1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "I like the inns in the city."

"I like the inns in the city."

Translation:Cauponae in urbe mihi placent.

October 13, 2019



I suggest using the adjective that means "of the city, belonging to the city, in the city" (urbānus, a, um): Mihi placent caupōnae urbānae .


I think you'd really have to say Mihi placent caupōnae quae in urbe sunt .


I have seen another comment by you suggesting that prepositional phrases cannot be used adjectivally, as appears to be being done here, and that, as you suggest in this case, a relative clause is needed to achieve that purpose. Is this actually stated in any Latin grammars? Sorry if I appear rude, but I'd really like to see some other evidence for this being the case. Can you point me at any?


I wish I had an authoritative answer; maybe someone else can help out.

I've heard consistently that Latin doesn't like "the man in the tree" structures. (Or words to that effect!) . I've been leafing through my old Bradley's Arnold (prose-comp. manual), but--though packed with information--it's not easy to use.

I just found this: " 'Those near him' is not eōs prope eum, but eōs quī prope eum erant or stābant" (par. 346).

In that instance, at least, a preference is stated for a full-fledged relative clause (pronoun quī + a finite verb form) replacing a 'mere' prepositional phrase that's intended to modify a noun or pronoun (so, eōs , them, shouldn't be modified by a prep. phrase, prope eum).

I will see if I can track down a more general rule.

(The question doesn't seem rude at all, by the way.)


Thank you for this answer.


Well, thank you!

I think it's more correctly called a "man in the castle" structure, not man in the tree (as I originally said).

And I guess it's a matter more of stylistics than formal grammar.

It's probably not really worth 'worrying about,' at this point, since the sentences on Duolingo don't rise to the relevant level of complexity (yet).

But if I can find anywhere a statement of this alleged 'principle,' I'll post about it here.


Why is my answer wrong "Mihi cauponae in urbe placent"?


Nothing's wrong with your answer.


Thanks, I reported it :)


Tabernae also accepted here.

(Noted, because the various examples given are not consistent on this point at the moment.)


Thabks, I was wondering what the distinction is between an inn and a tavern.


A taberna seems to be a store that sells something, including food and drink (like a "tavern" in our sense); a caupōna is also a place of commerce, but has accommodations available.


When to use placent as opposed to placet


placent when the subject (inns) is plural.

The inns please me.


The inn pleases me.



Can anyone explain why mihi is needed?


"Mihi," the dative of the pronoun "ego" = "I", is the object of the verb placent , "are pleasing to," of which "caupōnae" (inns) are the subject.

The inns in the city are pleasing to me. = . I like the inns in the city.

(The verb placeō, placēre requires a dative object, hence mihi for "me" in this sentence.

We could also have used the verb dēlectō, dēlectāre (to please, delight), which requires an accusative object = , the accus. of ego :

Caupōnae in urbe mē dēlectant. )


Why is it not 'cauponas in urbe mihi placet' am 'i' not the subject


No; the subject is not "I," because we're using the dative pronoun mihi , which means "to me" or "for me."

If the subject were "I," the verb (in the present tense) would end in -ō, not -nt.

Since the verb ends in -nt, we know that some "they" (plural subject) is the subject.

Caupōnae , meaning "inns," is the subject of placent . "The inns are pleasing" plus the indirect object "to me" (mihi ).

You can think of this as a roundabout way of saying "I like inns." If you actually make "I" the subject, then you can use the accusative plural form caupōnās for inns: Caupōnās amō .

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