# Таня, Тань (the new vocative)



## Riverplatense

Привет!

Я как-то раз в моей грамматике русского языка прочитал, что на русском языке возможно, сказать, например, _Тань _вместо _Тани_, если речь эмоциональна. 

Этой формой действительно используется? Когда возможно пользоваться ней? Звучит сердечно или гневно или… или зависеть от контексты? И можете, пожалуйста, приводить пример?

Большое спасибо!


----------



## morzh

Riverplatense said:


> Привет!
> 
> Я как-то раз в моей грамматике русского языка прочитал, что на русском языке возможно, сказать, например, _Тань _вместо _Тани_, если речь эмоциональна.
> 
> Этой формой действительно используется? Когда возможно пользоваться ней? Звучит сердечно или гневно или… или зависеть от контексты? И можете, пожалуйста, приводить пример?
> 
> Большое спасибо!



It sounds normal, familiar. Not emotional. Widely used, only with people you know very well. Daughter, wife, a friend, a very familiar co-worker.

It is called "new vocative" case. (Новьiй звательньiй падеж)


----------



## Riverplatense

morzh said:


> It sounds normal, familiar. Not emotional. Widely used, only with people you know very well. Daughter, wife, a friend, a very familiar co-worker.
> 
> It is called "new vocative" case. (Новьiй звательньiй падеж)



Thank you. 
So, in case you talk to a Татьяна you know very well, it can be used in almost any situation you'd also use Таня or a comparable form, true?

And thank you for naming the phenomenon. I already found some further information.


----------



## Maroseika

Riverplatense said:


> Thank you.
> So, in case you talk to a Татьяна you know very well, it can be used in almost any situation you'd also use Таня or a comparable form, true?


I think - yes, in any situation. Just don't forget this is only Vocative form, not Nominative.
Moreover, full form Таня in many cases may mean discontent, coldness, estrangement or something like this.


----------



## morzh

Maroseika said:


> I think - yes, in any situation. Just don't forget this is only Vocative form, not Nominative.
> Moreover, full form Таня in many cases may mean discontent, coldness, estrangement or something like this.



Yes, to re-iterate - it is a Vocative, so it is used only to address people. 
You cannot use it to talk of someone in a 3rd person.

- Коль, поди-ка сюда! (addressing)
- Миш! Коля пришел. (notice, the addressing is New Vocative, and the name that is in 3rd person is in its norma short form).

The so called "new vocative" case is formed by dropping the ending from the name:

Миша - Миш!
Таня - Тань!
Ваня - Вань!
Коля - Коль!
Света - Свет!
Оля - Оль!

It does not lend itself to all names, like to those of foreign / non-Russian origin:

Альфия
Магомед
Тьiнис

etc etc.

Not using some sort of familiar form in Russian, as Maroseika pointed, even with short form names, may imply a reserved attitude (not necessarily, but possible). It depends on what people in a particular group are accustomed to, of course.


----------



## Riverplatense

Thank you again for all those interesting explanations, morzh and Maroseika! And, fortunately, it was clearly expressed before and therefore clear to me that this form has a definite vocative character. 

However, I found interesting to hear that even _Таня _(which I already think to be a diminutive form of _Татьяна_) can be perceived as cold or reserved (I hope I got it right). Can there, thus, be defined a kind of «hierarchy» among all those lovely forms, like



Татьяна: formal, very cold, distant
Таня: neutral form, may be perceived as reserved or cold among friends
Тань: cordial, familiar, «usual vocative» among friends

Is it like that? And what about (I hope this question still fits the thread) other diminutives like Танюша or Таша? Do they transport other connotations than Таня? And is there a context in which one can address a speech to a person calling her/his complete first name without appearing cold? I mean, if you got to know a Russian you'll use вы-form for a while and when you change into ты, will you say Татьяна or Таня?


