# Scio ubi habitas, ubi sedes Satanae est



## UkrainianPolyglot

This is from the Bible, book of Apocalypse.

Isn't "scio ubi" an indirect question? If so, why is "habitas" in indicative?


----------



## Pugnator

It isn't a question. A  rough translation of it would be:
I know where you live, where the chair(Or also city, or also home, or also place) of Satana is.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!


UkrainianPolyglot said:


> Isn't "scio ubi" an indirect question? If so, why is "habitas" in indicative?


Yes, "ubi habitas" *is *an indirect question (sorry, Pugnator). And yes, one should here therefore expect the subjunctive, _habites_. What is the source of these words, please?
Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> salvete!
> 
> Yes, "ubi habitas" *is *an indirect question (sorry, Pugnator). And yes, one should here therefore expect the subjunctive, _habites_. What is the source of these words, please?
> Σ


I've the Vulgata at disposition (it is where it was taken from) and it is written habitas. I've even checked the translated Bible I've and it isn't an indirect question.  It is taken somewhere from Apocalypse.


----------



## Glenfarclas

It's a portion of Revelation 2:13 from the Vulgate.  Probably the use of the subjunctive in sentences like this was on the way out by the Jerome wrote (one would not use the subjunctive in Spanish "sé dónde vives," for example).  It is an indirect question though, yes.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo

Sorry, Pugnator and Glenfarclas, I did not read carefully enough UkrainianPolyglot's original post, where he does in fact say it is from Revelation - which I ought to have recognised for myself.

Having looked at the Greek from which Jerome was translating, I think we have the explanation for the Latin _textus receptus_: Greek indirect questions do not require subjunctive verbs - though in some contexts they are found. Here ποῦ κατοικεῖς is an indicative construction, and Jerome remained faithfully accurate to this formulation - presumably on the basis that it was holy writ, and should not be needlessly tampered with. There are in fact other instances in the Vulgate where Jerome may be held responsible for over-literalism.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> salvete de novo
> 
> Sorry, Pugnator and Glenfarclas, I did not read carefully enough UkrainianPolyglot's original post, where he does in fact say it is from Revelation - which I ought to have recognised for myself.
> 
> Having looked at the Greek from which Jerome was translating, I think we have the explanation for the Latin _textus receptus_: Greek indirect questions do not require subjunctive verbs - though in some contexts they are found. Here ποῦ κατοικεῖς is an indicative construction, and Jerome remained faithfully accurate to this formulation - presumably on the basis that it was holy writ, and should not be needlessly tampered with. There are in fact other instances in the Vulgate where Jerome may be held responsible for over-literalism.
> 
> Σ


But why it should be an indirect question? It isn't. My thinking was right, in fact even the CEI version(Official catholic translation in Italkian) of bible give me right, here how it translate it:
"So che abiti dove satana ha il suo trono; "
which literally mean:
"I know that you live where Satan has his throne".
It is surely not literal but there are no indirect question, which in fact make no sense. It isn't an indirect question.


----------



## Pugnator

A literal translation would be: "I know where you live, where is the seat of Satan". Still no indirect question.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again.

In



Pugnator said:


> "I know where you live



...the words "where you live" are precisely an indirect question by any conventional understanding of Latin syntax.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> Greetings again.
> 
> In
> 
> 
> 
> ...the words "where you live" are precisely an indirect question by any conventional understanding of Latin syntax.
> 
> Σ


Nope, If I say "I'm wondering where you live"  in this case is an indirect question, same for other similar construction like "I asked where you live" and other one who implies a question without use a direct speech. Saying "I know where you live" isn't an indirect question, would make no sense consider it as an indirect question. For this is okay the use of indicative.


----------



## Scholiast

With regard to Pugnator's #10:

From A&G, § 330:

An Indirect Question gives the substance of the question, adapted to the form of the sentence in which it is quoted. It depends on a verb or other expression of asking, doubting, *knowing *[my emphasis], or the like:—

rogāvit quid esset, he asked what it was. [Direct: quid est, what is it?]
nesciō ubi sim, I know not where I am. [Direct: ubi sum, where am I?]
In the second example, replace _nescio_ with _scio_, and _ubi habitas_ for _ubi sum_.

QED.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> In the second example, replace _nescio_ with _scio_, and _ubi habitas_ for _ubi sum_.


But "nescio ubi sim" can be turned into a direct question. A question(except in the case it is rhetoric) has the prerequisite of not-sureness. You can turn "Nescio ubi sim" with "Where Am I? I don't know" but you can't turn into a question "scio ubi habitas" because it express a sureness and isn't rhetoric.


----------



## Scholiast

On the contrary, Pugnator #12: "I know where you live" expresses certainty in the _main verb_, "scio". "Where you live", however, remains an Indirect Question, corresponding with the ("uncertain") DQ "Where do you live?". Look again at A&G as cited in my #11.

Σ


----------

