# ante Christum natum



## Whodunit

Why is it possible to use the accusative of "Christus" here? The phrase is usually translated as "before Christ was born," which would rather be "ante Christus natus."

So, the translation might not be accurate. It could also mean "before Christ's birth," but this in turn would be "ante Christi natum." So, how come there are two accusatives after "ante?" Does it mean "before the Christian birth," where "christus" would be treated like an adjective*.

In German, we also use "vor Christi Geburt" (= before Christi birth), where the original Latin genitive is still maintained. So, why didn't they use "ante Christi natum" in Latin, but we do nowadays in German?

Thanks for you ideas. 

*As I've been told, "christus" would rather be "unctus" in classical Latin, so it could be true that it is treated like an adjective to "natum" here. However, this doesn't explain why it is translated as a conjunctional clause.


----------



## judkinsc

Haven't the inclination to check, but "christos" was originally a Greek word, not Latin.  It may maintain its form from Greek.


----------



## Whodunit

judkinsc said:


> Haven't the inclination to check, but "christos" was originally a Greek word, not Latin. It may maintain its form from Greek.


 
Correct, but the form is "christus" and not "christos." However, this doesn't answer my question why we use "ante Christ*um* natum." What would this phrase be in Greek?


----------



## jazyk

It's Ante Christum natum because natum, a past participle, is being used as an adjective here and hence has to agree in gender, number and case with the noun it modifies, Christum, in the accusative required by the preposition ante.

Vor Christi Geburt would literally translate as Ante Christi natalem (from natalis, natalis, birth, Geburt, a noun).


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> It's Ante Christum natum because natum, a past participle, is being used as an adjective here and hence has to agree in gender, number and case with the noun it modifies, Christum, in the accusative required by the preposition ante.


 
I don't agree with you on this. How would you translate "ante Christum natum" literally then? If "ante" is a presposition, the translate "before Christ was born" is inappropriate, because here "before" is used as a conjunction.



> Vor Christi Geburt would literally translate as Ante Christi natalem (from natalis, natalis, birth, Geburt, a noun).


 
natalis, -is means birthday (everything that has to do with birth), whereas natus, -i means birth (the act of being born), as far as I know.


----------



## jazyk

> I don't agree with you on this. How would you translate "ante Christum natum" literally then? If "ante" is a presposition, the translate "before Christ was born" is inappropriate, because here "before" is used as a conjunction.


But I agree with you, the literal translation "before Christ was born" would not be appropriate then (but remember, languages don't necessarily translate so squarely among each other). The conjunction before is antequam or priusquam in Latin, so you'd have _Antequam/Priusquam Christus natus est_. 



> natalis, -is means birthday (everything that has to do with birth), whereas natus, -i means birth (the act of being born), as far as I know.


Then you don't know it well.  First of all, natus is a fourth-declension noun: natus, natus and is hardly ever used as a noun (although it is, as you have said), that's why I'd opt for natalis, natalis. Another possibility is ortus, ortus (fourth-declension as well, from oriri, you know).


----------



## ireney

Can I suggest something that would sound weird in English? After Chirst "birthed  " (being born). I know it's not exactly right and is not the best English ever, but I thought it might help explain "natum"


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> But I agree with you, the literal translation "before Christ was born" would not be appropriate then (but remember, languages don't necessarily translate so squarely among each other). The conjunction before is antequam or priusquam in Latin, so you'd have _Antequam/Priusquam Christus natus est_.


 
So, we are not making any progress yet. 



> Then you don't know it well. First of all, natus is a fourth-declension noun: natus, natus and is hardly ever used as a noun (although it is, as you have said), that's why I'd opt for natalis, natalis. Another possibility is ortus, ortus (fourth-declension as well, from oriri, you know).


 
Okay, I'm sorry. It is of course "natus, -ūs." I obviously didn't remember well. But I still think that "natus" can be used for "birth," however strange it might sound.


