them
what you did with the last one". That sort of thing.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
web.w...@live.com
> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
> using the vocative O?...g
Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has yet explained specifically that which is arguably the most familiar use of the word O of all: "O come all ye faithful". Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement of "O all ye faithful, come"? Or is is something else altogether?
James Silverton
intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste Fideles".
It is interesting that "Adeste Fideles" is not a medieval carol but
dates from the 18th century. More than one author has been suggested.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Peter T. Daniels
read most of.
"O" is not in the vocative case. "John" in the example sentence is
in the vocative case -- or would be, if it made any sense to claim
that there's a vocative case in English..
Guy Barry
>On 4/27/2014 3:57 PM, web.w...@live.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 6, 2009 9:21:16 PM UTC-5, Gerald Smyth wrote:
>>> If I call (to someone in another room) 'O John! Come here!', am I
>>> using the vocative O?...g
>>
>> So - having read most of this very long thread, I'm wondering if the
>> vocative O might be related to oyez. They both seem to be calls to
>> attention.
>>
>> Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has yet explained specifically that
>> which is arguably the most familiar use of the word O of all: "O come all
>> ye faithful". Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement of "O
>> all ye faithful, come"? Or is is something else altogether?
>>
>I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come", is just
>intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste Fideles".
"O" is in the wrong place - it really ought to be "Come, O all ye faithful",
but the metre needed to fit the tune of the Latin original. The misplaced
"O" appears several other times in the English version:
O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant!
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;
Come and behold him
Born the King of Angels:
O come, let us adore Him, (3x)
Christ the Lord.
"O come, let us adore Him" seems particularly odd - what vocative can the
"O" belong with there?
Incidentally the same apparently misplaced "O" appears in "O come, O come
Emmanuel", also translated from Latin (Veni, veni Emmanuel). Does the
expression "O come" appear anywhere outside Christmas carols?
--
Guy Barry
Peter T. Daniels
> "James Silverton" wrote in message news:ljjob1$n15$1...@dont-email.me...
> >On 4/27/2014 3:57 PM, web.w...@live.com wrote:
> >> Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has yet explained specifically that
> >> which is arguably the most familiar use of the word O of all: "O come all
> >> ye faithful". Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement of "O
> >> all ye faithful, come"? Or is is something else altogether?
> >I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come", is just
> >intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste Fideles".
>
> I think the point being made is that "come" is a verb, not a noun, so the
> "O" is in the wrong place - it really ought to be "Come, O all ye faithful",
> but the metre needed to fit the tune of the Latin original. The misplaced
> "O" appears several other times in the English version:
> "O" belong with there?
> Incidentally the same apparently misplaced "O" appears in "O come, O come
> Emmanuel", also translated from Latin (Veni, veni Emmanuel). Does the
> expression "O come" appear anywhere outside Christmas carols?
Guy Barry
news:8a4258a5-9511-44eb...@googlegroups.com...
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
> > Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has yet explained specifically that
> > which is arguably the most familiar use of the word O of all: "O come
> > all ye faithful". Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement of
> > "O all ye faithful, come"?
James Silverton:
> I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come"...
Don't try that with the real most familiar use of the word O of all:
"O Canada".
> is just intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in
> "Adeste Fideles".
Incidentally, "come" is used in the English lyrics to translate two
different Latin verbs. "Venite" really does mean "come", but the
meaning of "adeste" is more like "be present", or let's say "attend",
with the actual coming left implicit.
--
Mark Brader | "...having compressed some 300 million years into
Toronto | two paragraphs, I have left out some details."
m...@vex.net | -- Roger Gary
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Adam Funk
just spelling variations of the same word.
--
Specifications are for the weak & timid!
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide
Jerry Friedman
> "James Silverton" wrote in message news:ljjob1$n15$1...@dont-email.me...
>> I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come", is just
>> intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste Fideles".
>
> I think the point being made is that "come" is a verb, not a noun, so
> the "O" is in the wrong place - it really ought to be "Come, O all ye
> faithful", but the metre needed to fit the tune of the Latin original.
> The misplaced "O" appears several other times in the English version:
not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
matter of terminology.
> O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant!
> O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;
> Come and behold him
> Born the King of Angels:
> O come, let us adore Him, (3x)
> Christ the Lord.
>
> "O come, let us adore Him" seems particularly odd - what vocative can
> the "O" belong with there?
>
> Incidentally the same apparently misplaced "O" appears in "O come, O
> come Emmanuel", also translated from Latin (Veni, veni Emmanuel). Does
> the expression "O come" appear anywhere outside Christmas carols?
