Vocative of MEUS: MI without ME

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Is it possible to write a vocative sentence without ME accompanying
MI?

Example: CENABIS BENE MI FABULLAE APUD ME
You will dine well with me my Fabullas -Catellus 13

'MI' is 'my' (voc from MEUS) and 'ME' is 'me'

Is it possible to form this construction without 'ME'?

Can you say something like 'This is my bottle' and 'my' would
be 'MI'? But wouldnt that use MEUS and not MI?

If you said 'This is my bottle' then my should be 'MEI' from
the declining of MEUS: MEUS MEI MIHI ME ME. That is the genative.

What is triggering the vocative?

If you simply said 'My book' isn't that still using the genative or 'MEI'

Thanks.

[timeodanaos]

The vocative is for calling out: O, brother!; Martha my dear! could be examples. If a masculine noun in the vocative has an added possesive pronoun in the first person, the said pronoun will be mi. O, my brother! would therefore be o, mi frater!
The vocative has no special morphology in feminine or neuter.

ME, on the other hand, is the personal pronoun meaning me. The specific form is either accusative or ablave, in the quoted Catullus accusativ, since apud governs the accusative case.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

What your saying is that 'Tom! This is my bottle' is in the vocative.
The word 'my' in this sentence would be 'MI'.

TOM! IS MI APULLA

If the sentence was simply 'This is my bottle' than you would use
"MIHI" which is the genative for the word 'my'.

IS MIHI APULLAE

Thanks.

[spiphany]

What your saying is that 'Tom! This is my bottle' is in the vocative.

No. Only the thing/person you are adressing is in the vocative (Tom). You are not talking to "my bottle".

Now, if for some reason you wanted to say, "O my bottle, why are you empty?", "My bottle" would be in the vocative. BUT "you" is not - it is part of a separate sentence.

[metrodorus]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili. Filius, fili and genius, geni also are formed by this analogical process. The accusative of ego, is "me". These matters have been pointed out be previous posters. Sometimes the vocativus is meus, sometimes it is mi.
I'm not really sure I understand your question, perhaps you need to ask it in a different way, so that you difficulty is clearer. What textbook are you using? Knowing this would also be helpful.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

VIRGILLIUS! IS MEUS APULLAE

This should be correct then unless it is

VIRGILLIUS! IS MIHI APULLAE

Thanks.

[wackyvorlon]

If the sentence was simply 'This is my bottle' than you would use
"MIHI" which is the genative for the word 'my'.

Umm... I don't think mihi is the genitive of anything. It's the dative of meus.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili. Filius, fili and genius,

Sometimes the vocativus is meus, sometimes it is mi.

Wait a second - i think i confused things. If the name is 'VIRGILLIUS' then the sentence would be

VIRGILLIUS! IS MI AMPULLAE

but if the sentence used the name 'Tom' it would be

TOM! IS MIHI AMPULLAE

Correct?

Thanks.

[wackyvorlon]

Well, now I'm thoroughly confused as well. Now, with Virgillius, are you thinking of -ius adjectives? Mind, Virgillius in this context isn't an adjective. It's a pronoun. Similarily, vocative for second declension nouns is -e, not -us. Hence, Et tu Brute? when Brutus kills Caesar.

Now, what about:

Oh, ampulla pulchra! Mea es!

"Oh, beautiful bottle! You are mine!"

[Swth\r]

Dear "blutoonwithcarrotandnail",

At first you have to distinguish personal from possessive pronouns. Possesive pronouns are always used in attributive (or predicate) position. This means that you have to correlate (in case, gender and number) the pronoun to the thing possessed. So, if the possessed thing stands in vocative, you use the vocative: "mi"-"meus"-"mea" etc.; if not, you use the correspondive case. So, consider the following funny sentences:

Oh, my eye, why can't you see my hand? => O, mi ocule, cur meam manum videre non potes?
Oh, my eye, why my right hand is fallen down? => O, mi ocule, cur dextra (manus) mea cecidit?

