Yes, for "in" (in English), but if it takes the accusative it means "into" with motion towards.
Ah, is that where Zamenhof got the inspiration from when he put that in Esperanto?
Maybe, but German does the same thing, and quite possibly other European languages, too.
A general rule of thumb (more often right than wrong) is a stationary preposition or a moving away preposition takes the ablative, whereas other moving prepositions generally take the accusative This doesn't always hold true, but it especially helps in the beginning.
Urbe ‧ ablative singular of Urbs ‧ plural Urbēs ‧ A walled city in Ancient Rome. ‧ From PIE Proto-Indo-European werbʰ- (“to enclose”) [ Umbrian (uerfale, “area for taking auspices”), Hittite (warpa-, “enclosure”), Tocharian A warpi (“garden”), Tocharian B werwiye (“garden”)). ‧ ‧ Derivation from Proto-Indo-European gʰórdʰos (“city”) (from gʰerdʰ (“to enclose”), whence e.g. Hittite (gurtas, “citadel”) Sanskrit ‧ गृह (gṛhá, “house”), ‧ English yard)
Latin Ablative [ Case uses ‧ With certain prepositions, eg. in, cum, sub ‧ Instrumental Ablative ‧ Locative Ablative ‧ Separation or Origin Ablative ] ‧ ‧ Ablative derives from the Latin ablatus, the (irregular) perfect passive participle of auferre "to carry away"
There’s a bit of a strange clicking sound after the audio plays, but I’m not sure if that’s just my phone or the actual audio
the sound of the button should be after the record unless there is an old/bad equipment.
As far as I know, Latin speakers usually didn't have an opposition of aspirated plosives and tenues. Few would have been able to pronounce Greek loan words correctly.
There seems to have been some level of allophonic aspiration which lead to spellings as pulcher, but I think it was left to chance if this allophonic aspiration entered the spelling of a word.
At the same time, the point is to be pedagogical and prescriptive in this case: to teach Classical Latin as if coming from a perfect native speaker of the aristocratic class (for example -- please don't rip into this assumption :P) and to learn it as if from a perfect native speaker.
I'm not sure I got it right or not, but I think what you just said is plain horrible; I hear it on my ears going like "the point is to teach a disfigured and improper Latin as if it was all good and perfect"! Maybe I just drifted with the thought and you didn't mean what I understood at all, but if that's not the case, please remember that Duolingo could be the first and the largest teaching gateway ever that pumps the education of Latin to such a potentially very large mass of learners. When a language is taught wrong, it could stay wrong forever.
When a language is taught wrong, it could stay wrong forever.
You're giving Duolingo way too much credit. Even if someone completes a big tree on this site, it's only a jumping-off point toward learning a language. There is no substitute for in-person instruction from qualified, certified language instructors. Duolingo courses are put together by volunteers. Your fear that Duolingo will somehow ruin Latin is entirely unfounded.
Perfect 'native' Latin is disfigured and improper???
Reply to below: The point is that the goal is to correct everything and record everything to make sure it's pristine and perfect, as if from a 'native' speaker.
No, of course not. Where's the 'perfect native' Latin, tho? That was the main point; I'm afraid we're teaching improper language as if it was proper when it might not be.
You keep puzzling me with that "as if from a native speaker", I'm not sure how this works with something like the Latin pronunciation but whatever, moving on...
I'm not discussing the best teaching practices here, how many do you think do take in-person instruction in a language like Latin? Duolingo's move teaching Latin obviously went viral, a lot of enthusiastic learners would love to get on it but not too much to take further language courses. That being said, yes there is a substitute for in-person instruction, I taught myself a lot without in-person instruction, and the wellness of my English you see now is not based on it.
So they're completely unaspirated like in Spanish? I think the two voices of the Latin course have Germanic background and therefore they're not accurate.
There are instances where the consonants are aspirated, but if there's no H there, they're not. The ones pronouncing the sentences for us should definitely make the distinction, be they Germanic language speakers or not
All recordings on wiktionary that were called "Classical Latin" that I have come across weren't proper Classical Latin.
I've found most of them to be quite good and true to reconstructed Latin pronunciation so far. There are certainly some that aren't so good though.
Wiktionary is very bad, too many errors, made by non linguists, and non lexicographers who think it's easy to become a linguist and lexicographer, and adds their own definition to words, the way they feel it. It's a collection of "I think, according to my own experience, the definition is". Nothing's reliable even if they have also good info, but drowned in wrong ones.
I've read this a lot of times. I might need to publish an article on this.
If you suppose that /kʷ/ is a labialised phoneme, then there is no information on the articulatory position in the [ʷ]. The proper definition of ⟨ʷ⟩ in IPA is labialisation anyway.
This means, you should spell it as [k̟ʷɪs] or even [cʷɪs]. Besides, it should be impossible to pronounce [kᶣɪs], if the /k/ is not in fact [k̟]. This also shows that people who suppose there is no palatalisation (I don't mean affrication) of /k/ in Classical Latin should review their analysis.
In such narrow distinctions, for sure, you can consider it advanced/fronted or palatal (so long as it's labialised since it is phonemically distinct from /k/)
The point is: It seems really unlikely to me that this fronting would only apply to the labialised plosive. It should apply to the natural class of the dorsal plosives because they would all benefit the same way from this phonological process and supposing that some of them don't get fronted before front vowels would mean that the tongue movement would occur during the vowel.
This seems like major ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ to me. It can't be a feature limited to the labialised plosive, so you should either transcribe this fronting always or never.
I don't think so (considering the microphone used), but it is a pretty terrifically strong Irish accent.
The fact that we don't have the written accent here, I find it a little disruptive, as there's certainly a tonic accent, and I'm not sure the audio is right? It sounds like a Spanish speaker or Irish speaker?
I don't know how many different people are doing the audio recordings. At least two, a man and a woman. The woman I've heard sounds Irish to me.
Is the "s" in quis pronounced or is it silent? The audio isn't working for me so I am having to use my best guess based on my knowledge of other languages.