Non-use of vocative ending with imperatives

[omc]

The Wikipedia article on Latin declensions has this statement.

Brutus becomes Brute (English "Brutus!"). Similarly, Vergilius becomes Vergilī (English "Virgil!"). However, nouns may preserve as -us and -ius in presence of imperative verbs (Venī huc, Brutus; or Dīc nōbīs fabulam, Virgilius). ​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Vocative​

Note particularly the last sentence (underlined). The source for this section is a YouTube video, which does not support the last sentence. I have not been able to find any other reference which supports this statement. All other similar statements seem to be based on the Wikipedia article. I have spoken with my Latin teacher, who has never encountered this form.

Is this statement accurate? Where can I find an authoritative source for it?

 

[Bitmap]

Well, it's not completely unheard of to find vocatives that look exactly like the nominative with nouns ending in -us or -ius. I don't see how the imperative has any influence on that, though. I mean, the imperative is one of the main reasons to use the vocative in the first place.

 

[Dantius]

The only example I can think of immediately is
"Audi" inquit, "Iuppiter; audi, pater patrate populi Albani; audi tu, populus Albanus." from Livy.
Strangely, patrate is vocative as normal, but populus Albanus is nominative.

 

[Dantius]

The normal construction is for the vocative to be used with imperatives, and the vocative of non-Greek-derived 2nd decl. masculine nouns in -us or -ius should always follow the regular patterns.

 

[Pacifica]

Here are some instances in Plautus (only the first two hits are relevant). I think there are more, but the phrase meus ocellus was the only one I recalled. I've seen the nom. for voc. thing in other authors as well, without remembering specific passages.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Church Latin at leaſt ſeems to impose a rule whereby vocatives revert to their nominative forms when aſſociated with genitives. I would not venture to comment on the origins of this rule, nor on its particulars, but it is quite evident in the 'Gloria in excelſis'.

 

[Pacifica]

I never noticed or heard of that. What's the relevant part of the Gloria in excelsis? There are no vocatives or nominatives-for-vocatives in the lyrics I know, but I may not know them all.

 

[Laurentius]

I can only remember the "Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi" bit in Church Latin.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Church Latin at leaſt ſeems to impose a rule whereby vocatives revert to their nominative forms when aſſociated with genitives. I would not venture to comment on the origins of this rule, nor on its particulars, but it is quite evident in the 'Gloria in excelſis'.

Angele Dei, qui custos es mei...

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

I never noticed or heard of that. What's the relevant part of the Gloria in excelsis? There are no vocatives or nominatives-for-vocatives in the lyrics I know, but I may not know them all.

I can see the confusion, but I meant the Greater Doxology, as in the Tridentine Mass,
http://www.bhthom.org/missatridentina/msstxt07.gif
not the Christmas carol otherwise known as 'Angels we have heard on high'.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

I take it you'referring to agnus Dei. But in angele Dei, which I referenced, that alleged rule of using the nominative in place of a vocative when there's a genitive is not observed. So it is a rule at all, and where is it stated (apart, obviously, from AS's post) that it applies to ecclesiastical Latin (or other late Latin)?

I don't know if there's an abundance of evidence, given that only one declension has a distinctive vocative form, and there aren't all that many set phrases of the form of agnus Dei or angelus Dei that could plausibly be invoked, at least that spring to my mind (I struck lucky with my example, having guessed that there was likely to be a prayer that contained those words, and there was). Perhaps Terry S. knows additional examples of one or the other.

 

[Godmy]

Some inter-linguistical information:

My IE native language (Czech) heavily utilizes and relies on vocatives (we have at least 4 distinct vocative endings), in proper names too, but it's somehow "imaginable" not using it if some dudes are talking to each other and want to appear a bit "tougher", but even there - in that obscure register - the probability of that being used (the nominative ending) is, I'd guess, 20% or even less. But even in my language it´s not unimaginable. But then, I have to say, at least when it comes to proper names (there are some colloquial exceptions in surnames), I can go a whole year without hearing such an instance - not even once.

Just in case you wondered how a Roman could potentially perceive it

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Polish uses the nominative occasionally for the vocative as well. But I don't really know Polish well enough to judge what sort of air it conveys, or how often it happens.

Godmy, are there Czech speakers who would never, out of linguistic snobbery or maybe some other reason, substitute the nominative?

 

[Godmy]

Godmy, are there Czech speakers who would never, out of linguistic snobbery or maybe some other reason, substitute the nominative?

When I omit the surnames colloquial exception I mentioned, I would say that majority doesn't use nominative instead of vocative in first names. I would say it's rare even in that register where it could appear.

^I wasn't sure Polish had retained the vocative in the first place...

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Boże mój...

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

I take it you'referring to agnus Dei.

... Which in the 'Gloria' is immediately followed by 'Filius Patris', even though 'Fili unigenite' appears earlier in the ſame ſtring of clearly appoſitive vocatives. The counter example of 'Angele Dei', however, argues for this to be underſtood as a mere matter of ſtyle rather than anything approaching a grammatical rule.

 

[Terry S.]

I take it you'referring to agnus Dei. But in angele Dei, which I referenced, that alleged rule of using the nominative in place of a vocative when there's a genitive is not observed. So it is a rule at all, and where is it stated (apart, obviously, from AS's post) that it applies to ecclesiastical Latin (or other late Latin)?

I don't know if there's an abundance of evidence, given that only one declension has a distinctive vocative form, and there aren't all that many set phrases of the form of agnus Dei or angelus Dei that could plausibly be invoked, at least that spring to my mind (I struck lucky with my example, having guessed that there was likely to be a prayer that contained those words, and there was). Perhaps Terry S. knows additional examples of one or the other.

Not a lot springs to mind.

Deus in adjutorium meum intende.
Domine ad adjuvandum me festina.

That's from the intro to the recitation of the Roman Breviary, but I'm not sure whether that use of Deus is in any way remarkable.

 

[Pacifica]

Deus is sort of a special case, because it has no classically attested vocative. I'm not sure it was ever used in a vocative function in classical Latin, but it's extremely common in Christian Latin. Tertullian has a vocative dee, but that's a curiosity.

 

[Matthaeus]

^I wasn't sure Polish had retained the vocative in the first place...

Well, it seems to me that most people today ignore the vocative of proper names. I however, being ultra-proper (lol), like to use the vocative, but I feel it has an unnecessary formal feel when I hear it occasionally from others. I simply think it just adds a richer flavor to everyday speech, is all. So to answer E.S. query, I guess there may be some "snobbery" involved.