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.
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 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.
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
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 ... !
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."
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 .
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).