Oh, come to the church in the wildwood..."
--
Jerry Friedman supposes the STS sufferers are already doomed.
Guy Barry
news:0K-dnVRM3tUvo8PO...@vex.net...
>Someone writes:
>> > Also, so far as I can tell, nobody has yet explained specifically that
>> > which is arguably the most familiar use of the word O of all: "O come
>> > all ye faithful". Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement
>> > of
>> > "O all ye faithful, come"?
>
>Yes, but you need a comma after "O" to pair with the other one.
vocative referring to the person or people being addressed: "O Peter", "O my
best beloved", "O ye of little faith".
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
>On 2014-04-28, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:8a4258a5-9511-44eb...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>On Monday, April 28, 2014 3:53:59 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>>>> Incidentally the same apparently misplaced "O" appears in "O come, O
>>>> come
>>>> Emmanuel", also translated from Latin (Veni, veni Emmanuel). Does the
>>>> expression "O come" appear anywhere outside Christmas carols?
>>>
>>>Oh, come on, can't you think of _any_ examples??
>>
>> That's "Oh", not "O". One's an interjection, the other's a vocative
>> marker.
>
>Ah yes, the vocative case "O Mouse". Historically, "oh" & "o" are
>just spelling variations of the same word.
faithful"? I must confess I never thought of it like that - I assumed the
"O" was part of the address to the faithful. What does the interjection
"Oh" represent here? Encouragement? Somehow it doesn't seem very
"religious".
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
>On 4/28/14 1:53 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "James Silverton" wrote in message news:ljjob1$n15$1...@dont-email.me...
>...
>
>>> I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come", is just
>>> intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste
>>> Fideles".
>>
>> I think the point being made is that "come" is a verb, not a noun, so
>> the "O" is in the wrong place - it really ought to be "Come, O all ye
>> faithful", but the metre needed to fit the tune of the Latin original.
>> The misplaced "O" appears several other times in the English version:
>
>Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether or
>not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
>matter of terminology.
before a pronoun or name, from "Oh", the interjection. I appreciate that
they may once have been alternative spellings of the same thing but I think
they've become clearly differentiated. The vocative "O" acts as a clitic,
attached to the following word, which "Oh" doesn't: contrast "O John"
(addressing John directly) with "Oh, John!" (expression of amusement,
encouragement, exasperation etc. directed at John).
(I should add that this use of "O" is now considered archaic, but it's still
common in hymns and other religious texts.)
--
Guy Barry
Adam Funk
Etymology: Variant of O int., probably intended to express a longer
or stronger sound. Compare Middle French, French oh! (1559).
In early use oh was interchangeable with o in all contexts. The
latter is now, however, almost entirely restricted to vocative uses
(see O int. 1) and to imperative, optative, or exclamatory phrases
(see O int. 2). Oh occurs especially standing alone and in
exclamations more detached from what follows, but in the 17th and
18th centuries it often occurs also in imperative, optative, or
exclamatory phrases and in these uses has again become common since
the early 20th cent.
"O" certainly looks more formal these days.
--
"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult
times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence
against chaos." (McMullen 2001)
Mark Brader
>>> Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement
>>> of "O all ye faithful, come"?
>> Yes, but you need a comma after "O" to pair with the other one.
> "O" isn't normally followed by a comma. It's followed directly by a
> vocative referring to the person or people being addressed: "O Peter",
> "O my best beloved", "O ye of little faith".
consideration I agree with Guy. No additional comma after all.
--
Mark Brader | ...roll the imaginary 60-meter sphere across the landscape
Toronto | (for safety reasons, do not use a real sphere).
m...@vex.net | --Randall Munroe
Peter T. Daniels
> So "O come all ye faithful" is actually equivalent to "Oh, come all ye
> faithful"? I must confess I never thought of it like that - I assumed the
> "O" was part of the address to the faithful. What does the interjection
> "Oh" represent here? Encouragement? Somehow it doesn't seem very
> "religious".
of the line for the rhythm.
When we got to Latin in 7th grade, I was surprised to find the cases
in a different order from what I knew from Alice -- and also that
there was no vocative listed at all. (It showed up in a much later
lesson, because it's vestigial at best in Classical Latin, and it
wasn't rendered with "O.")
Adam Funk
> On Monday, April 28, 2014 1:25:01 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> So "O come all ye faithful" is actually equivalent to "Oh, come all ye
>> faithful"? I must confess I never thought of it like that - I assumed the
>> "O" was part of the address to the faithful. What does the interjection
>> "Oh" represent here? Encouragement? Somehow it doesn't seem very
>> "religious".
