"Pictor agricolam in pictura pingit."

Translation: The painter paints a farmer in the picture.

[Thkgk]

Is it wrong to say: "The painter paints a farmer on the picture" ?

[Josh113410]

Are you a native French speaker, thinking of 'sur le tableau'?

[JustBoboThanks]

In my mind that would mean the painter placing a farmer in a painting that is already completed

[RyderPR]

Would this not take a second accusative "in picturam"? The sense to me sounds more movement-orientated than location: the farmer is being painted onto the picture.

[johnmarkos]

Why is, "The painter paints the farmer in a picture," wrong? Latin doesn't have definite/indefinite articles.

[PsittacumEbrium]

Report it !

[-o_0-]

Yeah the way they put it it should be "The painter paints a farmer into the picture..."

[KlausLuger999]

HOW MANY TIMES ARE THEY GOING TO USE THIS DAMNED, ANNOYING SENTENCE, JEEZ!

[gsp732649]

was more than halfway finished and do not know what i touched on pad but i was sent back to beginning. that is a lot gone when testing up a level. fortuna mala. super picturam? nah that prob means above or something.

[Andreas211]

It might be preferable to render pictura as "painting"; after all, the "pictor" is a painter.

[mona208606]

It has accepted 'artist' as well as 'painting'

[LingotLover1]

A painter paints a picture in a farmer.

[eli58607]

Is there a section named"introduction to latin" in duolingo???

[wxf163c]

every skill has a tip on the website. use the webpage version.

[GunnarRica]

I put "into the picture" and was marked wrong. I feel this should be correct as it actually removes the slight ambiguity about whether the painter himself is in the picture, while simultaneously acheiving the correct meaning.

Is there perhaps some quirk of translation regarding the word "into" that rules in this situation?

[MrMacSinusMonkey]

The current Latin sentence indicates that there is a picture of a painter who paints a farmer.

[jorken1]

This sentence sounds pretty contrived in English.

[gouru]

Am I right about this one?

When I read the the latin sentence I see two main bodies

1- Pictor pingit

2- Agricolam in pictura

So; the painter is painting what? -> "a farmer in the picture" this is a whole one element of the sentence and it's the direct object as a whole (if I'm not mistaken) thus, agricola is in accusative case.

So inside it, there're two additional elements

1- A farmer

2- A picture

Where's the farmer? -> "in the picture" so we need the ablative case for this one. because farmer is not going "into" the picture or something. He's in the picture.

So as I understand the painter actually paints a painting of "a painting with a farmer in it."

The painter paints -> (a farmer in the picture.)

Pictor (agricolam [in pictura]) pingit.

[isalamjea]

This sentence is silly!

[Felix--]

Is "in pictura" the indirect object? If so, how do I know?

[kai247906]

I cant believe I put down "the painter paints a picture in a farmer" with mine own two hands. Thought it was a latin culture thing. I feel like an idiot. Lovely language