# incolo



## Alaedious

Am I correct in thinking one would say 'Quo incolis?', given one answers in the accusative? 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete!

Is this meant in the sense of "Where do you live?"?

_incolere_ is used both with an accusative direct object, and sometimes on its own. See L&S at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...habetic+letter=I:entry+group=24:entry=incolo1

Σ


----------



## Alaedious

Salvē, Scholiast!

Yes,  I'm trying to say 'Where do you live?' using incolere.  I have already looked at the link you include,  but I don't see an interrogative form which answers my question.  I assume that since incolere takes an accusative compliment/object,  one must say 'Quo incolis?' and not 'Ubi incolis?'.


----------



## Scholiast

Salve tu quoque!

Any of the formulations with a direct accusative object cited by L&S can be made interrogative, such as _quas urbes incolunt?_, _quae loca incolunt?_, _quam partem Galliae incolunt? _&c.

But likewise _incoluntne trans Rhenum Germani?_, _ubi incolere et mercari consueverunt?

__quo_ as an interrogative however seems wrong to me, since (a) it is not an accusative; and (b) as a question-word it means "where *to*...?" ("whither...?"), with motion involved.

Σ


----------



## Alaedious

Hello again,  there!  

I know what you mean when you say it sounds strange, which explains my hesitations.  Yet,  it's already strange to use an accusative form pronoun with a verb meaning 'live' somewhere,  since there's no motion from one place to another involved.  But I'm not sure if that kind of reasoning can be used here. 

My reasoning was as follows:
Vado Romam (accusātīvus).
Quo vādis? 

Incolo Romam (accūsātīvus).
Quo incolis?

:/


----------



## Scholiast

Salve iterum!



> My reasoning was as follows:
> Vado Romam (accusātīvus).
> Quo vādis?
> 
> Incolo Romam (accūsātīvus).
> Quo incolis?


I'm sorry, but this reasoning is flawed. _Romam_ is indeed accusative in both instances, but there is a semantic difference. The accusative is used (not only in Latin, but also in, e.g., German and at least some slavonic languages) both for a direct object and for the destination of a verb of motion. _quo_ is under no circumstances an accusative, however. In _quo vadis_, it is an (interrogative) adverb, not an object, as in the direct statement _eo vado_, "I am going _there_ [thither]", which makes sense as _vadere_ is a verb of motion; but _incolere_ is not. If _quo incolis_ meant anything, it would be "Where are you living *to*?".

Σ


----------



## Alaedious

I'm still not so sure this reasoning is flawed....   'Quo' seems to signify 'to or towards something'... And interestingly,  in familiar French, one often hears 'Tu habites _*vers*_ où' ([Toward] where do you live?), when one asks to know in which part of the city or country someone lives,  instead of the standard 'Où habites-tu?' (Where do you live?).  The answer, though, can be quite specific (J'habite dans l'avenue Rockefeller, etc...).  What's more,  'vers' in French is usually used for a movement towards an object (Il avance vers le centre de la ville...)    

So why couldn't it be 'Quo incolis?' instead of 'Quam urbem incolis?', meaning, as in French, '(Towards) where do you live?'  

All this is really just conjecturing, though!  The most important thing is to see if anyone can attest that such a form exists or can exist...  Or should one just stay 'Ubi habitas?'  and just be done with it!


----------



## Dib

Alaedious said:


> ...  it's already strange to use an accusative form pronoun with a verb meaning 'live' somewhere,  since there's no motion from one place to another involved.



I think "incolere" is syntactically more like English "inhabit",  which also takes a direct object, or even French "habiter", which _may_ take a direct object. It's not that weird really.



Alaedious said:


> All this is really just conjecturing, though!  The most important thing  is to see if anyone can attest that such a form exists or can exist...



I am no scholar, but the following example from Lewis and Short's online edition from Perseus Project - and Scholiast has already given a very close example - should be revealing:
"erat oppidum Vaga, ubi et incolere et mercari consueverant multi mortales,  *Sall. J. 47, 1*."
"There was a city - Vaga, where a lot of people used to both live and trade"

The relative and interrogative pronouns have a one-to-one relationship, and "ubi" and "quo" remain same in both of these forms. So, I think this is a pretty strong evidence that incolere should be construed with "ubi", though it says nothing about the acceptability of "quo incolere".


----------



## Alaedious

Hello, Dib!  

I'm just a mere beginner at Latin myself (two months of studying so far...), so I have _*A LOT*_ tolearn and hold no answers...    Let me try to see if I understand this sentence... 

*erat oppidum Vaga, ubi et incolere et mercari consueverant multi mortales
*...there was the town of Vaga, where many mortals/souls came together to live and trade...   

Is that close?  So, as you say... it would seem one would use 'ubi' with my question:  Ubi incolis?   (Another idea:  In quo loco incolis?). 

Thanks for both your and Scholiast's input!  I'm just trying to understand.  It's just like one big beautiful mystery!


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete Alaedious, necnon Dib!

The French analogy





> And interestingly,  in familiar French, one often hears 'Tu habites _*vers*_ où' ([Toward] where do you live?)


 does not work, except possibly as a rendering of the Latin preposition _ad_. Fr. _vers_ can mean both "towards" and "around", and is no guide to Latin idiom.

_ubi incolis _is fine, as would be (with accusative interrogative pronoun) _quem locum_ [_quam urbem_/_quam partem_/_quam regionem_] _incolis?_῟

But in the passages already referred to, _incolere_ can also, as Dib says, be used in the intransitive sense of _habiter_.

Σ


----------



## Alaedious

Thanks so much, once more, Scholiast!  Did I correctly understand the small phrase Dib sent me?  

*erat oppidum Vaga, ubi et incolere et mercari consueverant multi mortales
*...there was the town of Vaga, where many mortals/souls came together to live and trade...  (?)


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again



> *erat oppidum Vaga, ubi et incolere et mercari consueverant multi mortales
> *...there was the town of Vaga, where many mortals/souls came together to live and trade...  (?)


Yes, this is more or less right. Only _consueverant_ is strictly speaking "they _had become accustomed_... [to dwell and to trade]".

Σ


----------



## Dib

"Mortales" can be simply translated as "people". I'll quote a footnote from Greenough's edition of Livy's History books I & II, page 9:
"*mortales*: used by Sallust and later writers for _homines_."


----------

