I've studied several language courses on Duo over the years. In fact, with Spanish and French, I was using an old account and they don't even show up on the account that I am using now. And some of them I signed up for and deleted after a few "skills".
But here, I signed up for Latin and that is what I hope to learn with this course. I want to learn to express thoughts in Latin without having to mentally translate from English to Latin, because I realize that that will really slow me down. Latin is a two thousand year old language and I don't expect to understand every word - for example, words like civitas or civitates. Words, concepts, and many other things are going to be very different between today's world and the Roman world.
With this third skill, I don't care about them throwing geographical locations like "California" and "Boston" at me. One of the things that I want to learn in this skill is how to differentiate between "there is/are" and "many," and "how many." And in the next skill, I expect to learn other things.
In every Duo course that I have taken, I see the same "bitching" going on in these discussions. Please, relax and enjoy the ride.
What is important to me is that there are only 20 skills in the tree right now. Are there going to be more as the course develops? I hope so. And with EVERY Duo course that I have studied, there have been problems with the sound. "Bitching" about it does not a bit of good. Live with it.
To the course developers: I enrolled in Latin to learn Latin. I have an open mind. So, teach me. :-D
"to express thoughts in Latin without having to mentally translate from English to Latin, because I realize that that will really slow me down."
So, don't use a method built on the English/Latin, Latin/English translation.
"B*tching" and debates are really cool, even when people disagree, as it helps us to think about the language, and its use. If you mean "about the sound quality", yes, it's useless, only reports tell them there are problems with quality, not the grammar forum, which is this one.
"What is important to me is that there are only 20 skills in the tree right now."
It is a beta course.
with EVERY Duo course that I have studied, there have been problems with the sound.
I'm glad they have sounds. I tried the Vietnamese course, and they didn't have any sounds.
So the notes for this skill (Places) mentions that to say "in [a place]", except for cities and "domi", you tend to use the ablative. But I could have sworn I remembered from my high school Latin classes that it was dative that was used for this! (Dative for location, accusative for direction.) Am I misremembering, is there some nuance to when it's dative versus ablative, or are the notes of the Duolingo course wrong?
I am afraid you may have misremembered the lesson: I just double-checked, and the Latin text-book says that the preposition "in" (=in, on, upon) is used with ablative. "Into" takes the accusative. The remains of the ancient Locative case are described just as in the comments above--only used with cities, small islands, etc. and without the "in".
Don't think so (but new learner here, without much vocab yet). Civitas to me has the meaning of "city-state", i.e. the political entity. "Urbs" is much more the physical buildings or location. Duo seems to be using civitas to mean a semi-autonomous political unit of a federal nation, e.g. an American state
A fascinating argument. I think here is an example where one should look at the Late Latin lexicon for solutions. «status» means “state” in Late Latin (the origin of the word in English, through Old French), and in Neo-Latin shares the same nuance of meaning as the word in English. The only issue is that it’s a fourth-declension noun, which are not easy nouns for beginners, so I respect the course’s decision to use civitas. To be sure, here’s the sentence with status, to compare: «Multi statūs sunt in America».
Provincia etymologycally means "conquested land", in Ancient Rome they do not have self-goverment. Civitas was a city-state like Greek or Phoenician city-states. For example in Russian language we do not translate the "state" in our language, we use the German term "Staat".
You could argue that American states are also conquested land. But I must admit I had not thought of the relation between vincere and provincia. When I suggested provincia I was mainly thinking of the size of a lot of American states. They are often too big for a real city state.
Historically American states are "states", little countries gathered into a federation of countries. State means country.
But if you remove the historical aspect, American states really work as provinces of a same country, provinces can have less or more decentralized power, or at the opposite, the state more or less power.
Many countries have provinces working in a federal way, with a lot of power for them. For instance, in Pakistan, each province decides almost everything, from health to the content of the education program, they have more power than an American state. Switzerland is a confederation, Belgium province has very different laws in different regions and provinces.
So, this question's hard to debate, what is state, what is a province, what is equivalent to an ancient city-state. The political notions were very different in that time, and in our time. The notion of city-state is unknown now.
There are only 3 city-states nowadays: Vatican-city, the city island of Singapore, and Monaco.
It's really a different reality than in the ancient times!
But they are not even real city-states, Vatican doesn't have an army, and it's one of the criteria to be a real city-state, a very important one.
"External defense of the Vatican City against foreign enemies is the responsibility of Italy".
Same with Monaco and France, it's under its guardianship.