1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Pisces in pavimentum iacio."

"Pisces in pavimentum iacio."

Translation:I throw fish onto the floor.

September 9, 2019



Maybe it was alive, and they picked it up without realizing it.


what are you, a drunk and deceitful parrot?

this is honestly the most unmannerful course lol

[deactivated user]

    I don't like fish either


    Dē gustibus nōn est disputandum!


    Can we leave the childish trantrums out of our language learning?


    The exercise is to fill the missing word. The options: pavimentum and pavimento. Aren't both possible?

    I did select the right one, but considering another exercise in this skill has "in cauponā"...

    Edit: I meant "Ego ōvum in caupōnā iaciō."


    Using ablative instead of accusative gives a slightly different result. in + accusative gives the meaning "towards", while in + ablative means "stationed in".

    Pisces in pavimento iacio. = I am throwing fish on the floor. I am on the floor and throwing fish.

    Pisces in pavimentum iacio. = I am throwing fish onto the floor. Wherever I am, that is certain that I am throwing fish onto the floor.


    Sure, but the exercise does NOT provide an English translation when asking you to fill in the word.

    It is really unnecessary to teach me this distinction. Even my native tongue has it.


    In another exercise i did use "in pavimento" with that ablative context you mentioned above and still got accepted, i think they surely need to at least to teach some grammars in its own section


    It can't be both, because of the verb "to throw" that is a verb of direction (the action of throwing creates a move), exactly like He goes to/it ad...


    In + acc = means into, or onto,

    in + abl = in, on

    In caupona iacio = in + abl. = in, on; As it's a 3D place, not a surface.

    In pavimentum.
    In caupona. (caupona is the ablative)


    I do not understand your argument.

    I am throwing a wish onto the floor.

    I am throwing a fish (while being) on the floor.

    Two different English sentences with two different meanings.

    I would remind you that the exercise does NOT give the English translation, it only asks to add one word that fits..


    I think the difference is that you can be "in a restaurant", but not really "in a floor". The in+ablative (pavimento) refers to a location while in + accusative(pavimentum) refers to a direction. I am not sure but I think that when you want to say "I am on the floor", it would be "super pavimentum sum" and not "in pavimento sum"? But I can be wrong of course.


    Well, but "The fish is on the floor." is "Piscis in pavimentō est." in the same skill. I am not sure.


    True, I was wrong. But in this situation I don't think "in pavimento" would be a logical translation. "I throw the fish that is on the floor"(in pavimento) sounds less logical than "I throw the fish onto the floor"(in pavimentum). But I might be wrong (again) of course.


    Piscis in pavimento est = there's no move here, so it's an ablative. An "ablative of static position".

    The sentence is here:

    "Ossa in pavimentum iacimus."
    Other sentence from Duolingo: in + acc.
    So it means = in, on.

    Logical for a surface.

    If I have a move (and not a static verb as in my first sentence) + abl = ablative of move, and it means into/onto.

    And it wouldn't be possible on a floor.
    It's the reason why the ablative "in pavimento" is either used with a static verb (est), or with a movement verb + acc, and not abl.

    But "in caupona", with in + abl. is correct, because it's not a surface, it's a 3D place = into/onto.

    You can find the sentences use with "in pavimentum" here:

    And the sentences used with "in pavimento" here:


    Thanks, I have the access to the incubator and I did go through the sentences. Also, I do understand the difference between the ablative and the accusative case and I even thought that I had demonstrated it enough already (besides, even my native language has such a distinction).

    My argument was quite different. Please note that the exercise does NOT give the English translation, it only asks to add one word that fits..

    I am throwing a fish (while being) on the floor. - there is no movement me either


    Proiectus in pavimento pisces in pavementum iaceo. It doesn't matter that I am lying on the floor; I am still throwing fish onto the floor, and that involves movement.


    "I am still throwing fish onto the floor" Why? You could be throwing them anywhere else. You could also be just juggling.


    Thwow him to the fwoor!