Further:
Oh, my god, is my mother sad? => O, deus meus, mater mea misera est?
Oh, my son, did you give my brother a present? => O, mi fili, dedistine donum fratri meo?

You may of course use the personal pronoun instead, but always in (possessive) genitive close to the thing possessed. Note only that it is not very common. So:

O, fili mei, accipe donum mei. (It's something like saying in english: Oh, son of mine, accept a present of mine)

I hope I helped you...!

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Now, with Virgillius, are you thinking of -ius adjectives? Mind, Virgillius in this context isn't an adjective. It's a pronoun. Similarily, vocative for second declension nouns is -e, not -us.

VIRGILLE! IS MI AMPULLAE

but if the sentence used the name 'Tom' it would be

TOM! IS MEI AMPULLAE

Is that correct now?

Thanks.

[timeodanaos]

Now, with Virgillius, are you thinking of -ius adjectives? Mind, Virgillius in this context isn't an adjective. It's a pronoun. Similarily, vocative for second declension nouns is -e, not -us.

VIRGILLE! IS MI AMPULLAE

but if the sentence used the name 'Tom' it would be

TOM! IS MEI AMPULLAE

Is that correct now?

Thanks.

What is this supposed to mean?

[Swth\r]

VIRGILLE! IS MI AMPULLAE

but if the sentence used the name 'Tom' it would be

TOM! IS MEI AMPULLAE

Is that correct now?

Thanks.

My friend, I don't really understand what you wish to say...

What you actually above say is "Tom, he, oh mine, of the bottle" or "Tom, he of bottle mine"

If you want to say "Tom, this is my bottle", then the possibilities are:

Tom! Ea/haec ampulla mihi est. = This bottle belongs to me, I have this bottle.
Tom! Ea/haec ampulla mea est . = This bottle is mine.
Tom! Ea/haec est ampulla mea. = This is my bottle, or: My bottle is this one.

And if you like to say "Oh, Virgil! This is my bollte", then you just change the proper name from "Tom" to "Virgil". Nothing else needs to be changed!

Sometimes, as in poetry istead of "mihi" is found "mi", but not as vocative, as dative also.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

Tom! Ea/haec ampulla mea est . = This bottle is mine.

Question: 'MEA' is not in the Vocative is it? 'TOM!' is considered the
vocative. I am assuming that 'MEA' is the feminine of 'MEUS' from:

MEUS MEA MUUM

and not from:

EGO MEI MIHI ME ME

Second question: 'TOM!' is in the vocative. If the persons name was 'VIRGILLIUS'
and it went into the vocative would it be 'VIRGILLI!'

Examples: PEULLA! -> PEULLA!
SERVUS! -> SERVE!
TULLIUS! -> TULLI!

Thanks.

[wackyvorlon]

Remember, for first declension nouns, which mea would be used to match, the nominative ending is the same as the vocative. So, O, mea ampulla!, both mea and ampulla could easily be in the vocative. The ending is the same as in the nominative. Since mea/-us/-um refers to ampulla, they have to agree in number and case.

EDIT: A quick thought, which latin text are you working from?

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili. Filius, fili and genius, geni also are formed by this analogical process.

Question: FILIUS ends in -IUS so it uses 'MI'. But 'OCCULUS' ends in '-US' and not '-IUS' so why does it
take 'MI OCULE'

Example:

O, MI OCULE..

O, MI FILI..

Thanks.

[Swth\r]

Tom! Ea/haec ampulla mea est . = This bottle is mine.

Question: 'MEA' is not in the Vocative is it? 'TOM!' is considered the
vocative. I am assuming that 'MEA' is the feminine of 'MEUS' from:

MEUS MEA MUUM

and not from:

EGO MEI MIHI ME ME

Second question: 'TOM!' is in the vocative. If the persons name was 'VIRGILLIUS'
and it went into the vocative would it be 'VIRGILLI!'

Examples: PEULLA! -> PEULLA!
SERVUS! -> SERVE!
TULLIUS! -> TULLI!

