1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Marcus was born in America, …

"Marcus was born in America, but lives in Rome."

Translation:Marcus in America natus est, sed Romae habitat.

August 28, 2019



Why does the first clause need 'est', but the second clause does not?


From my understanding 'est natus' is a word grouping. It means 'was born' not 'is born' despite being the present tense of the verb 'to be'. Habitat (he/she/it lives), however, is a complete verb in Latin without needing the verb 'to be'.


Why not "americae natus est, sed in Roma habitat"? When does the place decline and when must we use the preposition "in"?


The Locative case doesn't work for nation-states. It's just named cities and rus/domus and a few others (humus, for example).

Others need "in" plus the Ablative.


Is that why America is just America but New York is something completely different. i.e. Novum Eboracum?


Novum Eboracum is officially the Latin name for New York (it is in the city seal), while the word "America" itself is from a Latinised version of someones name, and as most European languages have some form of this word, it is practically the only option.


Was New York formed when Latin was spoken? I don't think so. Also, what does "Eboracum" mean?


Was New York formed when Latin was spoken?

No, certainly not. But Duo uses a number of modern cities throughout the Latin course ("Bostonia," "Philadelphia," etc.).

Also, what does "Eboracum" mean?

Wiktionary explains that it was the name in Roman times for present-day York in the UK (for which New York was named). The name comes from a Celtic word meaning "yew."


I know it changes the emphasis, however since I think I used remembering a popular Christmas carol, can we also have Marcus in America est natus, sed Romae habitat, please?


I wrote it this way, thinking of the same carol, and it was marked wrong :(


I have been playing with the word order since this is not German, but I would like some pointers on word order, and when to keep things together and when I can split things up.


Verbs usually go at the end. Word order is very flexible because the suffix on the nouns make it clear what is the subject and object. If in is used, the location must come after it. Question words are usually (always?) sentence initial.


Should these ‘was born in’ examples actually be using a past tense (to which we have yet to get)? Or does ‘natus’ always take the present?


nāscor, nāscī, nātus sum

natus is the past participle, which can do a lot of things. In verbs that can become passive, or verbs like nascor which are fundamentally so, when paired with present forms of the verb sum make the past/perfect passive. Here, was born.

If you were to use the imperfect of sum (erat), you would make the pluperfect.


Very helpful reply. Thanks. It sent me down a long-abandoned rabbit hole of past-tense research!


why isnt "marcus america natum sed romae habitat" accepted


"est" is needed with natus in the first clause, without it it would basically mean marcus in America born. "Est" with "natus" in this case is Marcus is born in America or was born in America. The rest is correct I believe. You also need "in America" not just America because unlike Romae or Bostoniae it's only a name. Romae means in rome but America is not changed so it must be "in America"


"marcus est natus in America sed habitat Romae" ¿cuál es el error?


"Marcus in America natus est, sed Romae habitat." Someone tell me what is wrong with that sentence?


That should be the correct answer. Was it marked wrong?


It was. And that's exactly how I entered it because I cut and pasted it here. I'll try it again next time it comes around. Sure has me at a loss.


Can you not begin a sentence with a preposition in Latin? I wrote, "In America est Marcus natus, sed Romae habitat" and was marked wrong.

Edit: Now this is wrong too? "Marcus est natus in America, sed habitat Romae." I wish you'd give some instruction on grammar rather than saying "it's very flexible" when two very common constructions aren't accepted.


The issue is the verb: 'natus est' is a single construction which has to go in that order. See comments on past participles.


Why put "est" at all?


"Marcus born in america" is missing the verb


Is "in " necessary in this sentence??


The sentence describes how Marcus was born "in America". Removing the "in" would be like saying "Marcus was born America, but lives in Rome."


Why not «Marcus est natus in America sed Romae habitat»?


I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure in order to work in the sentence "natus est" has to be in that order next to each other" because, as @Bronny109760 describes it, it's a "single construction".


why "Marcus est natus in America" is unacceptable?


The expression "was born" requires a different verb construction that they really haven't talked about. 'natus est' is a single construction. The verb is an usual one which is passive 'to be born' and they are using the past tense.

