nominative and vocative

[cacian]

I am trying my hand on these two styles but without much success.
I was reading about Shakespeare play Julius Ceasar and the famousquote 'et tu, Brute' when it mentioned the changes from Brute to Brutus e- to us- due to vocative and nominative.

This example:

''I don't know, John''
and
''I don't know John.''

Where the first John is vocative??

Any help would be great thanks!

[Charles Darnay]

These are not styles, they are just parts of speech. In languages that explicitly make use of noun declensions (most ancient languages, certain Slavic languages, German...) you must learn the different parts. They exist in English but are so buried that they are rarely ever taught when teaching grammar.

As for your examples - yes, the first is vocative, the second is accusative. In English, more commonly known as the subject and direct object.

[DieterM]

In cacian's example, wouldn't the subject rather be "I" (I don't know, John)? As for the vocative, there is no formal difference in German as there is in Latin. Or Greek (even modern Greek) for that matter. By "formal", I mean recognizable as in "Brutus" and "Brute" (or, in Greek, Yiorgos when you use the name in the nominative, and Yiorgo when you use it in the vocative).

[Charles Darnay]

I don't know, John - I = nom. John = voc.

I have heard debates for either side whether the vocative is a subject or object. It can be both depending on the sentence, and considering the above is not a proper sentence (in the strictest sense of grammar) you can't really tell. It's not an oblique because John is not an object of know, so I assume is it an indirect subject.

[cacian]

In cacian's example, wouldn't the subject rather be "I" (I don't know, John)? As for the vocative, there is no formal difference in German as there is in Latin. Or Greek (even modern Greek) for that matter. By "formal", I mean recognizable as in "Brutus" and "Brute" (or, in Greek, Yiorgos when you use the name in the nominative, and Yiorgo when you use it in the vocative).

Dieter I was meant to ask what does your signature say?

[cacian]

These are not styles, they are just parts of speech. In languages that explicitly make use of noun declensions (most ancient languages, certain Slavic languages, German...) you must learn the different parts. They exist in English but are so buried that they are rarely ever taught when teaching grammar.

As for your examples - yes, the first is vocative, the second is accusative. In English, more commonly known as the subject and direct object.

The first sentence

I know, John.

Does that mean that I am talking to John or that I am saying I do know him?
As oppose to the second sentence.

I know John?

[Charles Darnay]

"I know, John" means you are saying "I know" to someone named John.

"I know John" means you are saying to someone that you know a guy named John.

[DieterM]

@cacian: I explained my signature in the thread about rhymes in poems (where you asked that question) :-)) Unless you're talking about my nick DieterM, in which case I'm happy to confess that my first name's Dieter and M the abbreviation of my family name :-)

As to your question:
"I know, John" means you are telling a person named John that you know (and here, John is a vocative; the vocative, in grammar, is a case where you "call" someone or something). The same would be true for "Come on, heaven, rain down on me!", where "heaven" would be a vocative because you "call" to it.
"I know John", however, means you know a person called John. Here, John is an accusative (the case, in grammar, of someone or something being "accused").

In French, you'd even use two different verbs for these examples:
"Je sais, Jean" and "Je connais Jean".

Hope I could help :-)

[cacian]

@cacian: I explained my signature in the thread about rhymes in poems (where you asked that question) :-)) Unless you're talking about my nick DieterM, in which case I'm happy to confess that my first name's Dieter and M the abbreviation of my family name :-)

As to your question:
"I know, John" means you are telling a person named John that you know (and here, John is a vocative; the vocative, in grammar, is a case where you "call" someone or something). The same would be true for "Come on, heaven, rain down on me!", where "heaven" would be a vocative because you "call" to it.
"I know John", however, means you know a person called John. Here, John is an accusative (the case, in grammar, of someone or something being "accused").

In French, you'd even use two different verbs for these examples:
"Je sais, Jean" and "Je connais Jean".

Hope I could help :-)

DieterM thank you very much.
The only issue I have with it is that in spoken language it is a bit tricky.
One I suppose has to pause for the first one?
The pausing might be one.

