"No, I do not live in Italy."
Translation:Minime, in Italia non habito.
That doesn't make it an object.
Direct objects receive the action of the verb:
I threw the ball.
What got thrown? The ball.
Indirect objects receive the direct object:
I threw the ball to Pierre.
To whom did I throw the ball? Pierre.
"In Italia" is superficially a prepositional phrase consisting of a preposition and a noun, but its usage is adverbial. It answers the question where.
And in the case of "in Italia", it is neither. It is an adverbial phrase. Trivially, yes, "Italia" is the object of "in", but as a whole, "in Italia" is neither a subject complement nor an object, direct or indirect. Answering the question "where" is a different grammatical issue than answering the question "what".
Yes, I know, but the "O" used in SOV includes also the copula, same for the predicate, we won't write SCP, because we need to be able to make the comparison between the SOV and SVO.
The "O" is non existent in this sentence, but the pattern SOV still shows the place for "S" and "V" (copula, but still marked as "V"), and the "O" still is a good place-holder for the complement. You can write it SAC, as it should be written in linguistics, it's only less clear for users here. It's not about being perfectly right about linguistics,as it's not the topic, it's about using linguistics, as a tool, to be perfectly right in Latin.
I will continue to use SVO, as it makes things visually very clear in comparison with SOV.
Vivo primarily means "to live", or "to be alive", like the noun vita means "life"; Habito means more so "to live in", "to reside", or "to dwell". That is the main distinction, but I think the meanings are generally close enough that they should be interchangeable (in some contexts).
This replies perfectly to my question!
I was wondering why very few dictionaries give "vivere" = "to reside".
It's not in Gaffiot, not in Lewis & Short (They are the most complete usually), not in Dicolatin, but it's in Glosbe and Olivetti. I was wondering if it was late Latin. Or if there's a shade of meaning.
It's difficult to translate "no" and "yes" in Latin. So, even if "minime" means "Not at all" literally, I think it can translate our "no".
Prof Rolando Ferri, Pisa: https://www.academia.edu/2026111/How_to_say_No_in_Latin
It shows that you cannot use "non" only. (Unless I misread this PDF), and thus, it confirms what I read elsewhere:
The locative case is a special case which indicates a location used for cities.
Some general rules:
- a (first declension) becomes -ae
- us and -um (second declension) become -i
Other locations will generally get a preposition (in + ablative, we will deal with the ablative later in the course).
Domi (at home) is an exception!
Maybe it's because I do classical Latin at school, but I would translate 'minime' as 'very little' or 'least'. Is this just me being mistaken? Also I was taught not to mix cases in Latin, unless for a place, or name, so why does it happen with 'minime'?
Hard to tell. The usual rule is locative is used with certain nouns, towns and cities, and small islands. And Italy is anything but a small island. But looking at Wiktionary it supposedly has a locative, so perhaps so. I'd get more information on the locative in Latin so you can make an informed choice.
The reason you can't use that, is because nē is used to negate clauses, as the opposite of ut.
- Caesar flūmen transit, ut Italiam vincere. – Caesar crosses the river, so that [he may] conquer Italy.
- Caesar flūmen transit, nē Pompēium eum prohibēre. – Caesar crosses the river, so that Pompey does not hinder him.
Anyone better than me at Latin, please feel free to educate me; I’m always glad to learn.
Then why not accept Cortrinkau's answer? Translating the English word for word can produce unnatural Latin. From what I can gather, "minime" almost makes it sound like the speaker is offended at the idea that they might live in Italy. The English does not express that sentiment.
It's not unnatural Latin. I think they used "no" in Latin, but not a direct "no". They have short answers meaning no, but literally meaning something else. So, there are several translations for the words "no" and "yes" (as a short negative answers), not only one.
Like saying: Do you like pasta?
You didn't say "no", but you used an indirect short expression to express the "no".
Why offended? but if one were to insist upon the matter, as such, MINIME would not necessarily convey being offended about living in Italy per se, but rather "offended" (if at all) by the mistaken assumption of the interlocutor, for one quick example, as is quite often the case, when asking such questions or similar, one finds that pride of identity is quite widespread, place of birth or residency counts among the elements of most people's sensitive identity.
Umm ... well ... yeah, flexibility does not = anarchy. But morphology, in fact, does matter more than syntax in Latin than in English. Yes, there is a standard or usual way of ordering you words in Latin, I'll except that, but you can goof around with the syntax a lot more in Latin than you can in English. In fact, and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we get away with a lot more than we should in Duo.
This is not the place to report technical errors. You would need to take a screenshot and file a bug report:
But if you showed us the screenshot, we could help you see if it really was an error or if something else was going on.