1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "The young man was born in Ne…

"The young man was born in New York."

Translation:Iuvenis Novi Eboraci natus est.

September 2, 2019



What is the difference between "iuvenis" and "iuvenes"?


Iuvenis: young man Iuvenes: young men


Iuvenis: of the young man


I seem to remember (from 40 years ago) that iuvenes is nominative plural (the "40 years ago" is just to stress that I'm not trusting my own memory, so neither should anyone else ;-) )


JefDeSmedt is correct. It is a difference between singular and plural respectively


What's the difference between "Novi Eboraci" and "Novum Eboracum"?


different case: "-i" ending here is locative, meaning translated as "in New York" (can also be genitive, possessive translated as "of New York"); "-um" ending is nominative (subject), accusative (object), or vocative (speaking to New York). In Latin, there is no sentence order, but nouns are declined with different endings to distinguish the case they are in within the sentence


couldnt this be much easier stated as Novum Eboracum is when NY is the subject; and Novi Eboraci is when NY is the direct or indirect object? I took latin as a kid and some of these explanations dont make sense.


"Eborācum" is neuter, so the nominative (subject) and accusative (direct object) have the same endings. The form for an indirect object is "Eborācō".

Case Usage Form
nominative subject Eborācum
genitive possession Eborācī
dative indirect object Eborācō
accusative direct object Eborācum
ablative some prepositions Eborācō
vocative address Eborācum
locative location Eborācī


Can't it be "Iuvenis Novi Eboraci est natus"? Or "Iuvenis est natus Novi Eboraci", etc?


I also wanna know why "Iuvenis est natus Novi Eboraci" was considered incorrect.


Your syntax creates two clauses. In the first a young man exists, while in the second a birth takes place in New York. The birth must be specified after the subject, so we know to whom it belongs and before the verb which modifies the process into an action.


What's the difference between nata and natus


gender: feminine and masculine respectively


Why is it "Novi Eboraci" but "in Germania"?

I had both within 5 questions


Because Germania is a country, so we cannot apply the locative to countries. It's only for the cities/towns (and small Islands), a a few words, so it is for New York.


Shouldn't it be natus erat for "was born" and not natus est ( which should translate as "am born")? Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


No, it has no link with the present or the past. It's rather a state.

English language represents this state, to be born, by a past. As the action was in the past.

Most of the Romance languages (all?) represents this state by a present, as it's a state, like you are living, you are "born-ed".


Actually, "natus" wasn't originally an adjective. It comes from the verb "nascor" meaning to be born. The verb is a passive only verb, and "natus est" is the perfect passive tense for the verb. So "was born" is the most accurate translation. "natus erat" would be pluperfect (had been born) and nascitur would be present (is born).


Yes, but the problem is that you translate from English. English uses "was born", but try to translate from a Romance language. (The Latin descend languages)

I was born (past) = Natus sum.

I was born (past) = Je suis né (French, present) = Sono nato (italian, present) = Latin?

Even if "être né" is a form a past, it's also a state.
Same in italian "nato" is "an adjectivation of the past participle". So, there's really probably something like that in the "natus est". A possible adjectivation. Not a coincidence.


It’s not all romance languages, though. In Spanish one says ‘yo nací’ which is the simple past tense—translates directly to ‘I was born’.


Natus, or archaically also gnatus, is literally 'born, birthed', it is and always was an adjective. Technically, the form is originally a so-called "verbal adjective", which just means that the meaning could be either passive "having been born" or active "having born". Now in Latin this verbal adjective was incorporated into the perfect system, in other words, it is understood as a perfect passive participle. It is best to think of it as an adjective depicting a state (of being born) -- as someone's here already pointed out.

If you specify it as present perfect, that means a state that is still relevant, still going on. So natus (for masc. sg.) est "was born (and is still alive)", on the other hand natus erat "was born (but died at a point)". English does not differentiate between these (thus, Shakespeare was born (= natus erat) in 1564, and Lady Gaga was born (= nata est) in 1986, even though, in Latin, the latter has to be rendered by what in English would be "is born", that is if English used the same logic as Latin, because Lady Gaga is still with us). Now, this works like this because, without any context, the assumption is that we are using HERE & NOW as the point of reference for this state. Given some other context, these would have to be relative to the point of reference given in that context, of course.


Would Iuvenis natus Novi Eboraci est be correct?


I think it's better to let "natus" and "est" together, with no hyperbate (not separated by other words), I tried to find example of sentences taken from Latin corpus, with this splitted, but I didn't find any. Maybe some other user, more advanced than I am could find many examples of this?


The tips section says "The locative case is a special case which indicates a location used for cities." Does this mean "Iuvenis Novi Eboraci natus est" translates to "The young man was born in New York City" and "Iuvenis in Novum Eboracum natus est" translates to "The young man was born in (the state of) New York"?


When should I use "in" before a city name


I don't think it's ever used, as explained in this comment by Kathryn, among other places.


Couldn't one translate iuvenis as a youngster rather than a young man?


According to Cambridge dictionary, a youngster seems younger than a young man.

a young person, usually an older child



quid est sinister cum "Iuvenis est natus Novi Eboraci"?


Wouldn't normally be Eboraci Novi, or at least shouldn't that be acceptable because in Latin Adjectives often come after the nouns they modify?


The "new" in New York is not an adjective, it is the first part of a compound noun.


If "Stephanus natus est in America." / "Stephanus was born in America." Why "Iuvenis natus est in Novi Eboraci ." is not correst??????


America is a state, Novum Eboracum (New York) is a city; so He was born In Italia but He was born Romae


As dora indicated but did not state, the word order should be fine, but since New York is a city, we use the locative case without the preposition in.


Why is "in" sometimes used and sometimes not?


Doesn't the latin sentence translate as, "the young man was born in New York City" since the locative form, Novi Eboravi, is used and there is no "in?"


is est the proper form for the simple past of esse?


the hyperbaton allows to put another order of the words in Latin, then I should be able to say Iuvenis natus Novi Eboraci est


why Iuvenis est natus Novi Evoraci incorrect?


Several other comments in this Discussion explain that natus est is treated as a phrasal verb, and should not be separated.


Why not "iuvenis est natus novi eboraci"?


Is 'Iuvenis natus Novi Eboraci est' wrong?


I think better: Iuvenis in Novi Eboraci natus est. "In is important "


If iuvenis means young man then is there a word that means young woman, or is iuvenis actually supposed to mean youth in general.


word order has been unimportant and now suddenly it's important...

I put: Iuvenis natus Novi Eboraci est correct answer is : Iuvenis Novi Eboraci natus est. Why isn't mine OK? Thanks for any help.


Several other comments in this Discussion explain that natus est is treated as a phrasal verb, and should not be separated.

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