1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Livia does not study in the …

"Livia does not study in the city."

Translation:Livia non in urbe studet.

August 27, 2019



Is "Livia non studet in urbe" supposed to be incorrect?


It should be accepted now, but unfortunately it takes some time for the changes we make in the Incubator to be active for users (sometimes as long as two weeks).

Still, please report (with the button in the lesson, not in the discussion) if it's not accepted, it's still possible something got missed!


"Livia non in urbe studet"should be corrected in "Livia in urbe non studet" Or something like that.

It's better to teach that "non" has to negate the verb, as I read in grammar books, than to say that "non" can move everywhere in the sentence!


Latin does not have arigid laguage structure. Does not matter where the words are located. It is the same to say: Livia non studet in urbe. Livia in urbe non studet. In urbe Livia non studet or any other combination.


That's not true to say that it doesn't matter where the words are located.
And that's not true to say that all your sentences are the same.


I know it is very extremelly confusing i have tryed it six times and i still got it wrong each round...☹


No, no, no, no. This translation implies that she actually studies. She studies in the fields (or wherever) and NOT IN THE CITY. "Livia in urbe non studet" should be equally correct as we dont know whether she studies or not. And to be honest, I dont fancy the verb "to study" in classical Latin "studeo". It has a rather medieval/late Latin feel to it.


I agree - Livia non in urbe studet implies 'she is studying, but not in the city' whereas Livia in urbe non studet implies 'she's in the city, but not for studying' (negations are one of the points where word order matters a great deal in Latin).

I also agree that studere as 'to study' is odd in Classical Latin as studere means something along the lines of 'to apply oneself diligently', and as far as I know it's rarely used without an object or an adverb to begin with.


I already heard that "studere" to mean "to study" wasn't classical Latin like this course is supposed to be.

You are totally right, "Livia in urbe non studet" should be the suggested answer.

Because "Livia non in urbe studet" has a completely different translation.
I think it would be "Livia studies, but not in the city". Even if it's not literal, it's the meaning.


word order in latin is arbitrary please don't flag a different word order as a mistake if the grammar is fine


It's not arbitrary, but it is a great deal more flexible than English.


The place of the "non" is not at all arbitrary. It obeys some rules!


They should all be accepted now, but unfortunately it takes some time for the changes we make in the Incubator to be active for users (sometimes as long as two weeks).

Still, please report (with the button in the lesson, not in the discussion) if it's not accepted, it's still possible something got missed!


I agree Liva non studet in urbe is equally valid to Liva in urbe non studet


I wonder: would you ever say this in (classical) Latin? The literal meaning of "studeo" is "to be zealous/to eagerly apply oneself to something" or something like that. Which can mean "study", as in "I'm studying the Latin authors" (i.e. I read them seriously and intensively) – but using the verb without a (dative) object is rare, and the idea of "studying (in general) at a specific place" to me sounds modern and hardly classical.


What's the difference between urbs and urbe?


"urbs" is in the Nominative case (subject), "urbe" is in Ablative.


Actually, “urbe” is the ablative.


Ugh, I need coffee, you're absolutely correct. Fixed now. :)


This might be nitpicky, in which case I apologize. The /r/ in "urbe" and the /d/ in "studet" sound strange to me. I doubt that's how it should be. I know there are no native speakers of Latin, but I assume those sounds should resemble at least Italian?


When do we use urbe and when urbs?


“Urbe” is ablative and used in a variety of instances. Here it is used because the preposition “in” causes it to be in the ablative.

“Urbs” is the nominative and used whenever “city” is the subject of the sentence.


So I don't get why the answer is, "Livia non in urbe studet".


What’s your question?


Wouldn't it be "Livia non studet in urbe"?


Word order is flexible. I’d personally say: “livia in urbe non studet” but you can phrase it several ways.

Just keep “in urbe” together and in that order and I’d also keep “non” before the verb.


How do we know what part of the sentence is non negating?


“Non” is an adverb and negates the verb.


Livia non urbe studet?


You need the preposition “in” before “urbe” as it doesn’t take the locative.


is more common to have "non" at the start or end of the object?


Most common to have it before the main verb.

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.