Thanks.

First answer:
YES!!! MEA is the feminine of MEUS MEA MEUM (the possessive pronoun), and it stands in the same case as ampulla, meaning the NOMINATIVE, since the word AMPULLA in the sentence is the subject and MEA the predicate. It has nothing to do with the personal pronoun EGO MEI MIHI ME ME...

Second answer:
YES, correctly! But there is no pronoun related to the proper names in your examples. If you want to say: My girl! My servant! My Tullius! (e.g. calling them), then you use the vocative or the proper name plus the vocatime of the possessive pronoun in the same gender and number. MEA PUELLA! MI SERVE! MI TULLI!

Just remember: noun and pronoun form a couple and go together in gender, case and number. You should try to declinate couples like MEUS FILIUS, MEUS OCULUS, MEA TERRA, MEA SILVA, etc. in order to comprehend the way it goes, as a couple always

MEUS FILIUS
MEI FILII/FILI
MEO FILIO
MEUM FILIUM
MI FILI
MEO FILIO

MEI FILII
MEORUM FILIORUM
MEIS FILIIS
MEOS FILIOS
MEI FILII
MEIS FILIIS



MEA TERRA
MEAE TERRAE
MEAE TERRAE
MEAM TERRAM
MEA TERRA
MEA TERRA

MEAE TERRAE
MEARUM TERRARUM
MEIS TERRIS
MEAS TERRAS
MEAE TERRAE
MEIS TERRIS

ETC...

I hope I was helpfull!

[Swth\r]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili. Filius, fili and genius, geni also are formed by this analogical process.

Question: FILIUS ends in -IUS so it uses 'MI'. But 'OCCULUS' ends in '-US' and not '-IUS' so why does it
take 'MI OCULE'

Example:

O, MI OCULE..

O, MI FILI..

Thanks.

Dear friend,

the vocative of MEUS is either MI or MEUS. As MI is usually found next to vocative forms that differ from the nominative; as MEUS is usually found next to vocatives that are of the same form to the nominative (in this case, MI is also used):

MI OCULE
MEUS OCULUS (as vocative!)
MEUS DEUS (always)
MI PATER/MEUS PATER (both as vocative!)
MI PUER/MEUS PUER (both as vocative!)

[Trimalchio]

Vocative of Meus is often Mi

M&F uses the example: 'Mi filli' or 'My son'

Also, many of you are confusing the possessive adjective Meus with the pronoun ego.

Meus never takes mihi. It follows the common adjective pattern Meus -a -um. Just like Suus -a -um and Tuus -a -um.

Ego, if I remember correctly, is Ego, mei, mihi, me, me.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

MI OCULE
MEUS OCULUS (as vocative!)
MEUS DEUS (always)
MI PATER/MEUS PATER (both as vocative!)
MI PUER/MEUS PUER (both as vocative!)

The Vocative of OCULUS is OCULE. This makes sense when you say 'MI OCULE' because
OCULUS ends in -US (either -US or -IUS take 'MI')

But what does MEUS OCULUS translate to? Isn't this 'My eye'. That is what it should
translate to. This is possesion as if you were telling somebody about your eye.

But you say MEUS OCULUS is really the vocative which is 'Oh my eye!' As if your eye
was a person and your talking to it.

This doesnt make sense. 'Oh my eye!' should be 'MI OCULE' not 'MEUS OCULUS.'

Also:

MEUS FILIUS (IS THIS THE NOMINATIVE?)
MEI FILII/FILI (IS THIS THE GENATIVE?)
MEO FILIO (IS THIS THE ACCUSATIVE? ME + O?)
MEUM FILIUM (IS THIS THE DATIVE? Shouldnt it be MIHI?)
MI FILI (IS THIS THE LOCATIVE?)
MEO FILIO (IS THIS THE ABLATIVE? ME + O?)