>
> It represents the empty stressed syllable needed at the beginning
> of the line for the rhythm.
[you pl.] faithful".
> When we got to Latin in 7th grade, I was surprised to find the cases
> in a different order from what I knew from Alice -- and also that
> there was no vocative listed at all. (It showed up in a much later
> lesson, because it's vestigial at best in Classical Latin, and it
> wasn't rendered with "O.")
different orders for the cases. IIRC, the two schemes differ the same
way for German too (minus the ablative).
--
Slade was the coolest band in England. They were the kind of guys
that would push your car out of a ditch. --- Alice Cooper
Rich Ulrich
>Someone wrote:
>>>> Is that merely a poetically-licensed rearrangement
>>>> of "O all ye faithful, come"?
>
>I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>> Yes, but you need a comma after "O" to pair with the other one.
>
>Guy Barry wrote:
>> "O" isn't normally followed by a comma. It's followed directly by a
>> vocative referring to the person or people being addressed: "O Peter",
>> "O my best beloved", "O ye of little faith".
>
>Hmm. I was thinking of "O" as an interjection, but on further
>consideration I agree with Guy. No additional comma after all.
"Hey, Peter", "Hey, all ye faithful, come", or "Hey, ye of llittle
faith." I would put the commas after hey, because that seems
conventional. Or I would leave them out if I was transcribing
according to pauses.
--
Rich Ulrich
Dr Nick
to the form of vocative still used in Civil Service Mandarin-speak, along
the lines of "I can hardly approach Treasury and say 'O Chief Secretary,
give me another 350 million quid'; you'll have to find another
solution".
"Hey" doesn't work in that at all.
R H Draney
>On 2014-04-28, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:8a4258a5-9511-44eb...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>
>> That's "Oh", not "O". One's an interjection, the other's a vocative marker.
>
>Ah yes, the vocative case "O Mouse". Historically, "oh" & "o" are
>just spelling variations of the same word.
Eastwood, Neil Diamond and Gary Busey, talks to furniture?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
>James Silverton:
>> I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come"...
>
>Don't try that with the real most familiar use of the word O of all:
>"O Canada".
http://youtu.be/J6eZqYdOMLk
....r
Robert Bannister
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Robert Bannister
Baba - Grandma
Babo - Grandma (I want you to come here and do something I'm too lazy to
do myself)
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
record outside fiction that people really went round saying "O my Lord"?
rather than just "M'lord"?
Jenn
"I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me"
--
Jenn
Rich Ulrich
This also explains the one I left out,
"O my best beloved."
--
Rich Ulrich
Guy Barry
accusative after the nominative? Previously it had always come last.
As for the vocative, I was never sure why it was listed as a "case" at all,
since vocatives don't stand in any syntactic relationship to the rest of the
sentence. It's more like a noun-interjection.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
news:bs8e1n...@mid.individual.net...
--
Guy Barry
Cheryl
all kinds of language in some of them which presumably sounded
authentically old-fashioned to the author but which really wasn't.
--
Cheryl
Adam Funk
> Personally, I would scrap all "Os" and replace them with "Ohs".
_The Wonderful O_ by James Thurber into this thread.
--
svn ci -m 'come back make, all is forgiven!' build.xml
Adam Funk
> On 2014-04-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> When we got to Latin in 7th grade, I was surprised to find the cases
>> in a different order from what I knew from Alice -- and also that
>> there was no vocative listed at all. (It showed up in a much later
>> lesson, because it's vestigial at best in Classical Latin, and it
>> wasn't rendered with "O.")
>
> I think American & European (incl. British) textbooks use two
> different orders for the cases. IIRC, the two schemes differ the same
> way for German too (minus the ablative).
acc abl; the British ones all have nom acc dat gen abl (omitting abl
for German, of course).
--
"Dear Ann [Landers]: if there's an enormous rash of necrophilia that
happens in the next year because of this song, please let me know.
99.9% of the rest of us know it's a funny song!" --- Alice Cooper
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> >in a different order from what I knew from Alice -- and also that
> >there was no vocative listed at all. (It showed up in a much later
> >lesson, because it's vestigial at best in Classical Latin, and it
> >wasn't rendered with "O.")
>
> Wasn't it Kennedy's Latin Primer (late 19th century) that first put the
> accusative after the nominative? Previously it had always come last.
