"That bridge does not belong to our city."
Translation:Tiu ponto ne apartenas al nia urbo.
I do not know what you mean. Perhaps you intended to type: "All your bridges belong to us" or "The whole of your bridge belongs to us." Even so, I cannot seethe reason for your message. Sorry!
It is a reference to "all your base are belong to us," A messed up translation of the opening of a game.
I've tried "civito" and "urbego" for "city", and both were rejected. "Urbo" is surely a town.
Urbo = Town according to Teach Yourself Esperanto. You're probably hitting the different usage of city and town between the US and the UK forms of English. Duo speaks American but often allows English translations and spellings. American is the world English language now. We have to get used to it.
Just seen your later post where you say the same thing.
Thanks Chuck. Ever since I first learned Esperanto, I have used (and seen used) "urbo"for "town". I wonder if the difference is between American usage (where it seems to me, every postal address includes a city) an here in the UK, where a town becomes a city by royal charter, or is a city already because it includes a cathedral.
Cathedral cities are not necessarily genuinely cities in the UK. In the UK, a city must have a charter. I think St David's in Wales might have been given a charter now, but until it was (if it has been) it was really a village with a cathedral - despite calling itself a city.
I'm still having troubles with correlative ending in -u and -o sometimes. In most cases i get the difference (like kiu = which among some and kio = what), but in this case I don't understand the use of tiu instead of tio. Can anybody explain?
Tiu is for a specific object - tiu ponto = that bridge. Tio is for something unspecified - Mi volas tion = I want that. Sometimes the difference is not obvious, at least to me.
I commonly see al used with aparteni like in this example. But can the al be dropped if one adds the accusative to the target word? As in: "Tiu ponto ne apartenas nian urbon." ?