Note: This sentence uses a reflexive form of the pronoun 'tu', so literally this sentence means: "How do you have/hold yourself?" With the pronoun it would read: "Quomodo tu te habes?"
Volgav vitsenanieff nivya kevach varatsach.
I was wondering why the word 'tu' (you) was omitted here, but seemed to be in the same sentence recently with the same meaning ?
I think it's because one could already see the verb is attached to "tu" ("you"). So there is no need for a visible pronoun here.
This is particularity of Latin. In some Latin-derived languages (PT, ES, IT, Catalan), it's also like that. You don't necessarily have to use the pronoun. Using Portuguese as an example, you could say ''Eu como a carne'' or ''Como a carne'' (I eat the meat). Both sentences have exactly the same meaning.
It's interesting how in Romance languages we don't use this construct (check, for example, "come stai?" in Italian, or "¿cómo estás?" in Spanish), while it is inherited almost literally in Norwegian ("hvordan har du det?").
This is because in Late/Vulgar Latin stō, stāre, stetī, statum evolved from meaning "to stand; to remain" to "to be; to be [located]" and that meaning of "to be" is where "stai" and "estás" in Italian and Spanish come from.
Interesting note on the Norwegian.
habeo, habere, habui, habitum
descended into haber in Spanish, avoir in French, avere in Italian, haver in Portoguese, and in some form into all other the other romance languages.
I'm a little confused. It seems that in addressing the third person, you use "quid" (Quid agit Marcus), but for everything else, you use "quomodo" (Quomodo te habes). What's the difference between "quid" and "quomodo"?