Nominative
Genitive
Dative
Accusative
Ablative
(Vocative)
> As for the vocative, I was never sure why it was listed as a "case" at all,
> since vocatives don't stand in any syntactic relationship to the rest of the
> sentence. It's more like a noun-interjection.
inflection. There's a handful of words that have a separate form
for the vocative case, and we probably had to memorize them at
some point.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2014-04-29 4:43 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
> > "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> >> record outside fiction that people really went round saying "O my
> >> Lord"? rather than just "M'lord"?
> > Why would it have appeared in fiction if people didn't actually say it?
>
> You can't have read as much junky historical fiction as I have. You get
> all kinds of language in some of them which presumably sounded
> authentically old-fashioned to the author but which really wasn't.
Maybe they analogized too far from some actual old style (I suppose
I don't read the sort of thing that "O my Lord" would appear in).
Cheryl
frequently used - not always correctly. To this day, I wouldn't trust
myself to use them correctly because of the bad influence of my early
reading habits!
Methods of addressing the aristocracy sometimes seemed to vary
dramatically from author to author, even when they were writing about
the same time and place. It appears to have been compulsory to have some
aristocrat as a character, so the authors needed some way to address one.
Personally, I don't see much difference between "O my Lord" and "O
Susanna" (or, for that matter, "Oh, Susanna!").
--
Cheryl
Katy Edgcombe
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> news:93119028-24ab-457e...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Monday, April 28, 2014 1:25:01 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>>> So "O come all ye faithful" is actually equivalent to "Oh, come all ye
>>> faithful"? I must confess I never thought of it like that - I
>>> assumed the
>>> "O" was part of the address to the faithful. What does the interjection
>>> "Oh" represent here? Encouragement? Somehow it doesn't seem very
>>> "religious".
>>
>> It represents the empty stressed syllable needed at the beginning
>> of the line for the rhythm.
the second verse, so it doesn't seem a very strong reason.
Also, you can say something like "Oh, come!" without bringing in the
name of the person you are addressing, though to read the carol like
that would probably be inappropriate.
Katy
Guy Barry
news:n1e*QX...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:93119028-24ab-457e...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 28, 2014 1:25:01 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "O come all ye faithful" is actually equivalent to "Oh, come all ye
>>>> faithful"? I must confess I never thought of it like that - I
>>>> assumed the
>>>> "O" was part of the address to the faithful. What does the
>>>> interjection
>>>> "Oh" represent here? Encouragement? Somehow it doesn't seem very
>>>> "religious".
>>>
>>> It represents the empty stressed syllable needed at the beginning
>>> of the line for the rhythm.
>
>But nobody has added a syllable for the same purpose to the beginning of
>the second verse, so it doesn't seem a very strong reason.
syllable at the beginning either: "Deum de Deo..."
You're right though - without the initial "O", the metre of the first verse
would match those of the other verses more closely.
--
Guy Barry
Jerry Friedman
I suppose "quid" shows that mandarins can use CoolE when they want.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
vocative marker in the interlinear gloss of the Latin /Hymns/ preserved
in MS Durham B.iii.32 (often when /O/ is not present in the Latin).
Apart from occurrences in this text Old English /o/ is rare; and Latin
/O/ is more commonly rendered by /lā/ or /ēalā/ (compare quot. OE2 at
sense A. 1)."
The citations in the OED don't suggest to me that people went around
saying it, but on the other hand there wasn't much recorded or
naturalistic dialogue in those days. Verbatim records of testimony in
court?
--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:24:11 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> Wasn't it Kennedy's Latin Primer (late 19th century) that first put the
>> accusative after the nominative? Previously it had always come last.
>
> The American order is
>
> Nominative
> Genitive
> Dative
> Accusative
> Ablative
> (Vocative)
I've just noticed that Gildersleeve's (see below) puts it between the
accusative & the ablative.
>> As for the vocative, I was never sure why it was listed as a "case" at all,
>> since vocatives don't stand in any syntactic relationship to the rest of the
>> sentence. It's more like a noun-interjection.
>
> Once again, semantics has nothing to do with the description of
> inflection. There's a handful of words that have a separate form
> for the vocative case, and we probably had to memorize them at
> some point.
form, although you're not likely to find a use for it in many cases.
Bizarrely, Gildersleeve's (1875) uses "hortus" (garden) to illustrate
2nd declension masculine nouns, including the vocative "horte" (O
Garden!).
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Peter Moylan
> On 4/28/14 1:53 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "James Silverton" wrote in message news:ljjob1$n15$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...
