1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "There are cities and states …

"There are cities and states in America."

Translation:Urbes et civitates sunt in America.

September 14, 2019



Can this also be written as "in America sunt?"


Or even 'Sunt urbes et civitates in America' to get the feel of 'there are' rather than terminal 'sunt' for plain 'are'.


Why is "urbes et civitates in America sunt" wrong?


This is the answer they are giving now, must have been corrected since your comment AnyaKAdams, - so you weren't wrong!


They've even included "urbes civitatesque in america sunt" as a correct answer.


Why can't we say "Americae" instead of "in America" here?


The locative in Classical Latin was highly restricted. It was only used with the word "domus", and the names of cities, towns and small islands. "America" is none of those.


There are c & s in America, cities & states are in America (ie, non elsewhere), the cities and s are in America. Is context the only way to distinguish these meanings?


Yes, it would depend on context. That is why translation is an art! :-) But for learning purposes, there is no context on these isolated sentences.


bro what!?!?!?!?!?


Why are so many of the lines in this course about America, which is not in any way related to the study of Latin? I get that some of the people who built this course may be Americans, but maybe pick some more subject appropriate lines for Latin studies, like things relating to ancient Rome and the Romans. I imagine most original Latin text will be too advanced for use in early lessons, but there's got to be something else you can come up with other than US geography.


Why do we sometimes repeat "et" twice and sometimes (as in here) don't? In some examples, we say "et urbs et civitas" while here it's just "urbs et civitas".


If I'm correct, (And I might not be), the two "et"s translate to "both...and".


"Sunt multae urbes et civitates in America". Other than normally placing the verb at the end of the sentence, which is common but not necessary, shouldn't this work as well? I thought that you could begin a sentence with "Sunt" or "Est", to mean "There are" or "There is", respectively. Thoughts?


"In America sunt et urbes et civitates" should be accepted, shouldn't it ?


also: "In America et urbes et civitates sunt" was not accepted, but I think it should, because even though "both" is not present in the English counterpart, it's rather natural to have its equivalent (the first "et") in Latin


If you added that extra "et" in your answer, then it would be wrong for that reason.


Well, languages differ in style and syntaxes (here I'm referring to any pair of languages), and sometimes mapping word by word a sentence may feel less... natural.
In this case, for example, translating (from English, as was the exercize) in Italian as "Ci sono città e Stati in America" feels a little akward. As a native speaker, I'd say "Ci sono sia città che Stati in America", because I'm not talking about two entities doing something together (John and Jack are going to the cinema), but rather that America is a place where there are not only cities and not only states, but both entities exist independently.
Ok, I realize it's rather hard to explain, at least for me... maybe it's just a matter of personal preferences (and Doulingo can't please everybody), but I've often seen, especially at school, et..et in Latin texts where even in Italian you'd translate only the second et, so I proposed another translation, but I won't fight tooth and nails for such a little detail ;-) I also saw other conjunctions in Latin and other languages that sometimes are redundant in a translation, or the other way round: they are needed/a better choice in the target language. As you too say: «translation is an art» :-)


Would "Et urbes et civitates in America sunt" also be correct? I've got this idea I've seen nouns conjoined this way somewhere but not sure of it.


When you use et...et it means both...and. So, “Et urbes et civitates in America sunt” would mean “There are both cities and states in America”


I wonder what does "America" mean in Latin for Duolingo? - America, The United States or America, the continent from Alaska to Tierra de Fuego?

If Duolingo uses "new Latin words", we need to know the meaning of these words because they are different in different languages.


Can we not say "in America urbes et civitates sunt"?


Yes, I alsonthought that habitually the verb was placed at the end of a sentence, although I also seem to remember that word order is not important in Latin? Where are Mr McCarthy and Mr Malone when you need them?(RIP guys, I know you are laughing in Heaven to see me try to learn what I could have done 45 years ago.)


The plural forms haven't been properly introduced, but this lesson uses them. (urbes, civitates, sunt).


Why is "urbes et civitas sunt in America" wrong for "there are cities and states in America"?


Because "civitas" is singular, so it means "state". "States" is "civitates".


I put "in America civitates et urbes sunt" how is that wrong?


Why not with "est" instead "sunt"?


Est is singular, sunt is plural. Think "is" vs. "are"


Obviously, there is a connection between 'sunt' and modern Romance equivalents like 'sont', 'son', 'sono', etc, but is German 'sind' also derived from it, or is the resemblance just fortuitous (with proper meaning!).


Further down in this thread it is claimed that, "...in America sunt" is accepted, but today (8/7/21) it was counted as incorrect.

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