# красавица (vocative)



## Nirakka

Can I start a letter to a woman with *красавица!*, or do I need to change the ending (vocative)?


----------



## Vadim K

Yes, you can. And you don't need to change the ending here.


----------



## Sobakus

Russian no longer has the Vocative other than for personal names in -a. However, such an address would look good to me only in a familiar and jocular way.


----------



## Nirakka

Perfect – thank you both!


----------



## Drink

Just for completeness, the old vocative was "красавице" (in old orthography, this was in fact a "-е", not a "-ѣ"). But this vocative fell out of common use by the mid-16th century in Russian (unlike in Ukrainian, where it is still used).


----------



## Rosett

Sobakus said:


> Russian no longer has the Vocative other than for personal names in -a.


The Akathist to the new Icon of Holy Mother of Moscow and All Russia (2002), first published in 2010, offers a lone example of modern usage of the OP word:
...Радуйся, *Красавице* Ты наша Мати, нами и всем небом воcхваляемая...
In general, the Russian Vocative is not lost, neither, although its usage is fairly limited and stylistically marked.


----------



## Drink

Rosett said:


> The Akathist to the new Icon of Holy Mother of Moscow and All Russia (2002) offers a lone example of modern usage of the OP word:
> ...Радуйся, *Красавице* Ты наша Мати, нами и всем небом воcхваляемая...
> In general, the Russian Vocative is not lost, neither, although its usage is fairly limited and stylistically marked.



I would say it is completely lost in the general case and preserved (in stylistically marked usage) only for a minimal set of words. Most speakers would probably not even know how to form it for the majority of words.


----------



## Rosett

Drink said:


> I would say it is completely lost in the general case and preserved (in stylistically marked usage) only for a minimal set of words. Most speakers would probably not even know how to form it for the majority of words.


The example of 2010 shown above proves modern productivity of the Russian Vocative. The acathistus in question was written to the icon commemorating Marian apparition in Bykovo (г.Жуковский, Moscow Oblast) in 2002.


----------



## Drink

Rosett said:


> The example of 2010 shown above proves modern productivity of the Russian Vocative.



Your example is bettered interpreted as some kind of blend of Russian and modern Church Slavonic anyway. I found the quote here and, I don't know who wrote this stuff and why, but it uses other Church Slavonic morphological patterns that do not exist in Russian at all. For example "о овцех Господних", "во гресех", "в руцех", "в руце".


----------



## Rosett

Drink said:


> Your example is bettered interpreted as some kind of blend of Russian and modern Church Slavonic anyway. I found the quote here and, I don't know who wrote this stuff and why, but it uses other Church Slavonic morphological patterns that do not exist in Russian at all. For example "о овцех Господних", "во гресех", "в руцех", "в руце".


It's all Russian, despite the Church Slavonic patterns. They are two distinct languages, but morphological patterns can be the same and Russian remains Russian within the patterns. For example, we say in modern Russian: "Темна вода в облацех" про что-то сильно непонятное или непредсказуемое, that is not Church Slavonic.
"...Обесточивать мне ничего не пришлось, поскольку отдел работал при свечах. На дверях синоптической группы уже появилась свежая надпись мелом: "Темна вода во облацех". Каждое утро Мерлин, проклиная интриги завистников, стирал эту надпись мокрой тряпкой,...
А. и Б.Стругацкие. "Понедельник начинается в субботу".


----------



## Q-cumber

Rosett said:


> It's all Russian, despite the Church Slavonic patterns. They are two distinct languages, but morphological patterns can be the same and Russian remains Russian within the patterns. For example, we say in modern Russian: "Темна вода в облацех" про что-то сильно непонятное или непредсказуемое, that is not Church Slavonic.


This obviously is Church Slavonic, and not Russian.
«И положи тму закров свой, окрест его селение его, темна вода во облацех воздушных». It is a quote from the Bible in Church Slavonic. The reason why we use this borrowed piece of Slavonic text to describe something tangled is also clear. That is because the saying starts with Russian-like words, yet the end is confusing.


----------



## Rosett

Q-cumber said:


> This obviously is Church Slavonic, and not Russian.
> «И положи тму закров свой, окрест его селение его, темна вода во облацех воздушных». It is a quote from the Bible in Church Slavonic. The reason why we use this borrowed piece of Slavonic text to describe something tangled is also clear. That is because the saying starts with Russian-like words, yet the end is confusing.


Данная фраза входит в фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка и, следовательно, принадлежит русскому языку.
Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка 
*ТЕМНА ВОДА ВО О́БЛАЦЕХ (НЕБЕСНЫХ).* Книжн. Экспрес. Совершенно непонятно, неясно. _Дуня рассказала про хлыстовскую веру, не упоминая, конечно, ни про Сен-Мартена, ни про Тона, ни про других мистических писателей. Она знала, что все это для Аграфены Петровны будет темна вода во облацех небесных_ (Мельников-Печерский. На горах). — Выражение из Библии. Лит.: Ашукин Н. С., Ашукина М. Г. Крылатые слова. — М., 1960. — С. 599.
Темна вода во облацех (небесных) - это... Что такое Темна вода во облацех (небесных)?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Nirakka said:


> Can I start a letter to a woman with *красавица!*, or do I need to change the ending (vocative)?


Not enough context in your question, Nirakka. Was this woman born several centuries ago, and is her native language Church Slavonic? This crucial information seems to have been omitted.


----------



## Vadim K

Nirakka said:


> *Can I start* a letter to a woman with *красавица!*, or do I need to change the ending (vocative)?





Enquiring Mind said:


> Not enough context in your question, Nirakka. Was this woman born several centuries ago, and is her native language Church Slavonic? This crucial information seems to have been omitted.



