Because it means 'this person is from this location/village' rather than 'this person's current location is this location/village'. So you also say "Я из Москвы" for "I'm from Moscow" (I am Moscovian, if that's the word).
You would not use из for the метро in any case, unless we are talking about a post apocalyptic sort of setup, where the метро possibly stands for a faction/place that is significant enough to count. You are в метро - at/in the metro. You do not live there and do not claim it as your home or base, I guess, which is what you do when you put из in there.
(.. I actually learned this from a book rather than Duoling. 8D /not sorry for stepping out on Duo.)
No, it's not an American thing.
Metro comes from French word métropolitain, basically meaning a subway in this case (such as in "Métropolitain de Paris" ("Parisian subway"). Métropolitain is usually shortened to métro ("Métro de Paris").
Métropolitain is actually a short, too. It comes from "chemin de fer métropolitain" ("metropolitan railway"). In this, "métropolitain" refers to the metropolitan area (of Paris) that the subway serves for.
In Europe, "metro" is far more common term than "subway". I usually hear "subway" only when talking to British or Americans, most of the Europeans refers underground railways as "metro" when talking in English. Most underground systems in Europe are called metros with couple exceptions (Germans have "U-bahn" and Swedish have "Tunnelbana"). Even in Copenhagen, despite the very close relation of Danish and Swedish language, the subway is called Metro.
..with American English I may be wrong but possibly we/they went very literally and (concerning the trains that travel below ground because not all do) they called it the subway to refer to the subterranean way it travels ;) the sub-way ... We don't usually refer to trains as metros themselves, but we do call some train stations Metro Stations.
Sounds to me like a difference in usage. As a Dutch person, I understand both to mean the same thing. Thankfully, the Russians don't care about what you call it in either form of English and are concerned primarily with what it's called in Russian.
As long as you are both clear on it meaning that Jenny is currently located precisely where she states to be, then I'm okay with accepting either.
Just calling to let you I am following the route you laid out for me.
I am at the subway. I can see the entrance clearly as I managed to get within a couple of blocks with this vehicle. It looks really busy. Thank God I don't have to go in it.
Anyway, I am moving on to the next point in the path I am supposed to follow.
Hey, I just got a call from my friend who says he is in the subway right now and it is crazy crowded. He says he is going to wait a few minutes to see if the crowd clears up before getting on it to go home.
The preceding is a perfectly normal manner of discussing the subway in English.
"Метро" is a loan word. Load words that ends "о" or "е" (пальтО, эскимО, метрО, кафЕ, кофЕ, оливьЕ) do not change their form. Such words always stay in the same form.
"Я в пальто стою в метро" — I stand in/at metro, dressed in coat / wearing the coat.
"Я сижу в кафе, пью кофе и ем эскимо" — I'm sitting at the cafe, drinking coffee and eating Eskimo Pie" (Wikipedia: Eskimo Pie is a brand name for a chocolate-covered vanilla ice cream bar wrapped in foil).
I'm actually trying to learn about the process of Russians learning articles in English and what the best way to approach it is. How do you know in Russian if someone means "an apple" (any apple/general apple) or "the apple" (that specific apple")? I keep hearing it's all in the context, but I still don't understand.
There are approaches to learning a language that move you away from translating into your own language. They are experiential in nature. You don't translate but simply absorb meaning, phrasing, word order etc, without focusing on them at all. They rely on immersion to get the language across. Sometimes assisted with other methods but mostly immersion. You make mistakes but that is not a problem. Eventually, it all works itself out.
But Duo isn't that approach. It is the exact opposite. It is learning a foreign language through translation exercises. It is looking at a word or a series of words in one language and translating that into the reciprocal language using equivalent words carrying roughly the same meaning, in a manner consistent with the grammar and spelling rules. They do ignore most punctuation errors.
I guess I wasn't clear in my post.
Duo is the best for learning things like sentence structure, gender matching, prepositions, articles etc.
Other approaches suggest ignoring that sort of thing. They assume some ability to immerse yourself in the target language in some way. When in the immersed situation whatever that may be, you just practice speaking and listening. Eventually, you will notice that your use of an article, verb form whatever, causes confusion and doesn't match what other speakers say. The idea is that you automatically adjust.
Some comes up to you in the street and says...Where is post office. .... You respond with....over there.....
Duo responds with....it is my sad duty to inform you that you have dropped the article in your sentence. If you continue to do that you will sound uneducated and semi-literate. Please make a better effort to construct a sentence where you ask where the post office is. .......
When on Duo, practice proper placement of articles in English especially where they are missing in Russian examples. To know how any part of speech works in a foreign language ,look to see how it is different from the target language. The part of speech serves a purpose in your base language. See how that purpose is served in the target language.
If you are getting marked wrong because Duo thinks you are misusing a part of speech, then you need to focus more on the part of speech you are misusing.
In the French course, Duo accepts dropping some in English phrases where it is understood to be present, even though the French equivalent is always required. When translating the French equivalent into English I always include it. Duo doesn't care but I do because that word in French serves an important function which is why the French require its presence. If I continue the English custom of dropping it, I will make it harder to automatically remember to use it properly in French.
Just my thoughts on your situation.
In English, when using a transportation service for its intended purpose you are described as being on it.
Getting in a transportation service is referring to your current location.
I am getting on the bus......because I want to use it to go somewhere.
I am getting in the bus.....which is broken down and not going anywhere but I want to get out of the rain.
The synth speaker is not at it's best here, it's a bit too fast and it seems like varying the speed has some curious side effects (in this one you might hear метро as нетро if you don't pay close attention). But the 'в' is there. When spoken so fast, it merges into the other word, so it's kind of like "вметро". You could even think of it as "дженнив метро", if that helps.
Unless they are standing around in the metro waiting for the transportation to arrive.
If you are in the subway you are waiting for the train to arrive. If you are on it, your train has arrived and you got on it. When the train arrives at your destination and you get off the train you are now back in the subway and will be there until you exit the structure.
You have to consider the context when supplying indefinite or definite articles in English translations of Russian.
Since there is no counterfactual context in this Duo example, you have to assume that the statement refers to a specific Jenny in or on a specific place.
You can invent a context where someone suddenly announces that Jenny is in a subway or metro in some unidentified place but Duo considers the most obvious conversation to be the expected answer.
There are ways for Russian speakers to say Jenny is in a subway somewhere in the world unknown to everyone in the conversation including the speaker but those methods are not present in this Duo example.
While Russian doesn't require an article in this sentence, English does so as to make it is clear that it is referencing what English speaker often call the metro.
Inserting an indefinite article would leave English speakers speculating about all the various things that could be called metro.
Leaving out any article in English, would cause English speakers to think the sentence was about some novel use of the word metro which was detached from any tangible thing.
Kind of like a cross between f and v. Only you have to do it so softly no one really hears it. It just sort of adds a tonal quality to what follows it. Much like the h in could have gets pronounced as could of. You can emphasize the B so it is heard if you wish. However, it seems most people don't. Just my opinion of course. I'm pretty sure someone will disagree on this thread.
Most times on Duo, you have to do it at slow speed to pick it up.