As i understood it it is:

MEUS (Nom)
MEI (Gen)
MIHI (Dat)
ME (Acc)
ME (abl)

What does the order, "MEUS - MEI -MEO -MEUM -MI -MEO' mean? This has something to
do with -US nouns (masc): -US -I -O -UM -O

Thanks.

[adrianus]

This doesnt make sense. 'Oh my eye!' should be 'MI OCULE' not 'MEUS OCULUS.'

You are right. The vocative of the noun "oculus" is always "ocule" (with a short "e"). But the possessive adjective "meus" can have two forms in the vocative when it is masculine singular: "mi" and "meus". "Meus" is a little bit more formal. "Deus" is an exceptional (or irregular) noun in that its vocative is generally "deus" and seldom "dee" (with some older writers—pre-classical— it is "dee", though!). Put the two things together and you more often say "ô deus meus" (vocative), but "ô mi deus" is good, too! In all cases with masculine nouns in the vocative you say either "mi" or "meus". But note that it is more usual to use vocative "meus" after the masculine noun and "mi" before it. So you usually say "ô mi domine" and "ô domine meus".

Rectè dicis, canorcaerulecarotâclavoque. Semper "oculus" nomen vocativo casu "ocule" figuram (in "e" brevi terminantem) tenet. "Meus" autem adjectivum possessivum casu vocativo numeri singuli generis masculini duas figuras habet: "mi" atque "meus". Aliquid formalior est figura "meus". Inaequale nomen est "deus", qui "deus" rarò "dee" figuram casu vocativo habet (apud nonnullos quidem "dee" vocativo scribitur! Non autem classicé sed priús!). Verbis conjunctis casu vocativo, "ô deus meus" saepiùs dicitur, sed bonum quoquè "ô mi deus"! Omnibus exemplis nominum casu vocativo, utrâ figurâ "mi" vel "meus" utamur. Cum "meus" adjectivo nomen masculinum numeri singuli succeditur, saepiùs quidem "meus" figuram dici notes; cum procedit adjectivum, "mi" figura frequentiùs se ostendit. Ergô dicere solemus ità: "ô mi domine" et "ô domine meus".

As i understood it it is:

MEUS (Nom)
MEI (Gen)
MIHI (Dat)
ME (Acc)
ME (abl)

Not so. As Swth\r says above (and Trimalchio), "Meus -a -um" is a Possessive Adjective, and is declined like any First and Second declension adjective (with the exception of the masculine singular vocative). So in the Masculine case it is MEUS (Nom), MI or MEUS (Voc), MEUM (Acc), MEI (Gen), MEO (Dat), MEO (Abl).
Ego (me mei mihi me) is the Personal Pronoun, declined EGO (Nom), ME (Acc), MEI (Gen), MIHI (Dat), ME (Abl).

Minimé. Ut suprà dicit Swth\r (et Trimalchio) adjectivum possessivum est "meus -a -um", quod, vocativus casus separatim, sicut adjectivum primae secundaeque declinationis inflectitur.

Strictly speaking the Personal Pronoun "EGO" does not have a vocative. If you want to write a pychoanalytical drama where you have a character called "EGO" (representing the Freudian Ego, of course), keep his name indeclinable and address him vocatively as "Ô Ego".

Astrictè dicere, "ego" Pronomen Personale casum vocativum non tenet. Si te dramatem psychoanalyticum scribere velis in quo in proscaenio appareat persona "Ego" nomine (quod ideam Freudianam demonstrat, certé), facias ut nomem indeclinabile sit et is "Ô Ego" vocativo casu appelletur.

[Swth\r]

My answers in RED

The Vocative of OCULUS is OCULE. This makes sense when you say 'MI OCULE' because
OCULUS ends in -US (either -US or -IUS take 'MI')

It does not matter whether a noun ends in -(I)US or not! It can be of any declention!

But what does MEUS OCULUS translate to? Isn't this 'My eye'. That is what it should
translate to. This is possesion as if you were telling somebody about your eye.
But you say MEUS OCULUS is really the vocative which is 'Oh my eye!' As if your eye
was a person and your talking to it.


