The argument for excluding vocatives from Latin noun pardigms

[Insanis]

They just have a more streamlined paradigm because they are leaving out a case that is identical to the nominative most of the time.

In English, the forms of bison are:

Bison, Bison, Bison's, and Bison's.

(Singular, Plural, Possessive Singular, Possessive Plural)

I think Jayne is right: if it doesn't add information, it doesn't need to be included rigorously.

Only when absolute complete references are needed would it make sense to require it to be included.

Why don't you streamline it further by dropping the dative or the ablative, since they look identical most of the time?

An extreme conclusion would be to include every grammatical function that wasn't completely absorbed or removed from the entire language, including the dual number, which is attested in Classical Latin so therefore a completely good Classical Latin grammar would include it as a standard part.

Reductio ad absurdum works both ways.

[Vetus Ordo]

Why don't you streamline it further by dropping the dative or the ablative, since they look identical most of the time?

An extreme conclusion would be to include every grammatical function that wasn't completely absorbed or removed from the entire language, including the dual number, which is attested in Classical Latin so therefore a completely good Classical Latin grammar would include it as a standard part.

Reductio ad absurdum works both ways.

Asking Jayne why she omits the vocative but not the ablative or the dative is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is asking why she draws the line precisely where she does.

And, yes, my Latin grammar does include references to the dual number in the fossilized forms that survived in Classical Latin such as ambo or duo.

[Jayne]

Why don't you streamline it further by dropping the dative or the ablative, since they look identical most of the time?

In the plurals, perhaps.  But in the singular they are different in every declension but the second.  This is not comparable.  The vocative is the same as the nominative except for second declension singular. That makes one ending to learn on its own as opposed to the four needed if dative or ablative were dropped.

[Insanis]

Asking Jayne why she omits the vocative but not the ablative or the dative is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is asking why she draws the line precisely where she does.

And, yes, my Latin grammar does include references to the dual number in the fossilized forms that survived in Classical Latin such as ambo or duo.

We are on a public forum and we can all read what everybody posts.

But I think you may be overlooking the point. No Latin course, grammar, or reference needs to be a complete absolute reference. I have a Latin dictionary which is horrible for general reference, however, it is better than all Latin dictionaries for the purpose for which it was created (for the works of St Thomas Aquinas).

Every tool has a purpose and some tools are more specialized than others.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

On the question of including the vocative in the paradigm, I think that Jayne and Vetus have both defended their respective positions very well. Though I sympathize more with Vetus' rigorism, I would say that in the end this comes down to a judgment call on the part of the teacher. Thank you both for an interesting discussion.

[aquinas138]

In my own teaching, I realize that I tend to include it in noun paradigms but omit it in adjective paradigms. Not sure why; perhaps that's the way I originally learned. I imagine it probably just simplifies the presentation of adjectives, especially those of three terminations. For the learner, I'm not sure it's such a big deal either way; the vocative for 2nd declension masculines in -us are common enough that any potential for trouble is overcome quickly through frequent exposure.

[Jayne]

In my own teaching, I realize that I tend to include it in noun paradigms but omit it in adjective paradigms. Not sure why; perhaps that's the way I originally learned. I imagine it probably just simplifies the presentation of adjectives, especially those of three terminations. For the learner, I'm not sure it's such a big deal either way; the vocative for 2nd declension masculines in -us are common enough that any potential for trouble is overcome quickly through frequent exposure.

I agree.  I would go along with whatever textbook I am using.  My choice of textbook is not likely to be influenced by its treatment of vocatives since, as you say, it is not a big deal.

[Insanis]

I agree.  I would go along with whatever textbook I am using.  My choice of textbook is not likely to be influenced by its treatment of vocatives since, as you say, it is not a big deal.

How do you say "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" in Latin?