# MEUS/MI Vocative



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

You use 'MEUS' as the vocative with nouns such as 
'PEULLA' but you use 'MI' as the vocative for nouns 
ending with -IUS or -US such as TULLIUS.

Example:

PEULLA! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MEUS
TULLI! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MI

In masculine nouns MEUS and MI are interchangable
in the vocative:

MI OCULUS
MEUS OCULUS

But some people ive been talking with cannot agree
if MI can be used whenever you want in the vocative
such as

PEULLA! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MI

Which is it?

Thanks.


----------



## Anne345

*



meus has regularly mí (rarely meus) in the vocative singular masculine.
		
Click to expand...

*Allen and Greenough


----------



## loco44

The Vocative is Peulla! or Tullio! and they have nothing to do with MI/MEUS 
I don't see any other Vocative, or am I wrong?
May you translate the meaning of the sentence (or what you rekon it means?)


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Example:
> 
> PEULLA! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MEUS
> TULLI! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MI



Loco44 it means 'Girl! This is my bottle' or 'Tulli! This is my bottle'

Is MEUS/MI dependent on the proper noun if it ends in -IUS
or not.  Some people are telling me that MEUS or MI can be used
and others are telling me that MI can only be used if the proper
noun ends in -IUS.

Maybe this explains your surprise saying only TULLI! and PEULLA!
are the vocative and nothing else is germane.  If you had heard
of such a rule which I am talking about you would not have said
that TULLI! is the only vocative here.  

Is the proper noun the only thing in the vocative here and MEUS/MI
has nothing to do with it?

Thanks.


----------



## Todessprache

loco44 said:


> The Vocative is Peulla! or *Tullio*! and they have nothing to do with MI/MEUS
> I don't see any other Vocative, or am I wrong?
> May you translate the meaning of the sentence (or what you rekon it means?)


 
-O is never the vocative of the 2nd declension class.


----------



## Anne345

Puella is feminine, vocative is Puella mea 
Tullius is masculins, vocative Tullie mi or Tullie meus 
Agricola is masculine : vocative is Agricola mi or Agricila meus.


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Anne345 said:


> Tullius is masculins, vocative Tullie mi or Tullie meus
> Agricola is masculine : vocative is Agricola mi or Agricila meus.



The red highlights of MI or MEUS are indiscriminate of anything
other than personal interest of how you want to say it?  This 
happens with all masculine nouns of all declensions?  PEULLA
however is feminine and always takes MEA as do all feminine
nouns in all declensions?

Thanks.


----------



## loco44

Todessprache said:


> -O is never the vocative of the 2nd declension class.


I apologize... you're damn right !!!


----------



## Starfrown

OK, I think we've got some problems here.



bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> You use 'MEUS' as the vocative with nouns such as
> 'PEULLA' but you use 'MI' as the vocative for nouns
> ending with -IUS or -US such as TULLIUS.
> 
> Example:
> 
> PEULLA! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MEUS
> TULLI! HAEC EST AMPULLAE MI


 
_Mī_ (rarely _meus_) is always used in the vocative singular for masculine nouns, regardless of the declension. _Mea _will always be used in the vocative singular for feminine nouns, regardless of the declension.

Your examples should read:

_Puella! Haec est ampulla mea_. “Girl! This is my flask.”
_Tullī! Haec est ampulla mea_. “Tullius! This is my flask.”

I think you have been confused somehow, because the vocative of _meus,-a,-um_ should not be used in your examples. _Meus,-a,-um_, being an adjective, must agree with the noun that it modifies; in both of the above sentences, it modifies the feminine _ampulla_, and therefore has the form _mea_. The appearance of the vocatives of _puella_ and _Tullius_ does not change the fact that _meus,-a,-um_ is modifying _ampulla_. If you wished to modify the nouns in the vocative case, your examples would be correctly written:

_Puella mea! Haec est ampulla mea_. “My girl! This is my flask”
_Tullī__ mī__! Haec est ampulla mea_. “My Tullius! This is my flask.”



bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> In masculine nouns MEUS and MI are interchangable
> in the vocative:
> 
> MI OCULUS
> MEUS OCULUS


 
As I pointed out above they are interchangeable in the masculine vocative singular, though _m__ī_ is more common. Your examples should be written:

_Mī__ ocule_
_Meus ocule_ (less common)

I don’t know why anyone would address his eye directly though.



Anne345 said:


> Tullius is masculins, vocative Tullie mi or Tullie meus


 
I'm afraid this is incorrect. Masculine nouns ending in _-ius_ have -_ī_ in the vocative singular. Thus:

_Tullī_


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Starfrown said:


> OK, I think we've got some problems here.
> 
> As I pointed out above they are interchangeable in the masculine vocative singular, though _m__ī_ is more common. Your examples should be written:
> 
> _Mī__ ocule_
> _Meus ocule_ (less common)
> 
> I don’t know why anyone would address his eye directly though.



Ive got a question.  MI OCULE and MEUS OCULE could both mean
either 'My eye' or 'O! my eye'.  They could both mean either
translation correct?

Also, MEUS and MI are interchangable in the masculine vocative
singular but what happens in the masculine plural and the 
feminine plural?

Thanks.


----------



## Starfrown

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Ive got a question. MI OCULE and MEUS OCULE could both mean
> either 'My eye' or 'O! my eye'. They could both mean either
> translation correct?


_Anytime_ you happen _to address your eye directly_, which I imagine is not very often, you will use one of those two.



bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Also, MEUS and MI are interchangable in the masculine vocative
> singular but what happens in the masculine plural and the
> feminine plural?
> 
> Thanks.


 
In the masculine vocative plural, you will always see _meī_; in the feminine vocative plural, you will always see _meae_.

If you don't fully understand, feel free to post some example sentences to be corrected.


----------



## cajzl

> I don’t know why anyone would address his eye directly though.


Why not? --- O oculi mei! Quid videtis? --- O, my eyes! What do you see?


----------