It can stand either as NOMINATIVE or as VOCATIVE. You have to decide on contextual parameters. It is always the POSSESSIVE pronoun, no matter the case. If it is in NOMINATIVE, then it means "My eye" (like if you use the phrase as subject: "My eye is not well"); if it is in VOCATIVE, then it means "Oh, my eye" (As you yourself correctly understood, like if you were speaking to your own eye: "Oh, my eye, why are you crying?" And, please, don't take it litterally )

This doesnt make sense. 'Oh my eye!' should be 'MI OCULE' not 'MEUS OCULUS.'

The masculine VOCATIVE of the pronoun MEUS (MEA MEUM) is either MI of MEUS. But when MEUS is used, it is like someone uses the NOMINATIVE instead of the VOCATIVE, but as if adressing people.
Also:

MEUS FILIUS (IS THIS THE NOMINATIVE?) YES
MEI FILII/FILI (IS THIS THE GENATIVE?) YES
MEO FILIO (IS THIS THE ACCUSATIVE? ME + O?) NO, the DATIVE! And MIHI is the DATIVE of EGO, not MEUS!!!
MEUM FILIUM (IS THIS THE DATIVE? Shouldnt it be MIHI?) NO, it is the ACCUSATIVE! See the above line
MI FILI (IS THIS THE LOCATIVE?) If you mean the VOCATIVE, YES it is!
MEO FILIO (IS THIS THE ABLATIVE? ME + O?) YES

As i understood it it is:

MEUS (Nom)
MEI (Gen)
MIHI (Dat)
ME (Acc)
ME (abl)

Not at all! It is the personal pronoun, and ti goes like this:

EGO
MEI
MIHI
ME
-
ME

NOS
NOSTRUM/NOSTRI
NOBIS
NOS
-
NOBIS

What does the order, "MEUS - MEI -MEO -MEUM -MI -MEO' mean? This has something to
do with -US nouns (masc): -US -I -O -UM -O


It means "my" or "mine".

1) "My" when it is with another word to denote possesion. E.g.:

SINGULAR
Meus filius altus est -> My son is tall. NOMINATIVE
Mei filii equus altus est -> My son's horse is tall. GENITIVE
Ego dedi donum meo filio -> I gave a gift/present to my son. DATIVE
Ego amo meum filium. -> I love my son. ACCUSATIVE
O mi fili, amas me? -> Oh my son, do you love me? VOCATIVE
Ego amor a filio meo. -> I am loved by my son. ABLATIVE

PLURAL
Mei filii alti sunt. -> My sons are tall. NOMINATIVE
Meorum filiorum equi alti sunt. -> My sons' horses are tall. GENITIVE
Ego dedi dona filiis meis. -> I gave presents/gifts to my sons. DATIVE
Ego amo meos filios. -> I love my sons. ACCUSATIVE
O mei filii, amate me? -> Oh my sons, do you love me? VOCATIVE
Ego amor a filiis meis= -> I am loved by my sons. ABLATIVE

2) "Mine" means when it is used as subject or predicate. E.g.:

PREDICATE:
Hic filius est meus. -> This son is mine. NOMINATIVE SINGULAR
Hi filii sunt mei. -> These sons are mine. NOMINATIVE PLURAL

SUBJECT:
Nos ambo habemus filios. Meus est altus. -> We both have sons. Mine is tall. -> NOMINATIVE SINGULAR
Nos ambo habemus multos equos. Mei sunt celeri. We both have many horses. -> Mine are fast. NOMINATIVE PLURAL

You must distinguish the EGO pronoun from the MEUS-MEA-MEUM pronoun. The first is personal (=I); the second is possesive (=my-mine).
Possesive pronouns are derived from personal pronouns the following way: from the stem of the genitive (singular or plural) of the personal pronoun adding the adjectival endings of the second declention:

Singular -----> one possessor
EGO, ME-I -----> ME-US, ME-A, ME-UM (my-mine)
TU, TU-I -----> TU-US, TU-A, TU,UM (your-yours)
--, SU-I -----> SU-US, SU-A, SU-UM (his-his', her-hers, its)

Plural ------> many possessors
NOS, NOSTR-UM -----> NOSTER, NOSTR-A, NOSTR-UM (our-ours)
VOS, VESTR-UM -----> VESTER, VESTR-A, VESTR-UM (your-yours)
--, SU-I ----> SU-US, SU-A, SU-UM (their, theirs)


Thanks.