----------



## LilianaB

I personally think each name is different and also people are different, and some like the long, formal form of their name, others like something else. I personally like the formal form of names more and the third form, or some other nickname. I am not too crazy about the second form because in many cases it is just blant: neither fish nor fowl, kind of. Of course it depends on the name. Some names sound great in the second form, to me at least. Tanya sounds really nice, to me.


----------



## Riverplatense

Thank you LilianaB! I already see that my very schematic, almost mathematical suggestion could not exactly meet linguistic and social reality...


----------



## LilianaB

If you address somebody by the formal name, like somebody older, higher in rank, or someone you are not on the first name terms with, you have to refer to them by the long form of their first name and their patronimic name -- this one is created from the name of the person's father -- Tatyana Vasilievna, for example, if her father's name was Vasiliy.


----------



## rusita preciosa

I don't fully agree with your "ranking" below. See my comments.  



Riverplatense said:


> Татьяна: formal, can be very cold, distant, but can also be polite, warm, respectful - all depends on the context and the situation
> Таня: neutral form, may be perceived as reserved or cold among friends (not sure about the last part. I can see a situation when a parent addresses a child this way when the child is misbehaving, but among friends it is fine I think).
> Тань: cordial, familiar, «usual vocative» among friends, but in certain situations can be too familiar, to the point of almost insulting


----------



## Riverplatense

LilianaB said:


> If you address somebody by the formal name, like somebody older, higher in rank, or someone you are not on the first name terms with, you have to refer to them by the long form of their first name and their patronimic name -- this one is created from the name of the person's father -- Tatyana Vasilievna, for example, if her father's name was Vasiliy.



Oh yes, of course! I seem to have forgotten this...

And thank you for the replenishment, rusita preciosa, it's clearer now. Wow, what a rich and beautiful language...!


----------



## morzh

rusita preciosa said:


> I don't fully agree with your "ranking" below. See my comments.



I don't think one can truly fully formalize all the diminutives and vocatives.
A lot of practice is required to become comfortable with language, and this will also include becoming comfortable with addressing people.

Same in English; it has diminutives, some of them are used more for addressing, rather than to speak of someone in the 3rd person, almost being a counterpart for Russian new vocative, but it takes time to become comfortable, understanding where and with whom it may be used.


----------



## Riverplatense

morzh said:


> I don't think one can truly fully formalize all the diminutives and vocatives.



You're surely right. But considering all those _can_ and _certain_ it's not that formalized and seems to give a good, not binding overview without claiming any rule. On the other hand maybe I'd better not comment this since I'm still a total outsider in things like that.


----------



## morzh

Once you communicate with people, you will quickly learn the "unwritten" rules.

You will see how they address each other, in what situations, how they talk of people who are not present, etc.

Right now all you need to know is what the new vocative is, and the basic human experience will always tell you whom to use diminutives and / or vocative toward, and whom not to.
It is a very natural process.


----------



## LilianaB

I just wanted to stress it again, just to make sure: the third form can be used only in the vocative. It happens usually that people address a close person by the second form and then after they say it once or twice and the person does not react because they did not hear the speaker or for some other reason they use the third form. This is not a rule either, I think. Any more unusual diminutive forms could be risky, like Taniusha, for example. Some poeple may love it others may hate it. The safest one to start with, if you are on first name terms with someone, is the second form, after all, or the first one. You could also ask them," What do you want me to call you: Tanya, or Tatyana?" This only applies if you are on first name terms with somebody already. They may answer that they may want you to call them something else, but at least you will know.


----------



## Ptak

> It happens usually that people address a close person by the second form and then after they say it once or twice and the person does not react because they did not hear the speaker or for some other reason they use the third form.


I think it's too far-fetched.
It is so natural to call someone _Тань, Оль, Дим, Наташ, Саш_, and so on, that I am sure no-one even ponders over it, people just use these forms without thinking about it. I try to imagine me calling my collegue at work _Наташа_ instead of _Наташ_, and it seems somehow unnatural to me. It may happen only if I'm going to talk to her seriously, and then I can say _Наташа!_ which would sound ceremonial, like an introduction.

