"Do you live in Italy?"
Translation:Habitasne in Italia?
Since Italy is a country, not a city, town, small island, or one of the special nouns that is allowed to use the locative case, we have to use in Italia.
Since Roma is a city, it had the locative (Romae) and we need to use it when saying 'in Rome', instead of in Roma.
As to why it isn't consistent, from what I understand the locative case used to be available for all nouns (assuming it made sense) but was slowly starting to be replaced with the use of in, but the transition wasn't complete when much of the classical works were written. Though I am sure someone can correct me if I made a mistake here.
I disagree, It's "usually" not always. Wikipedia says 90% of the time (I think it was in Cicero, but it makes no difference, this variation is found in many authors).
It's more common to find it on the verb, and on the first word of the sentence, (most of the cases), but it's absolutely not mandatory.
The enclitic has to be attached to the emphatic word ((Source: A Latin grammar, by William Gardner Hale), meaning the word that "contains" the question.
See this question: " Bacasne in horto vides?"
Here "Bacas" is a noun, not a verb.
The place of the enclitic word changes the meaning of the question:
Bacasne in horto vides? do you see berries in the garden?
In hortone bacas vides? do you see berries in the garden?
Videsne bacas in horto? do you see the berries in the garden?
Tune vides bacas in horto? do you see berries in the garden?
All are perfectly valid in Latin.
And it's also possible to have -ne in the middle of at the end of the sentence, it's a matter of emphasis.
Cum Marcone loquitur Gaius?
because of this (Wiktionary is not always reliable, but Latin grammars say the same thing)
I agree with you, it's really better, there seems to be cases where they didn't use the "-ne", and nothing to ask questions (it is given in Grammar books), but it's not recommendable at all. Romans were fluent, they knew when a question even without a mark would be unambiguous. We cannot.
But, didn't Cicero use this to mean "to live"/to reside"?
The "vivere" is also listed as "to reside" in dictionaries.
[For instance "First Lessons in Latin, Or, An Introduction to Andrews& Stoddard's Latin" (1840) by Ethan Allen Andrews.]
Vivo, vivere, vixi, victum, n. to live; to reside; to be
It's not the first meaning as it appears in all the dictironaries, (the first meaning = to be alive, to survive, etc...)
But when they say, in Latin literature "In Italia/Romae vivo", it doesn't mean they are alive in Italy, but "to reside".
In descend languages :
Vivere: Italian = only mean to live with the meaning to be alive. (Source: Larousse)
Vivre: French = Means to be alive, and to reside. (Je vis à Paris)
Vivir: Spanish = Means to be alive, and to reside. (Vivo en Barcelona)
Or, if you want to make the interrogation on the "Italia", as you are unsure if it's really "Italia":
Habitas en Italiane?
Do you (really) live in Italy
The really is not a very good translation, because it removes the neutrality of the yes/no question asked with the -ne, but it shows the word where the question is asked changes.
The -ne, according to Latin grammar books, is on the word where the question is asked, where the emphasis is.
Thanks for bringing my error to my attention, as it has prompted me to look further into my notes, and has brightened my previously obscure understanding of it (which I last studied a long time ago). The notes are from
Teach Yourself Latin by Gavin Betts, chapter 8.1/3 Motion and position
As you have mentioned correctly according to these notes, locative is declined similar to the first and second genitive declensions.
And yes, locative applies mostly to cities only.