"The young man was born in New York."
Translation:Iuvenis Novi Eboraci natus est.
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
"Eborācum" is neuter, so the nominative (subject) and accusative (direct object) have the same endings. The form for an indirect object is "Eborācō".
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.
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.
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"?
According to Cambridge dictionary, a youngster seems younger than a young man.
a young person, usually an older child