It is strange for me that the language of Old Rome is so strongly connected to America in this course! Even the accents of the speakers seem to be American!
From time to time I work through Assimil's Latin course (audio is much better!) and they refer to things like the Euro, cars and coffee, things that didn't really exist in ancient Rome.
Yeah, I've been quite surprised at the amount of American city and state names in the course.
It's because some American people were contributors to this course. Nothing strange here.
Why is it translated to "was born" and not "is born" when "est" in the present tense ?? And what would "natus erat" be translated to ?
Natus est together is a form of the perfect tense. The perfect tense refers to a past action that is completed and typically considers how it affects the present. It is a past action so we use a past tense in English when we translate, hence the "was born".
Natus erat is a pluperfect form where the action occurs in the past and typically the result affects a more recent moment in the past. Natus erat could probably be translated as "he/she/it had been born".
There is much more nuance and details to the perfect tenses but I would probably butcher the explanation.
I think you did a pretty good job right there. I have a hard time explaining the difference between past, present perfect, and imperfect in Spanish & Italian, since English uses preterite or past progressive to translate the imperfect. It's one thing to know it and another to explain it.
It is the way English language says the concept. Always in the past. One isn't born. One WAS born. While, for latine, it litterally says "Stephen is born... "
No, Latin does not litterally say "Stephanus is born in Germany", it litterally says "Stephanus was born in Germany" or "Stephanus has been born in Germany".
I know that the construction present of verb sum + participle is deceptive, because many think that it is passive present, but in reality it is past. The passive present in Latin is synthetic; for instance, "Stephanus is born" would litterally be in Latin Stephanus nascitur.
I suspect that this will give a headache to more than one when we will study the passive voice.
I think that in English, "Stephanus is born sounds very odd;" we would not normally say something like that unless it is part of a clause such as "When Stephanus is born..." Otherwise, I can think of only one place where the usage occurs: Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born" translated from the Vulgate "Parvulus enim natus est nobis" I assume that it was translated this way to draw attention to the prophetic aspect and ongoing results , a concept not easily carried into the English, but present in the Hebrew text (Pual Perfect). I guess there is the Gregorian chant: "Puer Nobis Nascitur," "Unto Us a Boy is Born." This is interesting though; wouldn't this more accurately refer to a birth that is just now taking place?
Yes, Perce_Neige, but this colloquialism is not a literal birth but refering to the the persons fame, which is continuing, whereas one's birth is not.
English grammar is nuts. It doesn't follow any logic like for example Slavic languages or Latin.
It's wrong. Each language has its logics, if someone don't understand the logics, it doesn't make it inexistent. Sometimes it takes a lot of studies to understand the logics behind a language that is from another branch than our mother tongue.
Now this is a clear anacronism. Nobody in America would call their son Stephanus. This demonstrates the problems arising from constantly talking about America and not the Roman empire. Personally I am here to try to become able to read and understand Latin inscriptions and litterature and not to be able to walk around i a toga, speaking latin. For that purpose the constant use of America and american locations does not exactly hit the bull's eye.
This course is a joke. They stole LLPSI content and now they cash money from ads and subscription. They should be glad Hans is dead and not suing them.
I don't see any problem about talking about America or about Switzerland or Italy. If we learn a language, we have to be able to talk about anything, not only about past texts. Latin is still a living languages, as new words are added to describe modern things. So, we should prevent ourselves to talk about anything in Latin?
How is Natus qualifed? Is this actually past tense or is it more like a noun for "birth place"?
This is a deponent verb and has an active meaning while having a passive form. Natus is the perfect active participle of nascor (nasci) and is used for the perfect system (perfect participle + esse).
natus sum -> I was born
natus es -> You (singular) were born
natus est -> He was born
nati sumus -> We were born
nati estis -> You (plural) were born
nati sunt -> They were born
nata sum -> I was born
nata es -> You (singular) were born
nata est -> She was born
natae sumus -> We were born
natae estis -> You (plural) were born
natae sunt -> They were born
natum sum -> I was born
natum es -> You (singular) were born
natum est -> It was born
nata sumus -> We were born
nata estis -> You (plural) were born
nata sunt -> They were born
Oooops!!! I thought for a moment that the ablative ended in -ae. Hahaha! My Latin's a bit rusty. Thanks!!
Technically it is an adjective. It's like "The child was born = The (new)born child."