    Why are you involving me in this sick obsession with fish on the floor? I would like the fish in 3 places: my grill, my mouth, or a body of water. You will find that my floor is not a place I want fish.






    I throw the fishes onto the floor is closer to the original in Latin. I understand that fish in English can mean both singular and plural, so perhaps this course should avoid non countable nouns for the time being.


    No, because when you use "fishes" you change the meaning of the sentence. It means "several kind of fishes". And it's not the case in Latin. Because "piscis" is just a regular word, not an incountable.


    I don't think so. Certainly not many kinds of fish, but rather several pieces (for lack of a better word) of fish. It's quite the same in Greek, Latin's grandpa. My objection still stands!


    Personally, I would use the word "solum" for floor instead. "Pavimentum" is less common and less versatile, having more of a "stone floor" connotation.


    I don't think I have ever thrown a fish on the floor. Was this a special Roman habit? The example keeps coming up all the time.


    Indeed it was a Roman custom to throw things to the floor. Fish, bones, people. Just look at Life of Brian after he gets captured by the Romans.


    I've never encountered a mention of it, in Latin literature (though for all I know it's there). Let's throw the bones on the floor, though! (Ossa iacite, comitēs, in pavīmentum!)

    Now, when it comes to stealing clothes at the baths, that's something that comes up a lot ... !


    Throwing the fish bones on the floor makes a lot more sense, thanks! "Ossa piscorum in pavimentum iacio" (and someone else cleans up after me!)


    Okay--Ossa piscium , though, because piscis, piscis , m., is a 3rd decl ("i stem") noun, so that's its genitive plural.


    You are quite right: *piscium :-)


    I suggest the translation "toss," as well as "throw," for iacio. (It's accepted for some of the other 'fish onto the floor' sentences.)


    Did anyone else realize that the word bank did not have the correct words? The words that I had the option to choose from were: I, throw, onto, fish, the, Your, man, girl, she, floor. Just skimming over the answers, not really paying attention, I put "I throw she fish onto the floor." It accepted my answer, but said it should be "I throw THE fish onto the floor."


    Is there a difference between "the fish" and "fish"?


    Is it wrong that I read this to the tune of "Call Me Maybe"?


    a or the? Neither in Latin, one wrong other right. Who knew?


    "A" or "the," as applied to pavīmentum or to piscēs ?

    Since piscēs is plural, it could only have "the" attached to it ("I throw A FISH on the floor" would be piscem , accus. sing. masc).


    After "IN" the word change to "Ō" termination. "In pavimento" (Hans H. Ørberg). I'm right?


    No. There are two different meanings / uses of preposition in.

    When in takes an accusative (termination -um, for a word like pavīmentum, of the 2nd declension), it means INTO or ONTO. "You are throwing the fish ONTO the floor" seems to make sense.

    When in takes an ablative object (termination -ō, for a 2nd decl. noun like pavīmentō ), it means IN or ON. "The fish are lying on the floor": Piscēs in pavīmentō iacent .


    What about I throw fish to the floor? This seems correct in English to me but is marked wtong.


    Voice sounded like iaciunt!


    Since Latin does not use articles and the plural of fish is fish, the translation "I throw the fish onto the floor" is correct. "I throw a fish" would be incorrect, but the fish is fine.


    When I'm the CEO of the greatest company on the planet, a non-profit multi-lingual dispute resolution community, there will be a poster above my desk that reads:

    "I throw fish onto the floor"

    (in Latin, obviously)


    Is "pisces" in accusative or nominative plural here?


    Piscēs has to be accusative plural, since the nominative refers to the subject of the verb, and in a sentence that includes iaciō , "I throw," the subject is "I" (whether there's any additional nominative word, such as ego , or a participle or adjective, or not). We can see that "fish" are WHAT I throw onto the floor: therefore, by definition, they are the direct object of the verb ( = a basic function of the accusative case).


    What a stupid sentence! A baby would do this, but would not be able to say so.

    Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.