You are wellcome! Cheers!

[adrianus]

The masculine VOCATIVE of the pronoun MEUS (MEA MEUM) is either MI of MEUS. But when MEUS is used, it is like someone uses the NOMINATIVE instead of the VOCATIVE, but as if adressing people.

Sorry, but I don't agree, Swth\r. It would be correct to say "ô mi ocule" and "ô ocule meus" but not "ô meus oculus".
Tuâ veniâ, Swth\r, tecum dissentio. Rectè dicemus "ô mi ocule" et "ô ocule meus", sed perperàm "ô meus oculus".

[Swth\r]

The masculine VOCATIVE of the pronoun MEUS (MEA MEUM) is either MI of MEUS. But when MEUS is used, it is like someone uses the NOMINATIVE instead of the VOCATIVE, but as if adressing people.

Sorry, but I don't agree, Swth\r. It would be correct to say "ô mi ocule" and "ô ocule meus" but not "ô meus oculus".
Tuâ veniâ, Swth\r, tecum dissentio. Rectè dicemus "ô mi ocule" et "ô ocule meus", sed perperàm "ô meus oculus".

Perhaps you are right my friend. But I think that i have read this in a latin grammar. I will search it and I will tell you soon...

Thanks for the advice anyway

[adrianus]

No problem, Swth\r. I hope you find the reference because that would interest me a lot.
Libenter, Swth\r. Locum a te inventurum iri spero, quià, te successo, id me valdè tenebit.

[Swth\r]

No problem, Swth\r. I hope you find the reference because that would interest me a lot.
Libenter, Swth\r. Locum a te inventurum iri spero, quià, te successo, id me valdè tenebit.

In Lewis-Short Lexicon it is said that the form "MI" is found even with plural nouns "MI HOMINES", and even with feminine nouns "MI DONIMA, MI SOROR"...!!!
I never stop learning... It seems that your remark was very usefull!!! But I'm still searching for the reference mentioned before!

[adrianus]

Absolutely, Swth\r. I've spent so much effort emphasizing that the word "meus" is an adjective applying to a masculine singular noun that I've been saying "mi" is masculine singular only, which is nonsense.
Sanê, Swth\r. Quantùm emphasin ad genus numerumque "meus" figurae adjectivi dabam, tantùm errabam in dicendo "mi" figuram masculinam solùm esse. Me stultum!

[Swth\r]

HEUREKA!!!! It concerns EARLY latin, but I suppose it does not make it less interesting.

NOTE: This was not the book mentioned by me some posts above (and I know that, because I have never read the specific book)...

Check these links:
Charles Bennet: Syntax of early latin.

See also here, Eleanor Dickey, Latin forms of adress, From Plautus to Apuleius, especially end of page 223, begin of 224

Dear friend and "co-forumist" ADRIANUS,
I suppose it would be of great interest to you to read the following linguistic paper about addressing in LATIN: Richard Ashdowne, The Syntax of Address in Latin It is short in length and easy to be read, I suppose...

Salve, mi amice! (Or, perhaps, "meus amicus! )

[adrianus]

Your sources are great! Very interesting, and it's all more complicated than I thought. Thanks, Swth\r. My views were rather narrow, and the ironic thing is I imagined otherwise.
Bellissimos tuos fontes! Certè me tenent, qui rem multipliciorem esse ostendunt quàm putabam. Gratias tibi, Swth\r. Conspectus meus conclusior erat, et quod aliter credi ironicum est.

