Yes, if it were a Roman fortress/castle or a small town (castrum/castellum (neut.), oppidum (neut.)) then it would be Novum Eboracum. But since this is a city (urbs/civitas (fem.)) but not a fortress/castle/small town it was supposed to be a feminine word. I guess it could be Nova Eboraca(s) :) Like Nueva York.
No, they don't. The grammatical gender of the name of a thing rarely has anything to do with the grammatical gender of the thing. (One key exception I can think of is people's names. Names of men are grammatically masculine, names of women are grammatically feminine.)
Tangentially related, but although adjectives must agree in gender, number, and case with the noun it modifies, an adjective's declension is what it is. It is possible, for example, to have a 2nd declension adjective modifying a 4th declension noun.
Just a note in passing on the name of York. It was actually originally Celtic, not Norse, in the form Eburakōn, probably meaning "place of the yew". It was then borrowed into Latin as Eboracum, then into Old English as Eoforwic, then the Danes took that and named it Jórvík. Each successive wave of people changed and reanalysed the word to try to make sense of it (e.g. the -wic and -vík parts) but in origin it was Celtic. There's more info on the elsewhere in the comments and also here.
PS I like the idea of "Ny Jordvik"! Would Norwegians now spell it as one word - Nyjordvik?
And in case anyone's interested, the local Celtic (Brittonic) word was Eborākom or Eburākon. This is probably eburos "yew tree" + -ākon/m "place of, belonging to", or the intial element could be Eburos a Celtic personal name.
Although modern Brittonic languages (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) have lost their case endings, Common Brittonic (CB) had plenty, like Latin. You can see similarities between the Latin and CB endings:
Latin: nom. Eborācum, gen. Eborācī, dat. Eborācō
CB: nom. Eborākom, gen. Eborākī, dat. Eborākūi
I'll take the liberty to contest your hypothesis here, @Robbadob!
Although it's correct that Eboracum is the Latin (Roman) name of York (which was part of the Roman empire from before ~50 AD), I don't think this name itself developed into York. Rather, the vikings who came from Scandinavia applied their own Norse name; Jōrvík (meaning 'soil/earth bay' or possibly 'horse bay' --> in modern Norwegian 'vik' still means bay, and jord (with a silent 'd' at the end) means soil/earth. However, 'jōr' has also been claimed as a word for horse, which is today 'hest' in Norwegian.)
Btw, there's still a statue of a viking on the town square in York, as a reminder about the viking history.
New York (as the US STATE and city) was renamed by the Brits in 1664 after taking control from the Dutch, who called the place New Amsterdam.
New York (city) was New Amsterdam in the area of New Netherlands and was renamed in 1664 when it was taken from the Dutch.
The original York got its name by a series of changes over many centuries. There were plenty of Vikings in York (Jorvik) but not many Dutch.
New York didn't exist when Latin developed so the name has been latinised more recently to make it sound good in Latin lessons.
Not sure you got this right, @Isaac3972...
The US city of New York (and hence the state) was renamed from New Amsterdam to New York in 1664 when the Brits won control from the Dutch.
Eboracum, however, was the name for York long before this (i.e. the town York in Yorkshire, North-Eastern England today), which changed into York (old Norse Jorvik) long before...when the Scandinavians (vikings) travelled there after the Romans.
@Alf-Sawman in humble defense of Isaac3972's humoristic embellishment, I first suggest that both agree on the key points, i.e. (id est),
"the Brits won control from the Dutch" (Alf-Sawman) = "a military victory" (point 1); and
"what kind of changes ...for Eboracum to get to York" (Isaac3972) = "Eboracum, however, etc. [....]" (point 2).
Inspiring Punchline: the fact that it was "won" by "military victory" allows the deployment of an incisive, ironic anachronism qua humor, scilicet "...how Roman."
Rae F. MOD's link above has me in a less analytic, laughing mood and I may have missed steps in the logic. Please correct as needed!
all should watch (and enjoy) Rae F. MOD's link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGoVefhtMQ
Good question. I wonder the same and found this on Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum?wprov=sfla1
Eboracum was the name of what today is York in UK.
"She studies in New York" means New York is where she is located while she studies. As a city, it takes the locative case and becomes "Ea Novi Eboraci studet."
"She studies New York" means New York is what she studies. It's the direct object of the verb and takes the accusative case. It's 2nd declension neuter, so the accusative looks the same as the nominative and becomes "Ea studet Novum Eboracum." The verb could go last, as it often does, but in this case it makes it a little bit clearer what the distinction between subject and object is.
Oh come on man, why do the city names have to be American? It seriously deteriorates the feel of the course. If they'd just had been European, you know, where latin was spoken mostly, it would have made sense. Now it all feels out of tune :/ I absolutely love all the hard work put into this, learning latin for free AD 2020 is kickass, but Nova Eoboraci. Get the frak outta here.
I think there are some links missing from Rae.F's reply here, but the short version is this:
The "default" nominal name of New York (i.e. the nominative case) is Novum Eboracum (or Eboracum Novum, as the adjective is normally put after the noun).
When declined (as in declension, not as in being rejected... :-D ) into the lokativ case, the form is 'Novi Eboraci'. The locative case is generally used to describe a "static location", i.e. when you are at a given place, or you roam within an area such as in a city/country/room etc. (This "staticity" as opposed to move in a direction, into/onto something, e.g. move/travel into a room/city/country etc., which usually takes accusative (2nd declension as far as I remember).)
In many languages, certain cases (declensions) are lost/merged with others (e.g. dative is used for locative in German, locative and "prepositional" merges (mostly) in Russian...)
Finally, when using locative in Latin, you may omit the preposition (aka the word in in this sentence), because the locative case implies that something (the verb in the sentence) is taking place in/on the place put in locative.
Hope this was clarifying!
Here is a plain-English overview of what the cases are and how they work:
Latin cases, in English
Adjectives must agree in gender, number, and case with the nouns they modify, but they have their own declensions. Sometimes you get lucky and the adjective just happens to follow the same declension as the noun, but that is not a guarantee.
Okay, I have just found out. Eboracum was the Roman's largest town in northern Britain apparently meaning 'Yew' tree place, later etymology suggests uses concomitant with the words for 'ivy' and also 'ivory' -almost too interesting to be useful, but for what it's worth, from Wikipedia.
From Lewis and Short Lexicon via the Perseus Project: Eborācum , i, n., I.the capital of the Brigantes in Britain, now York, Eutr. 8, 19; Inscr. Orell. 190 al.
Two things here; yes this could be considered the Roman equivalent of York, hence Novum Eboracum for New York.
However, I'm a lot more concerned with the use of the genitive here to denote location. I'm no Cicero, but I don't think this is very good use of Latin inflection.
You refer to the genitive case being used to denote location. The form here is in fact the locative, not genitive, and its use is explained in the notes for this section. The locative ending for place names that are singular nouns of the first or second declension happen to be the same as those for the genitive case.
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Locative gives further information about the locative case.
Yes. It's where our word "novel" comes from.
Question. Maybe this has been answered already but I've noticed the adjective typically after the noun. We call it New York because we place it the other way around, but would latin say Eboraci Novi instead? Or is it meshed together because the two words are treated as a pair. And if that's the case, why translate at all, other names and cities are only mildly altered to fit the language cases. I feel like I'm missing something.