----------



## werrr

Not only *ante Christum natum*. It's:

*ante* aliquem *natum*


----------



## jazyk

> So, we are not making any progress yet.


Sorry, but then I don't know what you want. I explained to you why Ante Christum natum is correct and I gave you other alternatives to express the same thing. I'm afraid I can't do anything else.



> Okay, I'm sorry. It is of course "natus, -ūs." I obviously didn't remember well. But I still think that "natus" can be used for "birth," however strange it might sound.


Of course it can be, but that doesn't preclude natalis from being used as well. I really don't understand what you have against it. Natalis gave rise to Portuguese Natal, Italian Natale and Catalan Nadal, all meaning Christmas, the birth of Christ. Natal as an adjective also means pertaining to one's place of birth. My Latin dictonary defines it "dia do nascimento" (day of birth)




> DEVS EX CRAPVLA - March 2nd, 2006 Die *Christi Natalis* solus vias pervagabar ut urbem vacuam viderem. Insomnio meo primo me et sodalem, octopodem croceum, vigiles prope domum sequebatur. *...*
> beluosus.livejournal.com/2006/03/02/ - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
> [ More results from beluosus.livejournal.com ]*[PDF]* PADUAACITYONWATER File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> *Christi Natalis* MDXVIII”,. the construction date,. in front of it on the plinth. of the outside couple. of coloms there is another. inscription “Anno ante *...*
> www.padovanavigazione.it/downloads.php?id=9 - Supplemental Result - Similar pages


www.google.com


----------



## werrr

Whodunit said:


> ...
> How would you translate "ante Christum natum" literally then?
> ...


Maybe "vor geborenem Christ".


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> Sorry, but then I don't know what you want. I explained to you why Ante Christum natum is correct and I gave you other alternatives to express the same thing. I'm afraid I can't do anything else.


 
Okay, I misread your first post. I didn't notice that "Christus" had to be declined as well!  When I read "Christum" I always thought it would be neuter, which seemed a bit unnatural to me. I think it's all right now: "before the born Christ."

Thanks werrr, the German translation is clear, although I'd use "vor _dem geborenen_ Christ." 



> Of course it can be, but that doesn't preclude natalis from being used as well. I really don't understand what you have against it. Natalis gave rise to Portuguese Natal, Italian Natale and Catalan Nadal, all meaning Christmas, the birth of Christ. Natal as an adjective also means pertaining to one's place of birth. My Latin dictonary defines it "dia do nascimento" (day of birth)


 
Anyway, we should restrict our discussion to "ante Christum natum." If you (or I) want to elaborate on the natus vs. natalis issue, we should open a new thread.


----------



## jazyk

Natum is the accusative of natus. I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said it's the past participle of nascor, used as an adjective in the sentence Ante Christum natum.  It's also a (rare) noun, as you pointed out, similar to ortus, ortus, or natalis, natalis. 



> If it means "born," then it would mean that "Christum" is neuter.


How can Christum be neuter?  It ends in um because it's required by the preposition ante, which uses accusative.

This discussion is over for me.


----------



## judkinsc

"Christum natum" is an ugly construction.  If, as Jazyk argues, "christum" is being used as an adjective modifing "natum," and thus must agree in case, number, and gender as must all adjectives, then it sets a bad precedent for all nouns becoming adjectives.

Not all nouns should be used as adjectives, although English is a particularly bad example of this trend, as it happens frequently.

"Christus" is a noun that should remain only a noun.  The "christ birth" is something that I dislike reading about, from a purely grammatical and aesthetic point of view.


Regardless of my personal view on the construction, Jazyk's argument for why it is "ante christum natum" is possible and likely.

I also note that it looks better as this construction than "ante christi natum," which is the proper one.  The ending "i" on "christi" disrupts the visual appeal of the structure, which is preserved in "christum natum."


