Why habeam and not habeo?

[jamesbath]

To understand subjunctives better, I googled "habeam" and found the following in The Latin Vulgate.

volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

Why is the subjunctive habeam used here instead of habeo? Is it because the I wish of volo throws the whole clause into the subjunctive?

If the clause was written instead as: scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis; would habeo be correct and habeam incorrect, because scitis is now in the indicative mood?

[adrianus]

Indirect discourse (or infinitive) clauses, have subjunctive subordinate clauses.
Clausulae orationibus obliquis subordinatae subjunctivo modo sunt.

"scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis" is fine pre-classically // bonum erat ante classicum aevum http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio sectio I.g

[jaihare]

Interesting, but my Latin isn't at the level right now where I can see the distinction.

When I plugged volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis into Google translate, I got For I would that ye knew what great conflict I ​​have for you.

In Spanish, I can imagine the "ye knew" (vos scire, I assume) being in the subjunctive (quiero que [Uds. sepan]/[vosotros sepáis]) and the last phrase being in the indicative because it's a real situation and has nothing to do with the initial desire.

Now that I compare it to Spanish, I can understand the phrase in Latin, but I wouldn't imagine saying yo tenga (subjunctive) at the end of that phrase.

Isn't scire an infinitive, though?

Interesting question. Thanks!

[jamesbath]

Now that I compare it to Spanish, I can understand the phrase in Latin, but I wouldn't imagine saying yo tenga (subjunctive) at the end of that phrase.

Isn't scire an infinitive, though?

Interesting question. Thanks!

volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

I take it to mean something like: "for I want you to know how much concern I have for you."

I see scire as an infinitive "to know". Volo enim scire "for I want you to know"

But I am still thrashing around in a great ocean of ignorance as far as languages go. Helplessly drowning most of the time. And maybe this time, too. Take everything I say with a truckload of salt.

Your post spurs me to take a look at the Spanish verbs I downloaded to my Kindle. Thanks.

[jamesbath]

Indirect discourse (or infinitive) clauses, have subjunctive subordinate clauses.
Clausulae orationibus obliquis subordinatae subjunctivo modo sunt.

"scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis" is fine pre-classically // bonum erat ante classicum aevum http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio sectio I.g

Thank you, Adriane! As usual, you have opened up a floodgate of interesting new information for me to study. I am really enjoying this stuff!

[jaihare]

volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

I see scire as an infinitive "to know". Volo enim scire "for I want you to know"

But isn't the enim just a conjunctive particle of sorts and the vos is "you"? So, I think you meant volō vos scīre means "I want you to know."

I just wasn't aware that Latin had the accusative as the subject of an infinitive like Greek has (and English).

So, I would assume:

volō scīre - "I want to know"
volō eam scīre - "I want her to know"
volō eum scīre - "I want him to know"
volō tē scīre - "I want you to know" (singular audience)
volō vos scīre - "I want you to know" (plural audience)

volō puerum scīre - "I want the boy to know"
volō puellam scīre - "I want the girl to know"

Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? That we can replace vos with any accusative and get the same meaning from the construction?

[jaihare]

But I am still thrashing around in a great ocean of ignorance as far as languages go. Helplessly drowning most of the time. And maybe this time, too. Take everything I say with a truckload of salt.

Your post spurs me to take a look at the Spanish verbs I downloaded to my Kindle. Thanks.

I'm pretty good with languages generally. I'm still really new to Latin. Glad to inspire you to pull out your Spanish. I should do a refresher in Spanish, too. I haven't spoken Spanish in over four years!

Where are you at in Wheelock right now? (Or, are you not in a study group?) I just got to chapter four today, though the two-man study group that I'm in has only read the introduction together. We were supposed to meet up on Skype last night, but we apparently missed each other.

[adrianus]

Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? That we can replace vos with any accusative and get the same meaning from the construction?

Yes. See this // Est. Vide hoc: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+563 & http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+565

[jamesbath]

So, I think you meant volō vos scīre means "I want you to know."

No. I copied it word for word the way I found it. I did not compose the Latin. You can see the original Latin and the English translation here: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=12&c=2

It is the first verse in The Epistle of St. Paul to the Collosians: Chapter Two in the Latin Vulgate.

enim by the way is a postpositive particle. Ancient Latin writers did not use punctuation the way modern English writers do, to separate sentences. The ancient Latin writers would start new sentences and clauses with postpositives, such as inem, igitur, autem and others. From what I understand, the function of these postpositives is more to organize a sentence than to convey information and can sometimes be left out of a translation completely.

See: http://tutor.bestlatin.net/grammar/postpositives.htm

Vales!