>
>>> I suppose "O come", which I personally would write "Oh come", is just
>>> intended to convey the meaning of the Latin vocative in "Adeste
>>> Fideles".
>>
>> I think the point being made is that "come" is a verb, not a noun, so
>> the "O" is in the wrong place - it really ought to be "Come, O all ye
>> faithful", but the metre needed to fit the tune of the Latin original.
>> The misplaced "O" appears several other times in the English version:
>
> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether or
> not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
> matter of terminology.
with an imperative.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Adam Funk
> On 2014-04-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Once again, semantics has nothing to do with the description of
>> inflection. There's a handful of words that have a separate form
>> for the vocative case, and we probably had to memorize them at
>> some point.
>
> I think all 2nd declension masculine nouns have a vocative singular
> form, although you're not likely to find a use for it in many cases.
> Bizarrely, Gildersleeve's (1875) uses "hortus" (garden) to illustrate
> 2nd declension masculine nouns, including the vocative "horte" (O
> Garden!).
bit.
--
The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine
him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote
Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.
--- Hunter S Thompson
Adam Funk
> On 29/04/14 00:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether or
>> not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
>> matter of terminology.
>
> It would be unusual, I think, to use a vocative marker in combination
> with an imperative.
--
If hard data were the filtering criterion you could fit the entire
contents of the Internet on a floppy disk. --- Cecil Adams
R H Draney
without changing its meaning....r
Mike L
[...]
>Personally, I don't see much difference between "O my Lord" and "O
>Susanna" (or, for that matter, "Oh, Susanna!").
--
Mike.
Guy Barry
>On 2014-04-29, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 29/04/14 00:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>>> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether or
>>> not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
>>> matter of terminology.
>>
>> It would be unusual, I think, to use a vocative marker in combination
>> with an imperative.
>
>"O Peter, **** off!" (for example)
before the name of the person it's addressed to. How common is that?
I thought of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as an example, but was unsure
whether the correct version is "O say, can you see..." or "Oh, say, can you
see...". Both versions come up in Google searches.
--
Guy Barry
Peter Moylan
Adam Funk
> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:ivc53bx...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>
>>On 2014-04-29, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/04/14 00:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether or
>>>> not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
>>>> matter of terminology.
>>>
>>> It would be unusual, I think, to use a vocative marker in combination
>>> with an imperative.
>>
>>"O Peter, **** off!" (for example)
>
> The point was about placing the "O" immediately before the verb, rather than
> before the name of the person it's addressed to. How common is that?
--
You know, there are many people in the country today who, through no
fault of their own, are sane. Some of them were born sane. Some of
them became sane later in their lives. --― Graham Chapman
Guy Barry
>On 2014-04-30, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:ivc53bx...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>>
>>>On 2014-04-29, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/04/14 00:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere. Whether
>>>>> or
>>>>> not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let us adore him" is a
>>>>> matter of terminology.
>>>>
>>>> It would be unusual, I think, to use a vocative marker in combination
>>>> with an imperative.
>>>
>>>"O Peter, **** off!" (for example)
>>
>> The point was about placing the "O" immediately before the verb, rather
>> than
>> before the name of the person it's addressed to. How common is that?
>
>"O[h] **** off!" then (or other rude imperative).
interjection, and "O", the vocative particle, as two different lexical
items, then it doesn't matter; but if you see them as different then I don't
think "O" is appropriate there.
--
Guy Barry
CDB
> "Adam Funk" wrote:
>>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> Seems to me that "O" is an interjection and can go anywhere.
>>>> Whether or not you want to call it "vocative" in "O come, let
>>>> us adore him" is a matter of terminology.
>>> It would be unusual, I think, to use a vocative marker in
>>> combination with an imperative.
>> "O Peter, **** off!" (for example)
> The point was about placing the "O" immediately before the verb,
> rather than before the name of the person it's addressed to. How
> common is that?
> I thought of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as an example, but was unsure
> whether the correct version is "O say, can you see..." or "Oh, say,
> can you see...". Both versions come up in Google searches.
Adam Funk
"Oh" there.
--
[Those cookbooks] seem to consider _everything_ a leftover, which you
must do something with. For instance, cake. This is like telling you
what to do with your leftover whisky. --- Peg Bracken
Jerry Friedman
good from fictional characters. (But only possibly.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
"O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!"
(Revisions such as "fruited" for "enameled" were big improvements, you
ask me.)
I don't feel a need to distinguish between vocative and
expressive-of-emotion (and metrical) here.
--
Jerry Friedman