----------



## Flaminius

jazyk said:


> It's Ante Christum natum because natum, a past participle, is being used as an adjective here and hence has to agree in gender, number and case [.....]


I see.  The preposition _ante_ governs _Christus_, which should assume accusative.  Then, _natus_, in keeping with the agreement with the noun it modifies, assumes accusative, _natum_.



ireney said:


> Can I suggest something that would sound weird in English? After Chirst "birthed  " (being born). I know it's not exactly right and is not the best English ever, but I thought it might help explain "natum"


Ειρήνη, may I suggest slight modification to your translation?
ante Christum natum: before Christ being born.

Excepting this pedant's quibbling, you translatin makes everything clear.


----------



## judkinsc

The problem here is that the object of the preposition ante is grammatically conflicted.

Either _ante natum_ or _ante christum_ is correct Latin.

When, however, the two forms are added together, then the grammar becomes conflicted.  The correct way to solve this problem is to render the phrase as _ante christi natum_.  This leaves _natum_ as the object of the preposition _ante_, and places _christus_ into its genitive form, which then modifies _natum_.

In this case, however, the two were both placed into the accusative, which demands that the noun _christus _become an adjective modifying natum.  Which leaves us with "before christ birth" as the translation.  It is just as ugly in Latin.  The grammar is moving beyond the bounds of proper syntax here.

It cannot be anything else grammatically, although it attempts to appeal to a sense of the ablative absolute, which is something that it cannot be...

I can only surmise that this construction was created in an attempt to combine the sense of _ante natum_ and _ante christum _together into a more descriptive phrase.


----------



## Outsider

This is all a little over my head, since I don't know any Latin, but couldn't _natum_ be some kind of verb? A participle, "before Christ [was] born"?


----------



## judkinsc

Yes, it is the perfect participle of "_nascor, nasci, natus sum_" "to be born, to birth, to spring, etc".

The fourth principle part, as well.  Although, it's a deponent verb, so there appear to be only three above.

_Natus_, alone, can be translated as "having been born", "born", or, gapping the conjugated form of esse ("to be"), as "was born."  i.e. _natus est,_ "he was born."

It is also an adjective.  Almost all fourth principle parts of verbs in Latin are adjectives as well, through common usage as such.

_Ante,_ as a preposition, cannot modify a verb.  It must be a noun that it modifies.  Otherwise, it breaks the rules of syntax.

And that brings us to why this phrase is a syntactic mess.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:


> _Ante,_ as a preposition, cannot modify a verb.  It must be a noun that it modifies.


Couldn't the noun be _Christum_, though?


----------



## judkinsc

If _christum_ is the noun, then it is _ante christum._  This is "before Christ," which is a perfectly good phrase in Latin.

When you combine _natum _and_ christum_ beneath the influence of _ante_ though, one must modify the other.  Thus, the options are either for _natum_ or _christum _as the noun object of _ante._  The two translations are then "before the birth christ" and "before the christ birth".

The phrase "before the birth christ" leaves me scratching my head, since what the heck is a "birth christ?"  Word order in Latin made less difference, however, so the meaning is the same whether it is _natum christum _or_ christum natum_.  This suffices only to display the choice of noun object in English.  In Latin, there is only one option for the choice of noun object and that is _natum_.  _Christum_ cannot be the noun object, since then _natum_ is syntactically unrelated to the phrase.  To elaborate this:  the phrase would be "before christ" with something/someone "having been born" or who "was born" that was _not_ "Christ."

"Before the christ birth" is somewhat clearer, but still not good.  It treats "Christ" as if it were an adjective.  If that is the case, then constructions such as a "christ tire", "christ bread", "christ paper", and "christ dog" are perfectly acceptable as well.  And if anyone accepts these as proper, I challenge you to prove to me their meaning:  "Red" is an adjective;  "Christ" is not.


The only correct syntactic structure is _ante christi natum_.


Perhaps I have elaborated too much?

