- Forum >
- Topic: Latin >
- "A girl was born in Germany."
"A girl was born in Germany."
Translation:Puella in Germania nata est.
63 Comments
465
Isn't 'est' present tense? I would have translated this as 'a girl is born in Germany'
The verb in this sentence is nata est, not just est. It is from the deponent verb nascor, nasci, which can mean "to be born". The perfect tense of this verb would be natus/nata/natum est, depending on gender. In this case, since the puella is feminine, you would expect nata. As a result, you get nata est, was born. I know that this course doesn't at the moment teach you the perfect tense, so I'm just telling you this as a heads up.
Deponent verbs use passive voice, but have a meaning in the present. (just saying for the people who don't know).
English language considers the action in the past, when Romance languages consider, not the action, but the result of the action, the state to be "born-ed". So, as you are always in this state, you "are" born, for Romance languages. (indeed, it's rather an English language specificity than the opposite).
That's a good explanation.
Once again, (for the people who don't know) it's a matter of how different languages frame thing differently. There are different ways to conceptualize something, and from that there are different ways to put that into words.
It's very very easy to take how your native language says something for granted, to assume it's the natural way to say it, but that's just not true at all.
Awesome discussion thread with really useful context from all. Thanks - this is transporting me back to conversations with my high school Latin teacher 30 years ago.
In old English texts (not Old English texts, which are a different matter entirely) the verb 'to be' is sometimes used to form the perfect tense also.
Eg. in Shakespeare's Measure for Measure "I am come to know your pleasure." (Modern translation: I have come to find out what you want to do.) or in the King James Bible "Think not that I am come to destroy the law..." (Do not think that I have come to destroy the law...).
kevmur
Using "to be" as the auxiliary verb instead of "to have" was used as recently as the 1800s, although at that point it was on the decline. People also used to say "a house is building" instead of "a house is being built".
Side note: I don't know about other languages, but it is possible to have the passive voice in the present tense in English: I am being chased by zombies. (Active voice: Zombies are chasing me.)
Same for other languages. Je suis pourchassé par les zombies.
Passive voice is almost always used in the present in French (at least, it's the most common case: it's the way the passive voice is formed in French)
Active: Les zombies me pourchassent.
- 400
In King James English, the "I am come" descends directly from the language's Germanic roots. Consider modern German: "Ich bin gekommen." SOME romance languages also preserve the Latin's use of this construction; French: "Je suis venu"; Italian: "Sono venuto." But Spanish does not: "He venido."
- 549
Same in Old English: 'ic eom gecumen', which allows for preterite (ic cōm), perfect (ic eom gecumen), pluperfect (ic wæs gecumen) and even future in the past (ic wearðe gecumen, wē wurdon gecumene etc.).
- 465
So "Christus est natus" like in the hymn Gaudete, does not mean "Christ is born" as we are commonly told, but Christ WAS born??
I think it means both, as this meaning is very particular here. Several occurrences of the translation "is born" can be found in the Bible, and I don't know if the meaning is not intentional.
"natus/nata" literally translated means "having been born," so together with it "nata est" becomes "is having been born," or "was born."
"Puella nata in Germania est" was rejected.
So just how far does this "word order doesn't matter in Latin" thing go?
It is a misconception that "free word order" means "word order doesn't matter". It really means that it's relatively flexible. There's a big difference. There are rules. It is not a free-for-all.
Rae is 100% right.
"Puella nata in Germania est" is acceptable I think, please report it (by the "report" button) if it's not accepted.
May it be that nata and est must not be divided by anything else, like the rule not to put an adverb between to and the verb in English?
It's rare but it can be done. (So we should maybe avoid it as beginners: maybe, or at least being aware that's an uncommon use)
There are no such rule in Latin like the rule for word orders in English, we have to forget them all.
Not everything has a locative case. Only cities, towns, and small islands.
Is this why we have the "in" here: "Puella in Germania nata est."; but not here: "Puella Romae nata est."?
