Translation:The actors are with the architect on the stage.
Yes, required with "with".
Because if I say it's "an/the actor with a/the architect":
the "main" character here, the one we talk about and about whom we give the main info, is the actor, not the architect.
The verb applies to the actor, not the architect (it's not a plural as you can see in my sentence)
The "et" can be permuted, usually, but not the "with".
I see the actor with the architect, is not the same than I see the architect with the actor.
I see the actor (with the architect) = the second clause is non essential.
I see the architect, with the actor. = I see the architect.
That may be a little difficult. The ablative can be very complex. It is one of the six cases in Latin. Nouns decline--basically their endings change, other things can happen too, but basically their endings change--depending on their function in the sentence. These changes are called different cases. Nominative case = the subject of the verb, accusative case = the object of the verb, ablative case = well, that can be tricky. It could be a whole bunch of things. But you will pick all that up as you go along. What you need to know here is that, 1) prepositions--cum is a preposition here--either require the noun that follows to be in a particular case, or, the case that the noun that follows is in will determine the meaning of the preposition. 2) The preposition cum always (I think always) takes the ablative case. (I believe here it's called the instrumental use of the ablative.) That's it. You'll learn more as you go along. I hope that this has been helpful.
A quicky : NOMINATIVE = the subject (acts) ACCUSATIVE = direct object (receives the action); the place to which goes or takes; extent of time. GENITIVE = possesion (of something or property) DATIVE = indirect object (the action is to / for it) ABLATIVE = concerns manners or means; place where ... ; place from which ... ; time (occasion) when ... ; time (period) within which ... ; agent ; accompaniement ; absolute ; obeys "by / with / from / in / on "Ablative comes from ablatus = to remove. The " o " is the characteristic end of the second declension ablative singular as well as that of the dative. In plural those ends are in "is".
In theory, the meaning is close, but when they use "et" translate with "and", and when it's "with" translate with "cum", because a "and" and "with" have a slightly different meaning.
-Where is he?
-The actor is on the stage with the director!
The given info is about the actor, and being with the director is only the description of the place where the actor is.
I don't ask about where are they (both).
The actor is on the stage (with the director). Non essential info.
You can even put a comma before "with" , instead of the parenthesis, to show it's a non essential, Independent clause.
While I agree with what you are conveying, I have a (humble) comment. I am not trying to be annoying, just not wanting to mislead learners of English: The component "with the director" is a phrase, not a clause (it has no verb). An "independent clause" is another name for a "principal clause" or a "main clause", and in this sentence the independent clause is "The actor is on the stage".
You're not annoying. My language is not English, so I make a lot of mistakes, especially about grammar/linguistics term. Feel free to correct me whenever I need it. It's the only way to make progress.
A "phrase" is the opposite in French: it needs a verb. Phrase was borrowed to French, but acquired a new meaning. Une phrase is a sentence (with a verb).
in scaena = on stage ( as in the sentence, "the actor is on stage") or on a stage or on the stage.
in scaenam = on stage (as in the sentence, "the actor came on stage"), or onto a stage or onto the stage.
The difference is that in scaenam involves movement, whereas in scaena does not.
No. Because there's no difference in Latin between "on stage" and "on the stage". No mean to know if it's a particular, known stage ("the stage")
What you wrote. scaena et scanenam, the only difference are the cases.
It should be "in scaena", because it cannot be an accusative, as "in scaena" is a place, and not a direct complement for the action verb.
Yes. The Latin preposition 'in' can be translated as on, in, into, onto -- see various examples in the next lessons.
Ego in urbe sum, “I am in the city”
In urbem ambulo, “I walk into the city”
Canis in pavimento dormit, “the dog sleeps on the floor”.
Crustulum in pavimentum iacit, “he/she throws the cookie onto the floor”.
The sentences you’d translate as “into…”, “onto…”, suggest movement, therefore they need the accusative. The ones you’d translate as “in…”, “on” –staying in/on a place – need the ablative.