Simply, there is only one way for the phrase to work, and that is with _natum_ as the noun.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:


> If _christum_ is the noun, then it is _ante christum._  This is "before Christ," which is a perfectly good phrase in Latin.
> 
> When you combine _natum _and_ christum_ beneath the influence of _ante_ though, one must modify the other.  Thus, the options are either for _natum_ or _christum _as the noun object of _ante._  The two translations are then "before the birth christ" and "before the christ birth".


But you're still assuming that _natum_ is a noun... What if it's a verb?

"Before Christ born"

This makes sense to me, too, but maybe it's because my language is close to Latin. In English, I admit it doesn't sound as good.


----------



## judkinsc

A preposition cannot modify a verb.  It's a rule of syntax.  Try out "by to run" or "away to shop."

I edited my previous post several times.  It might be clearer now.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:


> The only correct syntactic structure is _ante christi natum_.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Simply, there is only one way for the phrase to work, and that is with _natum_ as the noun.


But you've just said the sentence -- the original one -- _doesn't_ work if _natum_ is assumed to be a noun!...



judkinsc said:


> A preposition cannot modify a verb.


Who said that _ante_ is modifying _natum_ in this sentence?


----------



## judkinsc

You can use a verb as a noun, that's when it becomes a participle or a gerund and it's no longer a verb.


You can't treat _natus_ as a verb here though.  If you treat it is as a verb and it makes any sense in the sentence, then you have syntactically used it, not as a verb, but as a noun.


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:


> But you've just said the sentence -- the original one -- _doesn't_ work if _natum_ is assumed to be a noun!...



Where did I say that?



Outsider said:


> Who said that _ante_ is modifying _natum_ in this sentence?



It has to.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:


> Where did I say that?


It's what I inferred from the passage I quoted above.

Not knowing enough Latin grammar to keep arguing, I shall bow out of this discussion.


----------



## modus.irrealis

This seems to be a Latin idiom of using the past participle like this. In  this dictionary entry, in section B.b., it has examples like

_ante hanc urbem conditam = _before the founding of this city
_ante urbem captam _[= before the taking of the city?]
_ante Epaminondem natum _[= before the birth of Epaminodas?]

So it seems to me that _Christum_ is governed by _ante_ and that _natus_ is a participle that modifies _Christum_.


----------



## werrr

judkinsc said:


> ...
> The only correct syntactic structure is _ante christi natum_.
> ...


Really? And what does it mean? To me, it means "before Christ's child" or "before Christ's son". The Latin term for "birth" is reather "natalis" than "natus".

Word for word English translation of "ante Christum natum" is "before born Christ". Maybe it's odd in English but Latin works differently.


----------



## judkinsc

"Before Christ having been born," is the usual way to render the participle palatable in English.

Don't say "was" though, if you want to stay accurate.  There is no verb in the phrase.


----------



## judkinsc

modus.irrealis said:


> So it seems to me that _Christum_ is governed by _ante_ and that _natus_ is a participle that modifies _Christum_.





Sounds good to me.  The way a name was used in this phrase is what I was hung up on.  The other examples reminded me of how it works.


----------



## Whodunit

judkinsc said:


> Sounds good to me. The way a name was used in this phrase is what I was hung up on. The other examples reminded me of how it works.


 
It's correct how modus.irrealis said it:

The word "natum" might be the PS (participium coniunctum, if I remember correctly) to "Christum," which is governed to the accusative by "ante." It could also be illustrated like this:

before Christ was born - antequam Christus natus est
before the born Christ - ante Christum natum

However, if you wanted to write "ante Christi natum," the word "natum" would be a noun (= the act of being born) and "Christi" would be the genitive to "natum:"

before Christ's brith

I still think that "ante Christi natum" would work well in Latin and that "natum" is possible as a noun, too.


----------



## werrr

Whodunit said:


> ...
> before Christ's brith
> 
> I still think that "ante Christi natum" would work well in Latin and that "natum" is possible as a noun, too.



