TOM! MI!

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

I have written here that

TOM!

can be

MI!

as a special case in the vocative. is this because in the vocative
MEUS can also be MI in special cases? this is assuming these are
possessive adjectives and not personal pronouns

also if Peulla is 'PEULLA!' then why does 'Tom' become 'MI!'
instead of just remaining 'TOM!'


thanks

[adrianus]

I have written here that

TOM!

can be

MI!

as a special case in the vocative.

It isn't clear what you are talking about.
De quo dicis, non clarum est.

Do you mean "Oh, my Tom"?
Visne dicere hoc: "O mi Thomas"?

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

I am talking about direct address of a person in the vocative itself

PEULLE!
SERVE!
TULLI!

for some reason in my notes i seem to have that

TOM!

can also be 'MI!'

or likewise that VIRGILLI! can be MI!

is this correct?

thanks

[spiphany]

Meus and mi are adjectives. They can't replace a noun, but they can be used in addition to one. I think you must have gotten something confused in your notes.

[ptolemyauletes]

No. 'Mi!' Is meaningless on its own. It is like someone standing on the street corner and shouting 'My!' 'My what?' is the confused reply.

I think what your instructor meant was not that Mi! can replace Tom!, but that it can complement it.
I can address Tom in Latin with a simple vocative, 'Tom! Or I can address him with his name AND 'mi.
mi Tom! = 'My Tom', an oddity in English perhaps, but perfectly normal in Latin.

[adrianus]

Not meaningless, ptolemyauletes/spiphany. "O, mi!" means "O my dear/beloved (masculine)",—that, as a substantive, could be what blutoonwithcarrotandnail has a reference to.
Non sine significatione, ptolemyauletes spiphanyque; "O mi amor/amice care" significare potest quod in aliquo loco inveni canorcaeruluscarotaclavoque ut nomen substantivum.

Otherwise, as you say // Aliter, ut dicitis: "O Virgili! mi!" = "O Virgili mi!" = "Oh, Virgil! My beloved!" = "Oh, my [dear/beloved] Virgil" or "Oh, my Tom" = "O, my dear Tom"

mi Tom! = 'My Tom', an oddity in English perhaps, but perfectly normal in Latin.

Not such an oddity in English where I come from, I must say, alongside "Our Tom!" (voc.), and "My man/woman/boy/girl/dear!" isn't so strange elsewhere, is it?
Dictum anglicum non novum in illâ regione ubi habito, dico, unâ cum "Thomas noster!"; similiter alibi quoàd "Mi/mea vir/puer/puella/mulier/care", nonné?

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Meus and mi are adjectives. They can't replace a noun, but they can be used in addition to one. I think you must have gotten something confused in your notes.

granted then the only way to use TOM! in the vocative in Roman is TOM!
just like VIRGILLI! is VIRGILLI!

there is no possesive adjective (MEUS, MEI..) or personal pronoun (EGO, MEI..)
which can replace TOM! in any case?

thanks