Are you sure that Nirakka will be able to write a letter to a woman who was born several centuries ago?


----------



## rusita preciosa

Mod note: 
Please note that the thread topic is the word красавица in vocative and its use in modern Russian.
Please feel free to open separate threads to discuss other expressions.


----------



## Rosett

Enquiring Mind said:


> Not enough context in your question, Nirakka. Was this woman born several centuries ago, and is her native language Church Slavonic? This crucial information seems to have been omitted.


In XXI century, it is still appropriate to address Theotokos|Mother of God|Holy Mother|Our Lady|The Virgin|The Madonna|Saint Mary, a queen|tsarina or adorable princess with "*о,* *красавице*" in Russian Vocative.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Indeed, I cannot rule out the possibility that the woman the OP is writing to is Theotokos|Mother of God|Holy Mother|Our Lady|The Virgin|The Madonna|Saint Mary, a queen|tsarina or adorable princess.


----------



## Drink

Enquiring Mind said:


> Indeed, I cannot rule out the possibility that the OP is writing to Theotokos|Mother of God|Holy Mother|Our Lady|The Virgin|The Madonna|Saint Mary, a queen|tsarina or adorable princess. Perhaps he will confirm or deny this hypothesis.



But from the way the OP phrased the original question, that seems unlikely.


----------



## Elena_27

The vocative doesn't exist as a case in modern Russian. We only have 6 cases. But culturally, I wouldn't advise you to begin with "Здравствуй, красавица!" because it will sound too impersonal and cold. Better tell her that she is a beauty in the letter itself. It's better to greet using her name.


----------



## Q-cumber

Elena_27 said:


> The vocative doesn't exist as a case in modern Russian. We only have 6 cases. But culturally, I wouldn't advise you to begin with "Здравствуй, красавица!" because it will sound too impersonal and cold. Better tell her that she is a beauty in the letter itself. It's better to greet using her name.


Здравствуй, *моя* красавица!  A pronoun does the trick...


----------



## Elena_27

Yes, you are right. "Здравствуй, *моя* красавица!" sounds much better, but you shoud be sure that you may call her "my".


----------



## Q-cumber

Elena_27 said:


> Yes, you are right. "Здравствуй, *моя* красавица!" sounds much better, but you shoud be sure that you may call her "my".


True.


----------



## Rosett

Elena_27 said:


> The vocative doesn't exist as a case in modern Russian. We only have 6 cases.


The Vocative doesn't exist in the Russian grammar taught at school. However, the modern usage is undeniable and is growing up, marking mainly religious communication.
"Вокатив отец без имени собственного в Звательной форме встречается в неофициальной ситуации общения: Отче, старец уже не может больше так много принимать (Зап. 1999)."
"Анализируя речь современных православных верующих, отмечаем активизацию архаической звательной формы. ...
Функциональные, грамматические и семантические особенности номинации адресата в религиозной сфере


----------



## Awwal12

Rosett said:


> The Vocative doesn't exist in the Russian grammar taught at school.


There are several tricky parts about the Russian "vocative". First, it is never obligatory (unlike even the scattered examples of locative, for a comparison; you may address your daddy "папа" or "пап", but saying "я сейчас в лесе" would be plainly incorrect). Second, if we speak about the vocative in Russian, it is normally dropping of -а endings in 1st declension nouns in informal context, virtually limited to shortened familiar names and several kinship terms (Мам!  Саш! Дядь Петь! - but never, for instance, собак!). Such lexical and especially stylistic limitations do raise some questions about the status of vocative in Russian. If we still agree that there is the vocative in Russian, we may be inclined to include some widespread examples of Church Slavonic loans too, but putting aside their alien origin and general rarity they are even more stylistically marked (although in an opposite way).


----------



## Drink

Awwal12 said:


> but never, for instance, собак!



How often do you use the word "собака" to address your dog anyway? I think this is an irrelevant example. If you had a friend whose nickname was "Собака", you could for sure call him "Собак!".


----------



## Awwal12

Drink said:


> How often do you use the word "собака" to address your dog anyway?


Why should it be my dog? Any unfamiliar dog, of course.





Drink said:


> I think this is an irrelevant example. If you had a friend whose nickname was "Собака", you could for sure call him "Собак!".


And how many friends with the nickname "Собака" do you have to verify it?
Actually I cannot think about many examples of that "new vocative" apart of the aforementioned cathegories.


----------



## Drink

Awwal12 said:


> Why should it be my dog? Any unfamiliar dog, of course.



Why should you speak on familiar terms to an unfamiliar dog?

A better example would be "дура". If you rudely called your friend a "дура", you cannot shorten it to "дур". Perhaps there is a requirement of being a _name_.


----------



## Awwal12

Drink said:


> Why should you speak on familiar terms to an unfamiliar dog?


Er, because it's a dog?


----------



## Drink

Awwal12 said:


> Er, because it's a dog?



My point exactly. Talking to a dog cannot be compared to talking to another human. (And I hope you didn't miss my addition to my previous post.)


----------



## Awwal12

Drink said:


> My point exactly. Talking to a dog cannot be compared to talking to another human.


I don't think that aspect is of much relevance here. How is that even supposed to influence grammar?..


Drink said:


> Perhaps there is a requirement of being a _name_.


I've already mentioned names (not all 1st declension names apparently, but I don't see a clear pattern; Марин! or Вер! are obviously fine, despite being full first names, while Анн! is not; also all names ending in /-йа/ are ruled out) and some kinship terms. Still I don't think any other example would be outright impossible.


----------



## rusita preciosa

*Mod note: 
It seems like the thread just can't stay on topic. It is explored in full and is now closed.*


----------

