95 Comments This discussion is locked.
Note: This is a deponent verb, which is a verb that appears passive even when it's in active tense. The phrase "nata est" is actually past tense of the verb nasci, meaning "was born." So it translates to: "A girl was born in Germany" or "The girl was born in Germany."
Volgav vitsenanieff nivya kevach varatsach.
I asked him yesterday, he said: "It's a sentence in a conlang I made, meaning "Two rivers do not flow the same direction." I use it to mark my comments so that I can find them again. Basically my list of Followed posts is very long, so if I don't want to keep one around, I'll remove it. But if I want to find a given comment again, and the post isn't in my followed list, I can't find it very readily - Duolingo doesn't have an option to search by username - so I add in a sentence that it can search for. Conlangs lend themselves beautifully to this purpose. Thanks for asking! :) Volgav vitsenanieff nivya kevach varatsach"
I actually take this as a compliment, because this conlang was intended to sound Slavic - it even makes use of some Russian names to aid in this (one of them being a word present in this very sentence, "volga" ;). So this comment made me really happy. :D
Volgav vitsenanieff nivya kevach varatsach.
I think sigaloenta was questioning the choice of indefinite article (a) over the definite article (the) rather than the verb. Whilst grammatically correct, the use of 'a' makes the sentence feel a bit pointless.
Personally, I'm not bothered - either is a correct translation and I'm not expecting great philosophical insights at this stage of the course - maybe later when we can read Tacitus in the original... ;o)
which I have always assumed means "Today Christ is born."
A better translation would be "Today Christ was born."
So could "A girl is born" be "Puella natus est" in Latin?
The adjective "nat-" needs to agree with "puella" in gender, so you need the feminine ending "nata." In your example, "natus" is used because "Christus" is masculine.
But is Germania really Germany? Not more than Gaul (Gallia) is really France.
Germania was huge, it was an empire.
Germania is absolutely not the modern Germany, or if it was, you have to include people from Switzerland, Eastern France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Austria, as being German people, in the modern sense. In French we use "Allemagne" for the modern country, and "Germanie" for the Germanic empire. Of course, it's the spiritual mother of Germany, but it had a really strong influence (and after that the Sacrum Imperium Romanum).
I think the English translation for "Germania" is "Germania".
(There's more than the green zone, a part of the pink zone is also Germania.)
The lack of information available (via cell phone app) in this course is staggering. ... learning this as a new language with absolutely no previous exposure, is like stumbling around in someone else's basement with absolutely No lights on! (So I'm sure I'll hear some hateful, condescending flack about my comment...but no worries: I'm out!)
Two extracurricular activities that are tremendously helpful in my efforts to learn Latin: 1) Use Wiktionary to crosscheck Google Translate and try to compose something in Latin. 2) Read "The Art of Language Invention" a book by David J. Peterson. It changed my understanding of the concept of language and made learning any language so much easier for me. I'm just trying to help anyone who might be struggling with DL alone. :)
I think it's like "Gaul" for France. For Italy, "Roman Italy" to be less ambiguous. (or maybe also "italia"?)
For Germany, Germania.
Germania is the country that shrunk the most between this time and our time, it was Magna Germania, but not a part of the Roman empire, they were "barbarians".
It’s not really surprising. Think how much “places” themselves have changed, especially large units like countries. Borders shift, territory is broken up and added to. The UK today isn’t “Britannia” as the legions knew it, nor any of the other provinces of the Empire - because, politics basically.
It is absolutely NOT the same! est + past participle is the perfect passive. Present : amo = I love, amor = I am loved. Perfect : amavi = I loved amatus sum = I was loved. This and the fact that nascor is a deponent verb, that is, its form is passive although its meaning is (percieved to be) active. It's a totally different system.
It's the same in the meaning. I don't mean the same in the grammar, with exactly the same tenses. They are no deponent verbs in French and Italian, as far as I know. So, it would be impossible, but similar structures do exist.
I was replying to "I'm under the impression that to translate to 'was' it would have to be 'fuit' why isn't this the case"
My answer: it's the same in Romance languages (not all), "est" in French is the present, "è" in Latin is the present.
That's not interesting here whether it's a deponent verb (deponency is only a particular construction, it's not linguistically meaningful, a famous linguist called deponency "arbitrary" in Latin),
the interesting thing is the structure "present to be" + something used as a state, an adjectivation, "né" in French, "nato" in Italian.
The structure is similar, and everyone who speaks Italian or French have understood this structure, while English speakers are confused.
I really believe that the use of the structure "est nato" and "è nato"/"est né" is not a coincidence, it's a filiation.
That the meaning is the same, is clear. What we are discussing is the grammar behind the meaning. I get where you see analogous forms, but the analogy here is misleading. It works only because the verb nascor is a deponent verb. Take a 'normal' verb like for instance amo, I love. Then "I have loved" is amavi. Not sum amatus or habeo amatus (the latter simply doesn't exist). Just amavi. Now "amatus sum" does mean something. But it means "I have been loved". It is a past passive form. There is no such thing in modern French or Italian. To say "I have been loved" you say "J'ai été aimé". With two auxilliary verbs. In latin, the form est + past participle corresponds with the past tense of the passive form. Only because deponent verbs have passive forms with active meaning does sum + past participle have a past active meaning for these verbs. There is no filiation. The periphrastic tense être/avoir + past participle (j'ai aimé) is an innovation which is posterior to classical latin. It belongs to the history of the romance languages. It is an entirely new tense which coexists with the old latin perfect (amavi, j'aimai) and the old latin imperfect (amabam, j'aimais), it does not replace a pre-existing tense.