"Livia non studet in urbe" is accepted now, also. (Fast response time; I'm impressed.)
There's no "O" in this sentence, so this might not be the best place to have this particular discussion, but Latin is certainly not strictly SVO. It is only around half of Latin sentences that end with the verb. It's perfectly common for the verb to be the first word on the sentence, or the object, or for the subject to come at the end.
In subordinate clauses the word order is more predictable, and there is a stronger tendency for the verb to be placed at the end.
Typically but it doesn't matter as much as english. You can change up word order to emphasize different parts of the sentence.
SOV/SVO with pro-drop and a very high degree of leniency regarding word order
Yes: in urbe non studet- that',s what I learned at school...
I reported the audio here, it seems to me that the L in Livia is not properly enounced, and that the e in urbe is too open and loud, almost as if it was urbet. Nearly incomprehensible.
I am trouble with the audio here, Livia is not particular well enunciated
If Livia in urbe studet means Livia studies in the city, then Livia non in urbe studet seems to translate that she's not in the city, but studying.
Does non go with in urbe, or studet, or in urbe studet? and is the answer the rule for all future Latin sentences?
I think typically the adverb "non" modifies the verb. Here the distinction is not as clear. If the distinction was necessary for meaning, I think the sentence would use a negative adjective like "in nulla urbe" (in no city) to avoid ambiguity. In general adverbs associate with their nearest word or phrase, but this is definitely not always true especially in poetry and real Latin
This makes sense, but it's not a typical Latin sentence. If the writer wants to deny that Livia is in the city, he or she would probably also specify where she is: non in urbe studet, sed ruri "not in the city but in the country."
Is Latin like Arabic and Turkish in that the word the closest to the verb is stressed? So this sentence means he is stressing that it is not in the city that she's studying (rather she might be studying at her home on the countryside) . If I would say "Livia non studet in urbe" would it be an acceptable sentence meaning that studying is not something she's doing in the city (but maybe just enoying life).?
One choice would be "legit"--"she reads" or "laborat"--"she works"; another would be to give "studet" an object (in the dative): "litteris studet"--"she studies literature."
In Latin many verbs take the dative instead of the accusative. This is very common for compound verbs which have preposition prefixes. In the case of studet, it is because it has the primary idea of "be eager for"
The verb credo, credere - to trust also takes the dative because it has the idea of "give trust to"
Isn't this what studying means? To give attention to, to be eager with, to be zealous, to take pains, to be diligent, to be busy with, to be devoted, to strive after, to apply oneself, to pursue, to desire, to wish... All examples come from the dictionary you mentioned.
And I wrote "livia does not study in the city" without capital L for Livia, without dot after the sentence - as I mostly don't do dots, commata, capitals. why is this one all at once wrong?!
Please flag it in-lesson and report "My answer should be accepted."
Although Duolingo's weird issues with contractions is mostly at the programming level and not something the course contributors can necessarily address.
is there a locative for urbs? just asking bcz i am not smart enuf 2 know. i noticed locative always used for "at home".