You don't need to be on very close terms with a person to call him/her that way (but of course, you can't address yourself that way to someone with who you have to use only full name + patronymic).


----------



## LilianaB

Are you serious, Ptak? Would you really call somebody _Natash_ all the time? It may be slightly different how men refer to their female co-workers or friends at work, or women they are friendly with in general. Do you think a woman would also address her co-worker _Natash_ instead of _Natasha_ most of the time?


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> Are you serious, Ptak?


Of course I am. What's funny in my post?


----------



## grinski

In a collective of women who work for a long time together it is very common to use vocatives, Наташ among them.


----------



## Ptak

grinski said:


> In a collective of women who work for a long time together it is very common to use vocatives, Наташ among them.


Not only for those who work for a long time together. It is a norm, to say to a newcomer in her first working morning, for instance: _Наташ, отнеси это в бухгалтерию , пожалуйста. _With _Наташа _it would sound even too cold.


----------



## grinski

Since no more context is given _Наташа _and _Наташ _is basically the same_._


----------



## LilianaB

This might be something new. I have never worked in an office in Russia, but I have worked with Russian people in the United States and this form would not be used among Russian speaking women. I don't think even Russian men would refer to co-workers this way. This must be really something new, as a general tendency, less than ten years old. Is that right? Re: Ptak # 20

The problem could have been that in a mixed environment the use of name forms could be different. If English is spoken 99% of the time maybe even in informal conversations in Russian names are used the way they are used in English in this particular environment. People would be less likely to call somebody Natash in English because a person would be unlikely to introduce herself as Natash since it is wrong even in Russian as an introduction. This is only a form of the vocative case.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> This must be really something new, as a general tendency, less than ten years old. Is that right?


No.


----------



## gvozd

LilianaB said:


> This might be something new. I have never worked in an office in Russia, but I have worked with Russian people in the United States and this form would not be used among Russian speaking women. I don't think even Russian men would refer to co-workers this way. This must be really something new, as a general tendency, less than ten years old. Is that right?



It is as old as the hills.


----------



## LilianaB

I can't imagine calling one of my fmaily members Ol all the time. Nobody would call her like that all the time. They would mostly call her Olya, sometimes Ol, for expression only. So I am not really that sure if this form is really used all the time. I speak to many Russian people a lot and I watch Russian movies, but I have not noticed that people would refer to somebody as Natash all the time. It would be various forms, depending on the context: Natasha, Natash, Natashka, Natashenka and many others.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> I can't imagine calling one of my fmaily members Ol all the time. Nobody would call her like that all the time. They would mostly call her Olya, sometimes Ol, for expression only. So I am not really that sure if this form is really used all the time.


I don't want to be impolite, but isn't that right that the place where you live is New York and your native language is Lithuanian? Maybe this is the reason?


----------



## grinski

Наташ, давай чаю выпьем. Хватит работать.
Тань, а, Тань, как отправить на печать?
Оль, сколько можно повторять!
and so on and on.


----------



## LilianaB

No, Ptak. It is not the reason. The information what somebody's native language is and where the perosn lives doesn't tell that much about the person's life. I just think the new vocative form is a new vocative form this is why it is called new. It is used, in my opinion, but not all the time, in any context. It is rare in movies and literature.

In fact people should be called the way they want to be called not how other people decide to call them. If someone likes Natash, fine. If someone wants to be called Natashka, that's fine too. I personally like the third form, I just don't think it can be used in any context, or overused. You cannot say: _Natash went to the store_. You can only say _Natash give me the pen_.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> You cannot say: _Natash went to the store_.


Of course I can't. But this sentence has nothing to do with the Vocative case. In this sentence you don't address youself to the girl, you refer to her in the third person.


----------



## gvozd

LilianaB said:


> I just think the new vocative form is a new vocative form this is why it is called new.



