Pater rogat: "Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via?"

Father asks: "Where are you running, children, outside on the road?"

Breakdown of Pater rogat: "Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via?"

• in: on
• via: the road
• pater: the father
• filius: the son
• foris: outside
• currere: to run
• rogare: to ask
• ubi: where

Questions & Answers about Pater rogat: "Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via?"

What does rogat mean here, and why is it followed by a colon and a quoted question?

Rogat is the 3rd person singular present of rogāre, meaning “to ask”.

So Pater rogat means “The father asks” or “Father is asking”.

The colon and the quotation marks are just modern punctuation to show direct speech:

• Pater rogat: → Father asks:
• Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via? → “Where are you running, sons, outside in the street?”

In older Latin texts you might just see something like Pater rogat ubi currant with no quotation marks, which would be indirect speech (“The father asks where they are running”) and would use the subjunctive (currant) instead of the indicative (curritis).

Why is it curritis and not curris?

Both come from currere = “to run”, but:

• curris = you (singular) run / are running
• curritis = you (plural) run / are running

Here the father is addressing several sons (filii), so the verb must be 2nd person plural: curritis.

If he were talking to only one son, it would be:

• Ubi curris, fili, foris in via? – Where are you running, son, outside in the street?

What exactly does ubi mean, and how is it different from quo and unde?

Ubi is an interrogative adverb meaning “where (at)?” – it asks about location.

Latin distinguishes three related ideas:

• ubi = where (in what place) are you? → static location
• quo = where to? / to what place? → motion towards a place
• unde = from where? / from what place? → motion from a place

In Ubi curritis?, the father is basically asking “In what place are you running?”—English just says “Where are you running?”, but Latin still uses ubi, even though curritis is a motion verb.

What case is filii, and why isn’t it filios?

Filii here is vocative plural of filius (= son).

• filius (nom. sg.) – the son
• filium (acc. sg.) – the son (object)
• filii (voc. pl.) – O sons! (addressing them directly)
• filios (acc. pl.) – the sons as an object

The father is addressing his sons, not talking about them. That’s why Latin uses the vocative:

• filii = “sons” (as in “Hey, sons!”), not the accusative filios.

Why are there commas around filii?

The commas mark direct address. In English we do the same:

• Where are you running, sons, outside in the street?

Latin often puts a vocative like filii inside the sentence and separates it with commas to show that the speaker is calling or speaking to that person or group.

So the structure is:

• Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via?
  = Where are you running, sons, outside in the street?

What is foris here, and what does it mean exactly?

Foris is an adverb meaning “outside”.

So:

• curritis foris = you are running outside

It does not need a case after it, because it isn’t a preposition; it already contains the idea of outside / outdoors. (There is also a noun foris = door, but that’s a different use.)

Why is it in via and not in viam?

The preposition in can take either:

• accusative = motion into / onto something (direction)
• ablative = being in / on something (location)

Here we have:

• via = ablative singular (1st declension)
• in via = “in the street / on the road” (location)

If it were in viam, that would usually mean “into the street / onto the road”, emphasizing movement into that place.

Is foris in via redundant? Why say both “outside” and “in the street”?

It’s not really redundant; it adds precision:

• foris = outside (not in the house)
• in via = out in the street / on the road (as opposed to, say, in a garden, in a field, etc.)

Together, foris in via highlights both:

1. They are outside (not indoors), and
2. The specific place is the street / road.

In English too, we might naturally say: “Where are you running, boys—outside on the street?”

Can the word order inside the question be changed? For example, could you say Filii, ubi curritis foris in via?

Yes. Latin word order is relatively flexible, especially for emphasis.

All of these are grammatical and have essentially the same core meaning:

• Ubi curritis, filii, foris in via?
• Filii, ubi curritis foris in via?
• Ubi, filii, foris in via curritis?

The original order puts the question word ubi first (very common in questions) and then interrupts the flow with filii to show the direct address clearly.

Different orders can slightly emphasize different parts, but the grammar (forms and endings) matters far more than the word order.

Why is curritis present tense in Latin, but translated as “are you running” in English?

Latin present tense (curritis) covers both:

• “you run” (simple present)
• “you are running” (progressive present)

Context decides which English form sounds more natural. In a question about something happening now, English usually prefers “are you running”, so:

• Ubi curritis? → Where are you running?

But in other contexts, the same form could be translated as “you run”.

Could this also be written as an indirect question, like Pater rogat ubi currant filii foris in via? What would change?

Yes, that would be an indirect question:

• Pater rogat ubi currant filii foris in via.
  = The father asks where the sons are running outside in the street.

Main changes:

1. The direct quotation is gone; the question becomes part of the sentence.
2. The verb inside the question changes to the subjunctive:
   
   • direct: ubi curritis (indicative, 2nd pl.)
   • indirect: ubi currant (subjunctive, 3rd pl.)

Also, the filii inside the indirect question is now nominative plural subject, not vocative of address.

Why is Pater in the nominative, and why is it capitalized?

Pater is nominative singular, the basic “subject” form:

• Pater rogat = The father asks
  pater (nom.) is the one doing the action rogat.

As for the capital letter, that is just editorial choice in this example. In classical Latin manuscripts, capitalization conventions are not the same as in modern printed texts. Some textbooks capitalize words like Pater when it’s being used in a more personal sense (like a name), but grammatically it’s simply nominative singular of pater.