"Stephanus goes to the market with Livia."
Translation:Stephanus cum Livia ad forum it.
It's more than just a part of the writing system (I think), when we distinguish, for example, docēre "to teach" from dūcere "to lead".
If you understand what the long marks signify, you'll know (at a glance) how to conjugate these verbs correctly: docent "they teach" versus dūcunt "they lead"; docēbunt "they will teach" versus dūcent "they will lead."
Notice especially docent and ducent : the fact that one is present tense and the other is future. (Superficially, they look very much alike!)
One could also point to: docēmus "we teach" (pronounced "do-KAY-mus" with stress on the long 2nd-to-last syllable) versus dūcimus "we lead" (pronounced "DOO-ki-mus with stress falling to the 3rd-to-last syllable, given that the 2nd-to-last syllable has a SHORT vowel). These are implications for the spoken language, not just for writing (and it's relevant that Romans, who knew how to pronounce the language, didn't write in the long marks).
I would despair of teaching my students how to make (and analyze) the forms correctly, without the information conveyed by the long marks.
I feel like im given alot of questions wuth words ive only seen the meaning to once.
I need to see it and be able to click and translate at least a few times. This level 3 has intiduced several very difficult words at once and its very confusing i need a slightly different pace for so many forms of i go they go we go.
Dictionaries tell you this information: they will indicate " + accus." or "+ abl." , or will show how the meaning changes if the preposition (like in and sub ) can be used with both cases.
It's only ever an accusative or an ablative that can follow a preposition.
Sometimes it seems purely arbitrary; but the "from" prepositions (ā/ab, ē/ex, dē) all take the ablative for their objects; and the "motion towards/into" ones (in, ad) take accusative.
There are prepositions for "position/location", which sometimes are used with ablative, sometimes with accusative: for example, in + ablative is the classic one for "location in" a place; similarly, sub + abl., for "location under" something. But ad (still always + accusative) = "location at" a place, with verbs like sedēre, dormīre, stāre , etc.
Always ad forum : YES! Because the preposition ad (to, towards; at) invariably controls a noun in the accusative case.
But in forō and in forum both exist, with a (profound) change in meaning:
in + ACCUS = into, onto. He hurries into the forum: In forum festīnat .
in + ABLATIVE = in, on. The shop is in the forum: Taberna est in forō.
It's static location (ablative) vs motion toward (accusative).
Because that's not how it's being framed. We have the same thing in English:
Stephanus is going to the market with Livia.
as distinct from
Stephanus and Livia are going to the market.
I am going to the movies with my friends.
as distinct from
My friends and I are going to the movies.
That's a good question! If both Stephanus and Līvia are both the "subjects" (in the nominative case) of the verb "go / are going," then indeed, we would want: Stephanus et Līvia ad forum eunt .
However, in this sentence, only Stephanus is the subject (nomin. case), since Livia is "only" put in the sentence via the preposition cum , "with," which makes the nouns it govern be ablative case; thus, Stephanus is the sole subject:
Stephanus cum Līviā ad forum it . (If we used macrons for long vowels on Duolingo, you'd see that Livia's name in this sentence, when she's the object of preposition cum , is really different: Līviā (with LONG a).
You can see it better in this sentence: Livia goes to the market with Stephanus. Līvia cum Stephanō ad forum it .
We have the same thing in English: Livia and Stephanus are going to the market. (plural subject, plural "they" verb) Stephanus is going to the market with Livia . (singular subject, singular "he" verb)
I hope this is clear.