It is *relatively* new. The examples of the vocative form (without 'new'): отче, боже.


----------



## morzh

Liliana,

It'd be nice if one day you realized that sometimes the less information there is, the better. Especially if the information is your guess.
The new vocative is "new" since it was classified as such recently, not because the form itself is new. And "new" is supposed to let you know there is also the "old" classic vocative, that is no longer in the general use, such as "Иване, человече" and such.

But in any case, again, we are creating a pseudo-scientific discussion out of something that does not require it.

The question was answered one page ago.


----------



## LilianaB

How old is the form itself? If it was recently classified as new, it means it is newer than the regular form. Would you address your mother _mom_, or your father _pap_ when you were a child? In older movies people hardly ever use the new vocative form. None of the people I know would be addressed with the newer form all the time, even in the vocative. This may be a new tendency in Russia, though. 

* _mam_ and _pap_ in Russian, of course. Sorry I cannot type in the cyrillic right now

Did Pushkin use it? Did Bulghakov call Margo Marg anywhere in his book?


----------



## gvozd

LilianaB said:


> How old is the form itself? If it was recently classified as new, it means it is newer than the regular form. Would you address your mother _mom_, or your father _pap_ when you were a child? In older movies people hardly ever use the new vocative form. None of the people I know would be addressed with the newer form all the time, even in the vocative. This may be a new tendency in Russia, though.
> 
> * _mam_ and _pap_ in Russian, of course. Sorry I cannot type in the cyrillic right now
> 
> Did Puskin use it? Did Bulghakov call Margo Marg anywhere in his book?



Liliana. Do you see the difference between the conversational Russian and the literary one???

P.S. Margo isn't a full name. The full name is Margarita, so the diminutive will be Margo itself.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> Did Bulghakov call Margo Marg anywhere in his book?


Are you serious? Not any name can have this vocative form, especially if it's not Russian (Марго is a French variant of Маргарита).
For example, there is no such form for names _Игорь, Матвей, Ада_, and others.


----------



## morzh

LilianaB said:


> How old is the form itself? If it was recently  classified as new, it means it is newer than the regular form. Would you  address your mother _mom_, or your father _pap_ when you  were a child? In older movies people hardly ever use the new vocative  form. None of the people I know would be addressed with the newer form  all the time, even in the vocative. This may be a new tendency in  Russia, though.
> 
> * _mam_ and _pap_ in Russian, of course. Sorry I cannot type in the cyrillic right now
> 
> Did Pushkin use it? Did Bulghakov call Margo Marg anywhere in his book?






Well, it is old enough. Older than you and I put together. About 100 years at leas, or older.

And, even if "пап/мам" is fairly new (beg. 20th century), the older "тять" (from "тятя" - отец), or "дядь" (дядя, an uncle) may be even older. It is not a recent 30-40 year-old phenomenon. It is about 160 years old. (first noted about mid-19th century)
The fact that they decided to classify it recently for schoolbooks only means that the form was considered "lowly enough to warrant any scientific classification for students to learn", not that it is new itself.

Also, it is not really the case (не является падежом), as an artcle in Gramota suggests, like the old one was. It is a "vocative form".

As for you example with Marg, this exhibits lack of some basic understanding of what is the new form is all about. It cannot be used with every name. It only lends itself to some. And, do realize, that if some writer in some work of his did not use a certain form, this is in no way can be used to deny its existence at the time. 

Otherwise it is a proof of the sort that "since they did not find any wire under our church, this means we used wireless radio telegraphy in 11th century!"


----------



## LilianaB

Margo is the second form from Margarita. Marg would be the third one. Rita would be another option, and Rit the new vocative. To Gvozd.

Please show me any example where the form is used in older literature. It should be used in a dialogue, even if it is informal Russian.


----------



## morzh

LilianaB said:


> Margo is the second form from Margarita. Marg would be the third one. Rita would be another option, and Rit the new vocative. To Gvozd.
> 
> Please show me any example where the form is used in older literature. It should be used in a dialogue, even if it is informal Russian.




