"I like the inns in the city."
Translation:Cauponae in urbe mihi placent.
f Caupōna Caupōnae hostess, shopkeeper, landlady • m Caupō Caupōnēs tradesman, Inn / Shop / Tavern-keeper • Cognate with Ancient Greek κᾰ́πηλος (kápēlos) retailer, dealer, innkeeper. Derived from PIE kʷreyh₂- (“to buy”), whence ἐπρῐάμην (epriámēn). See connection to Ancient Greek κάπτω (káptō, “gulp down, snap”) • Greek Lexicon: • [ Κάπη - Kápi ] ηs, f (κάπω - kápo), a crib, manger. • [ Καπηλεία - Kapileía ], ας, f (καπηλεύω - kapilévo), the business of selling provisions. • [ Καπηλείον - Kapileíon ] ου, & ( καπήλιον - kapílion ) ου, n. a cook's shop , tavern. • an improbable derivation from κάπη (kápē, “crib, manger”)
Latin Dict.: [ caupo, cauponis - inn/shop/tavern-keeper ] • [ caupona, cauponae - fem shop/inn/tavern-keeper, ] • [ cauponius, cauponia, cauponium - of shop inn tavern ] • [ caupona, cauponae - restaurant ] • [ cauponor, cauponari, cauponatus - traffic, trade, sell ] • [ cauponium, cauponii - tavern/inn/shop & furniture/fixtures] • [ cauponula, cauponulae - small tavern/inn ] • [ cauponaria, cauponariae - fem inn/shop-keeper ] • [ cauponarius, cauponarii - shopkeeper ] [cuparius, cuparii, cupariis, cupario, cupariorum ]
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 eos prope eum, but eos qui prope eum erant or stabant" (par. 346).
In that instance, at least, a preference is stated for a full-fledged relative clause (pronoun qui + a finite verb form) replacing a 'mere' prepositional phrase that's intended to modify a noun or pronoun (so, eos, 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.)
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.
"Mihi," the dative of the pronoun "ego" = "I", is the object of the verb placent , "are pleasing to," of which "cauponae" (inns) are the subject.
The inns in the city are pleasing to me. = . I like the inns in the city.
(The verb placeo, placere requires a dative object, hence mihi for "me" in this sentence.
We could also have used the verb delecto, delectare (to please, delight), which requires an accusative object:
Cauponae in urbe me delectant. )