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili

Uh, theres two conflicting answers here. Metrodorus says the above 'the vocative is always meus unless the name
ends in -I(US) like TULLIUS where it becomes MI''. However swth/r wrote the following:

It does not matter whether a noun ends in -(I)US or not! It can be of any declention!

Am i missing something?

Thanks.

[Swth\r]

Your sources are great! Very interesting, and it's all more complicated than I thought. Thanks, Swth\r. My views were rather narrow, and the ironic thing is I imagined otherwise.Bellissimos tuos fontes! Certè me tenent, qui rem multipliciorem esse ostendunt quàm putabam. Gratias tibi, Swth\r. Conspectus meus conclusior erat, et quod aliter credi ironicum est.

Believe me, mine are even narrower than yours! But "γηράσκω ἀεὶ διδασκόμενος"!

Mi amice, aut credis aut non hoc, sed mea scientia de scribendo loquendoque Latine minor est tua. (Did I express myself correctly this way?)

Ave!

[Swth\r]

As I understand it, the vocativus of meus is meus, and only forms the alternative version , mi, by a process of analogy with proper names ending in -ius, which take i in the vocative, e.g. virgilius, virgili

Uh, theres two conflicting answers here. Metrodorus says the above 'the vocative is always meus unless the name
ends in -I(US) like TULLIUS where it becomes MI''. However swth/r wrote the following:

It does not matter whether a noun ends in -(I)US or not! It can be of any declension!

Am i missing something?

Thanks.

It is like I have already said, I am afraid; and I say this because the matter gets a little bit more complicated... Consider also this: most of the grammarians say that the VOCATIVE of MEUS is MI, and a few say that rarely MEUS can be found as VOCATIVE. What do you get from this rule? I personally think that MI is used with any vocative noun form, of any declension. I had once found (and have now linked above some other relative readings) that the form MEUS is used only with the NOMINATIVE (and of course in all other declensions but the 2nd, NOMINATIVE=VOCATIVE), but in addessing (people or things...), so it stands instead of VOCATIVE. Is it clearer to you now? I think that's as far as I can help you. After reading also the above mentioned pages, I hope that you conclude to something. I did...

But you don't have to worry about this one when writting Latin. You can always use the MI form in VOCATIVE and be correct. No need to "intefere" in the use of MEUS as VOCATIVE... The specific knowledge is only of academic value, needed mostly to scholars.

I repeat it to you: as I can see, you only need to understand the difference between using the EGO pronoun and the MEUS possessive pronoun, wich means to understand the difference in whole between the personal pronoun of any person and number, and the possesive pronouns of any person, number, gender and number of possessors...

Cheers!

[blutoonwithcarrotandnail]

It is like I have already said, I am afraid; and I say this because the matter gets a little bit more complicated... Consider also this: most of the grammarians say that the VOCATIVE of MEUS is MI, and a few say that rarely MEUS can be found as
VOCATIVE

Ive still got a question. You say MI is the vocative of MEUS and that MEUS can be used as the vocative according
to a few sources.

But is there any kind of rule at all about whether the person your addressings name ends in -IUS or can you
just interchange MEUS and MI at will depending on which source you listen to

Is there any relation to if the name ends in -IUS (TULLIUS) or are they interchangable if you are taking both
sources for granted. Metrodorus clearly said it had to do with whether the proper noun ended in -IUS.

Thanks.

[Swth\r]

Ive still got a question. You say MI is the vocative of MEUS and that MEUS can be used as the vocative according
to a few sources.

But is there any kind of rule at all about whether the person your addressings name ends in -IUS or can you
just interchange MEUS and MI at will depending on which source you listen to

Is there any relation to if the name ends in -IUS (TULLIUS) or are they interchangable if you are taking both
sources for granted. Metrodorus clearly said it had to do with whether the proper noun ended in -IUS.

Thanks.