Liliana, really, it would benefit you to stop that, otherwise people are going to laugh at your expense. Seriously.
You have you own understanding of how shortening the names works in Russian, and you are free to use it, but I have to warn you that it is drastically different from the rest of the the people who use Russian.


----------



## gvozd

LilianaB said:


> Margo is the second form from Margarita. Marg would be the third one. Rita would be another option, and Rit the new vocative. To Gvozd.



Oh my god... It has been explained many times in this thread that the new vocative form *can't be applied* to EVERY Russian name.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> Margo is the second form from Margarita.


No, it is not! It is a French variant of the Russian name Маргарита, and you can't call Марго any woman whose full name is Маргарита, as opposed to that you can call Маша any woman whose full name is Мария.
You can't call Вальдемар any man whose name is Владимир, and you can't call Жан any man whose name is Иван.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you Morzh. Do you think that some people may call you _Mish_ all the time, or would they only do it from time to time, for special effects?


----------



## morzh

Actually, Margarita in Russian does not have an accepted diminutive, unlike most names. Neither does "Marina".

People still use diminutives towards them, but then they come up with the closest something that they like, such as "Margo", "Rita" etc.


----------



## LilianaB

You can call any woman Margo, Ptak, if this is her wish and this is how she has introduced herself to you.


----------



## morzh

LilianaB said:


> Thank you Morzh. Do you think that some poeple may call you _Mish_ all the time, or would they only do it from time to time, for special effects?



Some people may call me Mish all the time, yes.
But what does it have to do with anything?
"Mish" is indeed an accepted new voc. of "Misha".

You are trying to use the form that does not exist.
See the difference?




LilianaB said:


> You can call any woman Margo, Ptak, if this is  her wish and this is how she has introduced herself to you.




Damn straight!
The only thing is, it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> You can call any woman Margo, Ptak, if this is her wish and this is how she has introduced herself to you.


Exaclty in these cases! I wrote that you can't call that way *any* woman whose full name is Маргарита, just because her name is Маргарита.


----------



## LilianaB

Morzh, the only thing that I have been trying to find out is if people would really refer to someone all the time with the new vocative, because this has not been my experience. This is all.

Which form does not exist? I did not quite understand you.


----------



## morzh

The form that does not exist is "Марг".

All the time....no, of course not. As a matter of fact even the new vocative may be considered more "uptight" or even reserved than an accepted "term of endearment name".

For example, I never call my wife by the new vocative normally, using my own modification of her name, and she normally calls me "Минька"; if she called me "Миш", I would sense some urgency, or that she is upset. She never so far called me "Миша", and I am not even sure what it would take for her to call me that. Same with me calling her with the new vocative or with simple short form of her name.

There is no such thing as "always" - we are human beings and as such we use or own ideas of what we think is comfortable or nice. But at the same time we operate mostly within some guidelines of what language and culture have already develop and have to offer us. Sometimes we venture outside those, and then it may sound different, or plain strange. Our right to do so, but we can't expect it to be recognized by others.


----------



## grinski

morzh said:


> Actually, Margarita in Russian does not have an accepted diminutive, unlike most names. Neither does "Marina".


For Марина we have Мариша.
Маргарита has her share of diminutives.
http://knigaimen.narod.ru/imena/petnames/margarita.html
Рита, Риточка, Ритуля, Ритуня, Ритуся, Ритуша, Марго, Маргоша, Маруся, Маргаритка.​


----------



## 過客

LilianaB said:


> but I have not noticed that people would refer to somebody as Natash all the time. It would be various forms, depending on the context: Natasha, Natash, Natashka, Natashenka and many others.


I have not either. We do use the "Natash" form, but definitely not as often as Ptak says — maybe only in her community (and for me, such forms often sound rather "special"; I hear people addressing each other in the model "Настя" or "Настенька" more often than "Насть", the latter being heard when one stays on asking a question insistently).

