Re: Theory about the evolution of languages

> Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> > Afian wrote:
> >
> >> Hi! Wow, you have been doing a lot of debating here! Well, I will
> >> reformulate my little Idea:
> >>
> >> With the reduction of case constructions (things that work like
> >> cases) in
> >> a language, the languages TAM multiply.
> >> Example: If a language has a vocative case, it doesn't need an
> >> imperative.
>
Um - I don't see why that follows. All the langs I know with marked
vocatives also have imperatives.

> >
> > ...except, AIUI, Latin had both.
> >
> >
>
> Its vocative case was pretty limited, though(AFAIK only appearing in
the
> Second Declension Masculine).
>
'sright, in that most nouns in Latin used the same form as the
nominative. Even with the 2nd dec. masculines, it was limited to those
whose nominatives end in -us.

And before some pedant tells us, yes, some Greek proper nouns retained
separate vocatives when Latinized   :)

Ancient Greek most certainly has marked vocative singulars, it also had
imperatives.

Modern Greek and IIRC Romanian have vocative forms at least for proper
names - they also have imperatives.

Gaelic has both marked vocative singulars & imperatives.
etc. etc.

If you don't have imperatives, I guess you have to use subjunctives or
some such - whether the language has vocatives or not.

BTW, all the examples I can think of are of marked vocative singulars.
Do any langs mark the vocative plural distinct from the nominative
plural?


--