Exactly. Rome is a city/town. Germany is an entire nation. It is too geographically large to take the locative.
As I understand it, the mostly disused Locative is used only for cities, not countries. We say "Romae", but "In Italia", "In Germania."
It's also used for islands and a couple of other words, including "domus" ("domi").
Yes. Names of cities, towns, and small islands, along with "rus" (countryside), "domus" (house), and "humus" (ground).
At last: a recognition from Duolingo that apart from Rome and Italy there are places outside America.
- 178
I put Puella nata est in Germania. Shouldn't it be right, even if not generally preferred? (Another (better) translation is ....)
- 178
Too late. Wasn't sure so I just moved on. However, when it occurred again, and again I put the exact same "mistaken" translation, it accepted it as correct but with the caveat, "Another (id est, better) translation is ..."
- 266
I would have thought so. I seem to remember Catullus splitting such verbs over whole verses. But memory of school fading now!
Puella Germaniae nata est, is not correct? Philadelphiae and Romae mean "in Rome", is it because Germany is a country that it does not work?
Only the names of cities, towns, and small islands, along with the words "domus", "rus", and "humus" take the locative. "Germania" is the name of a country and therefore takes a preposition plus ablative.
Here is a plain-English overview of what the cases are and how they work:
Latin cases, in English
Here are the noun and adjective declension charts:
declensions 1-3
declensions 4&5
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.
For good measure, here are the verb conjugation charts:
1st Conjugation
2nd Conjugation
3rd Conjugation
3rd i-stem Conjugation
4th Conjugation
If Latin can be in any order, why can't Puella est in Germania nata be accepted?
Because it's a myth that Latin can be in any order. Relatively flexible does not mean anything goes.
:O are you seriously waking up every single morning for the last 6 years and more and do duolingo? that is incredible dedication, even my internet doesnt have that kind of dedication to work. im very impressed that you can put your life aside consistently
Is there something specific that you know of wrong with "Puella est in Germania nata?" I tried the same thing and am curious why so I don't make the same mistake twice.
Two reasons. First (and most saliently here), verbs tend to go last in Latin. It's generally an SOV language. Also, verbs in Latin stack the opposite way as in English. You'll also see this in sentences like:
Viri et feminae in lecto dormire solent.
Men and women usually sleep in a bed.
(literally: Men and women are accustomed to sleeping in bed.)
Matrem visitare debeo.
I ought to visit mother.
(literally: I have to visit mother. Yes, the literal "have". Because it is a debt, an obligation you possess.)
This is how the tense suffixes evolved in the Romance languages, by fusing the auxiliary verb to the end of the main verb.
Marcus would say:
(ego) in germania natus sum
Corinna would say:
(ego) in germania nata sum
Feminine vs masculine.
Corinna in Germania nata est.
Marcus in Germania natus est.
Can someone explain to me why my answer of 'Puella nata in Germania est' is considered wrong? I've used this sentence structure in previous lessons and this is the first time I was pulled up on it.
Which previous sentences were those?
The verb is "nata est" and verbs generally come at the end.
- 266
Cant say "puella nata in germania est" ?? It has to be " puella in germania natus est" ?
"Puella" is feminine so "natus" takes the feminine form "nata" in this case. You could say "Puer in Germania natus est," because "puer" is masculine and matches the masculine "natus."
It says I got the answer wrong with 'natus', even though it says natus is the same as the correct answer.
The hover hints are hints, not answers. It needs to be "nata" because it has to agree with "puella", which is feminine.
I did type the correct answer word for word but was marked incorrect ! Why ?
Word-for-word is not letter-for-letter. From now on, please either copy and paste or take a screenshot of your full, exact answer so we can help you find the real reason it marked you wrong.
Why is "Puella Germania nata est" not accepted? When will we use "in" before the name of a place?
As explained on this page before, the locative is only used with the names of cities/towns, small islands, and a very small handful of common nouns, including "domus". Everything else takes "in" with the ablative. Please read the other comments for more details.