Also, I don't see any way for "Natasha" to sound more cold than "Natash". To me, they are the same; and if you're permitted to call a person "Natasha" (and not "Наталья" or "Наталья Сергеевна"), then you're permitted to call her "Natash" as well. The exact choice depends on exact situation. For example, if you feel a guilt, then you'd call her "Natash"; if your mood is joyful, then "Natasha" will do better.


----------



## morzh

There are short form names and there are diminutives (I will make a distinction for the purpose of this post).

Миша is a short form for Михаил, but Мишаня, Мишуня, Минька, Михайлик - diminutives using extra suffixes for some extra degree of endearment feeling.
Рита may be a standalone name. It is used for a short form for Маргарита, but not a true short form. It is fitting another name to serve as one. Same as some people fit "Валя" for "Валера", although Валя really is short for Валентин. Or Лора for Лариса, although, again, there is Лара for that.
And Мариша to Марина is not the same as Миша to Михаил. It is not very obvious, as they look similar, ,but they are not the same transformations.

For example, Мариша is a true familiar extra-diminutive form, which only very close friends/aquaintances/family may use; I have a close family of friends where the wife is Марина, and it never occurs to anyone to call her Мариша. Marina is used as the familiar form. Simply because this is a special case of a name. I also have a friend who is Мариша, but this is her Web nickname and so everyone knows her as such.

Whereas Миша is normal short form, and it does not require a special closeness in relations to call me that, and will be the very first degree of familiarity once we passed the "Вы/ты" transiiton.

Мариша is about the same degree as Мишаня, whereas Марина is used for both full form and for the same degree of familiarity as Миша.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank you. Morzh. This is exactly what I meant. The new vocative is a great form but it is not something to go by all the time. The formal form and the second form are more neutral in my opinion, and are usually used more often. The third form implies some urgency or some more pronounced emotions.

Thank you the mysterious poster with two squares as well. I thought I had some strange ideas about the use of the new vocative, but I see that they are not so strange after all.


----------



## morzh

Liliana,

This is great, only no one, I think, said here that some people are called using NV all the time. I would find it strange if someone said that. Can you show me the post where someone actually said it?
It's just that we devoted a goodly amount of time here to discuss and disprove the point that no one actually made.


----------



## grinski

Well, diminutives sometimes make me surprised in other homes.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, Morzh. Ptak said that. She said that people would refer to Natasha as Natash in her office all the time, since referring to her as Natasha would sound more as if they very angry or something to that effect. This is why I was very surprised that people would use this form on an every time basis these days.

Post 16. She said that she would call her friend at work Natash all the time. Calling someone by the second form would sound artificial and she would only call her friend Natasha when she wanted to talk to her seriously. This is fine. If this is the way she wants to call people it is fine. It just cannot be presented as a universal rule because it is not one.


----------



## Ptak

LilianaB said:


> Yes, Morzh. Ptak said that. She said that people would refer to Natasha as Natash in her office all the time, since referring to her as Natasha would sound more as if they very angry or something to that effect.


What?? 
Doesn't the fact that I'm here and can read this confuse you, just in case? I never said anything like that!



> Post 16. She said that she would call her friend at work Natash all the time. Calling someone by the second form would sound artificial


That is not quite what I actually wrote. By the way, do you know how do use quotations on this forum?



> If this is the way she wants to call people it is fine.


I think our moderator should wake up and come to this thread.


----------



## LilianaB

This is the essence of what you wrote, Ptak. But this is not worth arguing, I think. Unless you meant something else and this is how I understood it as you put it in English. I think everything is clear now and this is not worth pursuing. 

* You wrote _only if you wanted to say something serious_, not when someone was angry: I am sorry. Morzh had written that he would think that his wife was angry or _upset_ or _that there was some urgency_ if she had used the diminutive second form. This is not really worth continuing, I think.


----------