As fas as my knowledge can go, I don't know if there is a rule different from what I have already said and written. Perhaps I am missing something... In ALL latin grammars (that I have read, and I have not read everyone), nothing more is explained. Nowhere is said that MI form is used ONLY with names in -IUS, or in -US, or in general with substantives of the 2nd declension... As I understand, those are interpretations of this (unfortunately) "foggy" rule considering our problem... According to my perception, and according to my explanation of this rule, MI can be used with any substantive of any declension in VOCATIVE. MEUS can be used with NOMINATIVE. Remember that only 2nd declension in -(I)US has a distinct form for VOCATIVE SINGULAR. In PLURAL and in all other declensions' SINGULAR the NOMINATIVE=the VOCATIVE, so (on my behalf at least) MI or MEUS could be used freely.

So, we have:

MI FILI (not MEUS FILI, nor MI FILIUS)
MI OCULE, or MEUS OCULUS (not MI OCULUS, nor MEUS OCULE)
because nominative and vocative differ from each other.

But:
MI PUER, or MEUS PUER (2nd decl. in -ER)
MI PATER,or MEUS PATER (3rd decl.)
MI EXERCITUS, or MEUS EXERCITUS (4th decl.)
because nominative=vocative in form.

[adrianus]

MI OCULE, or MEUS OCULUS (not MI OCULUS, nor MEUS OCULE)
because nominative and vocative differ from each other.

Having looked at your sources, Swth\r, I don't see them saying that. I see that "meus oculus" was used in early Latin for a vocative. There is also later evidence for "ô mi deus" "ô mi domine" and "ô domine meus" as being not unusual.
Sed id non dicunt fontes quos suprà citavisti, Swth\r.

[Swth\r]

MI OCULE, or MEUS OCULUS (not MI OCULUS, nor MEUS OCULE)
because nominative and vocative differ from each other.

Having looked at your sources, Swth\r, I don't see them saying that. I see that "meus oculus" was used in early Latin for a vocative. There is also later evidence for "ô mi deus" "ô mi domine" and "ô domine meus" as being not unusual.
Sed id non dicunt fontes quos suprà citavisti, Swth\r.

No! Not at all! As I said, it is an interpretation of mine, in order to help our friend to get some more confidence... As it seems, any form can be used with anything... So there is no problem... We can use aither MI or MEUS, but I think using always MI is the easiest solution. But I think DEUS should not be in our discussion, because it has irregular VOCATIVE anyway. I have not read enough of original latin texts; could you cite for me some phrases "in loco" where types like "o domine meus" are found?

Thank you in advance!

[adrianus]

could you cite for me some phrases "in loco" where types like "o domine meus" are found?

Libenter, Swth\r. Ecce: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... rt=30&sa=N

et

Vulpis aliquando sustinens famem ivit ad villam quandam, et veniens ante gallum dicebat ei: O domine meus galle, quam pulchram vocem habebat dominus meus pater tuus.

[Swth\r]

could you cite for me some phrases "in loco" where types like "o domine meus" are found?

Libenter, Swth\r. Ecce: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... rt=30&sa=N

Very intersting! But what about outside the Vulgate? For I saw almost all passages are frome there... The same with "popule meus"... Something more classical perhaps...

[adrianus]

You can't find examples in the classical period (not that I know of). (I did say "later evidence" above.) The usage is common from Late to Modern Latin. In my opinion, it's good latin.
Classicè non invenies (ut credo). (Suprà dixi recentiora esse vestigia.) Cotidiè dicitur constructio ab aevo sero usquè ad nos dies. Meâ sententiâ, bonum latinum est.

Post scriptum: Te rogare oblitus sum, Swth\r! Quid significat "γηράσκω ἀεὶ διδασκόμενος"?

[spiphany]

No! Not at all! As I said, it is an interpretation of mine, in order to help our friend to get some more confidence.

Aren't we at risk of confusing the learner here rather than clarifying? I'm confused about the point you're trying to make here.

My sense is, blutoon's problem is not grasping the grammatical concepts; as for applying them, it's probably best to give one rule which is generally valid and stick with it, even if there may be exceptions in the Latin authors.