... and I still think that "ante Christi natum" means something else. "Natus" as noun means "child", "descendant" or "son" (to be precise it's equivalent to German "der Geborene"). It's necessary to use different noun for "birth" (die Geburt).


----------



## judkinsc

There's no "one" translation for many things in Latin.  Latin is a language renown for multiple translations of the same text.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

jazyk said:


> It's Ante Christum natum because natum, a past participle, is being used as an adjective here and hence has to agree in gender, number and case with the noun it modifies, Christum, in the accusative required by the preposition ante.
> 
> Vor Christi Geburt would literally translate as Ante Christi natalem (from natalis, natalis, birth, Geburt, a noun).


 
I quite agree with you; classical Latin authors use this structure:
Cicero writes  : "Ante Romam conditam" 
and Caesar     : "Ante primam confectam vigiliam"
The participles "conditam" (  built) and "confectam" (got to the end ) agree with the nouns "Romam" and "primam vigiliam" (accusatives because of "ante" ) .
Word for word : "Before Rom being built"
                      "Before the first night watch being finished"

Therefore I think that "Ante Christum natum " is quite right and means "Before Christ was born" or "BC".


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

modus.irrealis said:


> This seems to be a Latin idiom of using the past participle like this. In this dictionary entry, in section B.b., it has examples like
> 
> _ante hanc urbem conditam = _before the founding of this city
> _ante urbem captam _[= before the taking of the city?]
> _ante Epaminondem natum _[= before the birth of Epaminodas?]
> 
> So it seems to me that _Christum_ is governed by _ante_ and that _natus_ is a participle that modifies _Christum_.


 
Excuse me Modus Irrealis; I haven't read your post before; I see you have already told what I am saying. I'll only add that "Ante Urbem conditam" is the usual phrase to express this founding event.


----------



## modus.irrealis

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Excuse me Modus Irrealis; I haven't read your post before; I see you have already told what I am saying. I'll only add that "Ante Urbem conditam" is the usual phrase to express this founding event.



No need. I didn't really say anything. I just posted the link to the dictionary since it discussed parallel constructions. (I personally was unfamilar with this construction before this topic.)


----------



## brian

Although this thread seems to have been somewhat overkilled , I'll just add that I agree with modus.irrealis's post.  This is a typical, specialized use of the perfect passive participle and it is treated in most grammars of Latin.  So in this case _ante_ is a preposition that takes the accusative, _christum_ is its accusative object, and _natum_ is the perfect passive (eh, deponent) participle (of _nascor_) and is accusative because it modifies _christum_.


----------



## Chelli5

Perhaps christum is genitive? 
Ante takes the accusitve and natum seems to be in the accusitive.  If christum itself is genitive then it would mean "before the birth of christ" which makes perfect sense in English.  I will say that I am only a 15year old in Latin 1, so my opinion may not matter much.


----------



## judkinsc

Chelli5 said:


> perhaps christum is genitive.?
> ante takes the accusitve and natum seems to be in the accusitive, if christum itself is genitive then it would mean "before the birth of christ" which makes perfect sense in english...i will say that i am only a 15 year old in latin 1, so my opinion may not matter much



Hadn't seen this thread in a while.

Christum can't be genitive, it's "Christus, -i", a masculine noun from the second declension; otherwise your suggestion would be fine if it were "natalem" instead of "natum." "Ante christi natalem" would be "before the birth of christ."

It's "before christ having been born", literally. But it makes better sense to think of it as "ante christum natum est", which is "before Christ was born".

natum = a perfect passive participle used as an adjective here. Easily modifiable into a sentence if you add the verb "esse" in some form. "esse" is gapped fairly often anyway.

Lots of explanations above. Ignore what I said before, mostly.

Looking back on this phrase makes me wonder why I argued so much about it before. I think I was writing after a bit of a break from reading Latin, a year or so, and hadn't gotten back into it yet.


----------

