"She lives in Philadelphia."
Translation:Ea Philadelphiae habitat.
The Ea is unnecessary, the personal pronoun is only used in Latin if you want to stress it, in other cases (like here) the ending of the verb does the trick alone.
But in authentic Latin, often you don't know he/she/it without examining the surrounding context. (And the need to know that information is an English need, not a Latin one.) By that reasoning, we need to always write "is" when the subject is "he" -- which certainly isn't the situation in Latin texts.
No we don't. When you get Latin to English, the ea is there to tell you she, but when going from English to Latin you can omit the ea.
It sounds like we agree that "Philadelphiae habitat" should be a correct answer??
Yes, of course. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer earlier. If it was rejected you need to use the Report Button.
For the sentence to be correctly translated, it should have the "in" preposition with the ablative. It is currently being translated as the genitive "of" rather than the ablative "in"
It's a locative. It looks just like the genitive, and is only used with cities. You'll often see Romae too, in the locative.
In the Tips and Notes, they talk about the locative of Rome, New York, and Corinthus. Then they say other locations get the preposition a + ablative, mentioning for example "in Italy" = "in Italia." So I thought this was one of those cases. However, re-reading that section, I see they say that places ending in -a generally change to ae.
Vita flumen est. Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
With names of cities, towns, and small islands, the locative imitates the genitive form for 1st and 2nd declension singulars, and imitates the ablative form for 3rd declension and for plurals. For the other locative words, it's domi (at home), ruri (in the country), and humi (in the ground). Italy is a country (or a region) and therefore uses in+ ablative case.
Is the locative obligatory for nouns that have it? Can we still say "Ea in Philadelphiā habitat" (via ablative)?