[cacian]

"I know, John" means you are saying "I know" to someone named John.

"I know John" means you are saying to someone that you know a guy named John.

Charles thank you very much this makes sense.

[hillwalker]

Hi cacian,

It's not that difficult - but the clue's in the example you quote.
Nouns in the Latin language were spelled differently depending on their 'case'.
(There were 12 'cases' in total: 6 for single and 6 for plural nouns) depending on how they were used in a sentence.

In Latin, using the word 'Brutus' as an example, the spelling itself would change as follows:

Nominative - Brutus was a man (Brutus)
Vocative - How are you, Brutus (Brute)
Accusative - I can hear Brutus (Brutum)
Genitive - Brutus's hair is long (Bruti)
Dative - Cleopatra gave (to) Brutus a kiss (Bruto)
and Ablative - She went home with Brutus (Bruto)

If there was such a thing as more than one Brutus the plural spellings would be as follows:

N - Bruti
V - Brutos
A - Brutos
G - Brutorum
D - Brutis
A - Brutis

In English and French the spelling doesn't change but the two English sentences you quote need clarification:

Nominative - I don't know John - no comma - means you don't know who John is.
Vocative - I don't know, John - comma - means you are addressing John and telling him you don't know something.

H

[cacian]

Hi cacian,

It's not that difficult - but the clue's in the example you quote.
Nouns in the Latin language were spelled differently depending on their 'case'.
(There were 12 'cases' in total: 6 for single and 6 for plural nouns) depending on how they were used in a sentence.

In Latin, using the word 'Brutus' as an example, the spelling itself would change as follows:

Nominative - Brutus was a man (Brutus)
Vocative - How are you, Brutus (Brute)
Accusative - I can hear Brutus (Brutum)
Genitive - Brutus's hair is long (Bruti)
Dative - Cleopatra gave (to) Brutus a kiss (Bruto)
and Ablative - She went home with Brutus (Bruto)

If there was such a thing as more than one Brutus the plural spellings would be as follows:

N - Bruti
V - Brutos
A - Brutos
G - Brutorum
D - Brutis
A - Brutis

In English and French the spelling doesn't change but the two English sentences you quote need clarification:

Nominative - I don't know John - no comma - means you don't know who John is.
Vocative - I don't know, John - comma - means you are addressing John and telling him you don't know something.

H

Hi hillwalker this is really great.
It is simple to understand now.

Just one question:
How do you mean by
more then one Brutus?
Do you mean if it was an object and one then puts an S for plural?
Or do you mean more then one person called Brutus in one go/room?
In English or in French there is no such a thing as plural for names right?
Like

'I know Johns' meaning to say I know both John and John.

[hillwalker]

I mean if the word Brutus could be pluralised. Obviously, it can't. But the Latin word 'dominus' (which means 'master') follows the same pattern.

So single 'dominus' (master) would be :

dominus - domine - dominum - domini - domino - domino

and plural 'domini' (masters) would be :

domini - domini - dominos - dominorum - dominis - dominis

PS - I made a mistake earlier - it should have been V - Bruti

H

[cacian]

I mean if the word Brutus could be pluralised. Obviously, it can't. But the Latin word 'dominus' (which means 'master') follows the same pattern.

So single 'dominus' (master) would be :

dominus - domine - dominum - domini - domino - domino

and plural 'domini' (masters) would be :

domini - domini - dominos - dominorum - dominis - dominis

PS - I made a mistake earlier - it should have been V - Bruti

H

Hi hillwalker you do know yor latin very well.
It is quite confusing because it goes against the plural we know which is to add an s.
Here S is singular and I is plural.
About Brutus presumably it could not be pluralised because it has an S already. Can't have to SS if we go with English or French.
Oh just remembered there is also the ae beind used somewhere for plural too.

[hillwalker]

Hi hillwalker you do know yor latin very well.
It is quite confusing because it goes against the plural we know which is to add an s.

Latin of course was a completely different language to English. But there are a few (very few) English words derived from Latin that follow the same rules, such as

radius and radii

H