The verb is nāscor, nāscī, nātus sum

natus is called the past participle. In verbs that can become passive, or verbs like nascor which are only passive, are paired with present forms of the verb 'sum' to make the past/perfect passive. Here, was born.


I wrote 'Marce in America natus est, sed Romae habitat' and duolingo didn't accept that. I don't know when I must use 'MARCE' and when I use 'MARCUS'.


Marcus is the nominative, and Marce is the locative. So, If you're talking about Marcus, use Marcus (nominative - "Marcus is a boy" - "Marcus est puer")

if you're addressing Marcus himself use Marce (locative - "Hi, Marcus" - Salve, Marce")


Vocative, not locative.


Does anyone know why it was natus this time


Never mind. It's because Marcus is masc so was born has to match. I feel silly, I realized just as I hit post.


Does it always have to be natus est? Could I choose to write est natus, or to separate the two words in the sentence?


It is my understanding that "natus est" is a single construction (as @Bronny109760 describes it) and thus the words must remain together in the same order.


when i have to use Novi Eboraci/Novum Eboracum, Philadelphiae/Philadelphia, Bostonia/Bostoniae?

Pleas help me


The "i/ae" forms (Novi Eboraci, Philadelphiae, Bostonia) are, to my understanding, ways to say "in (location)". For example, "New York is a state" would be "Novum Eboracum est civitas", but "The girl lives in New York" would be "Puella Novi Eboraci habitat". Hope this helps!


I am confused. I do not understand the structure of sentence. It seems inconsistent throughout the lessons and I am unable to develop a pattern.

I wrote, "Marcus natus est America, sed Rome habitat.


I noticed you wrote only "America", not "in America", and "Rome" instead of "Romae". This is the equivalent of your saying "Marcus was born America, but lives Rome". "Romae" is the Latin word for "in Rome"; "America" doesn't have an alternate word like that, so it's just "in America". (Also, it seems standard in Latin for verbs or verb phrases to be at the end of a sentence, i.e. "Marcus in America natus est", but I'm not sure if that's mandatory.)


So the first half of this sentence, the way it is stated here... that is how I stated it in Latin, but it was marked wrong

Stephanus in America natus est

I was thinking natus and est were verbs together.

But it was marked wrong, with "Stephanus natus" at the beginning, making me think that maybe natus was really a noun.

Now I'm completely confused.


that is how I stated it in Latin, but it was marked wrong

"Stephanus in America natus est" is actually a perfectly correct translation; I'm not sure why that would be marked wrong.

I was thinking natus and est were verbs together.

More or less, yes. Strictly speaking, "natus" is a participle (like "born" is), but the phrase "natus est" does function as a perfect-tense verb (in the same way "was born" functions as a verb, even though "born" is not itself a verb). "Natus" is certainly not a noun.


"Marcus natus in America est, sed Romae habitat" marked incorrect. I'm unsure what about this word order is incorrect.


"Natus est" in this case appears to be a single construction, meaning the two words act as one phrase and thus should always be placed next to each other in a sentence. Other than that, it looks like you're good. :D


Why is "Marcus est natus in america sed romae habitat" wrong?


Unlike most words in Latin, "natus est" is a single phrase, meaning that in this context, the words have to be together in that specific order (e.g. "Marcus in America natus est") .


There should be NO difference between "natus est" and "est natus"!


Now - i wrote Marce - and duo did not take it - according duo today !!!!! is Marcus good and acceptable. Who understand it???


Marce is the vocative--the case of direct address.]

The sentence isn't speaking to Marcus, therefore you should not use this case.


Verbs of sum can be placed anywhere in a sentence


Not in this case because it isn't a stand alone verb 'to be', it belongs with the natus 'natus est' is a single construction. See comment above nāscor, nāscī, nātus sum

natus is the past participle, which can do a lot of things. In verbs that can become passive, or verbs like nascor which are fundamentally so, when paired with present forms of the verb sum make the past/perfect passive. Here, was born.

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.