# Natus ex Virgo



## armank05

As a free standing title for a piece of writing, does "natus ex virgo" translate accurately to "born of a/the virgin"? Thanks for your help.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings!

Following the preposition _ex_ the ablative case is needed: _virgine_.


----------



## armank05

Great, thank you so much.


----------



## se16teddy

The phrase _ex (Maria) virgine _is very familiar from (at least) a couple of very well known hymns: 
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudete
- http://www.allcarols.com/u/up_good_christen_folk_and_listen.html


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!



se16teddy said:


> The phrase _ex (Maria) virgine _is very familiar from (at least) a couple of very well known hymns



"a couple..." is good:

"et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto _ex Maria Virgine_, et homo factus est" is one of the central tenets of the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, which has been set to music innumerable times since the dawn of modern music.


----------



## bibax

Another possibility: *natus de virgine*


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!

bibax is quite right: in the well-known mediaeval hymn - frequently set to music by, among others, Mozart and Schubert - we find "Ave verum corpus, natum _de_ Maria Virgine...", though the words of the Creed (translated from the original Greek presumably in the late 4th century AD) seem to distinguish between the roles of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin at the Incarnation by the use of the contrasting prepositions _de_ and _ex_ (though the Greek original applies the same preposition, ἐξ (= Latin _ex_) to both).

This moves me to wonder whether _*de* Maria..._ in the mediaeval hymn is but a late-Latin formulation influenced by the native Romance language of the poet who composed the hymn, and is therefore not "strictly" classical. But I am no expert in late/mediaeval Latinity, so would be interested in the views of anyone who is.


----------



## bibax

In Classical Latin the preposition *de* can express origin as well. Compare:

*de Cecrope natae* (= three daughters of Cecrops, _Ovidius_)


----------



## XiaoRoel

Pero *de* es más general. *Ex* indica perfectamente la salida de dentro afuera el nasciturus/natus. En Ovidio la elección léxica debe ser por razones métricas.


----------



## Cagey

XiaoRoel said:


> Pero *de* es más general. *Ex* indica perfectamente la salida de dentro afuera el nasciturus/natus. En Ovidio la elección léxica debe ser por razones métricas.


My attempt to put this in English, in case it is helpful to anyone. 
But _de_ is more general.  _Ex_ perfectly indicates the [exist] < exit > from the  inside outwards of the newborn child/ natus.  In Ovid, the lexical  choice must be for metrical reasons.  

(I hope XiaoRoel will tell me about any errors.)


*Edit*: Correct typo. Thank you Spharadi below.


----------



## Spharadi

should be read "indicates the exit" ---> indica la salida


----------



## Outsider

In essence, Xiao is suggesting that _ex_ translates more precisely as "out of", whereas _de_ is just "of".

I'm not sure I agree with him. There is room for ambiguity; I expect that the two prepositions could be translated as "from" as well, which covers both senses. I find it more likely that they were essentially synonymous in this context.


----------



## CapnPrep

Outsider said:


> I find it more likely that they were essentially synonymous in this context.


I would tend to agree. L&S give examples of _ex_, _de_, and _ab _(rare), and with the ablative alone (especially with proper names). Ovid seems to prefer _de_, even when the meter would allow _ex_:Neque enim est *de* tigride natus (_Met._ 9.613)​In fact I didn't notice any uses of _ex_ out of 100 or so occurrences of _nascor_ in the _Metamorphoses_ (but I only had a very quick look, and many of them involve the noun _natus_ anyway).


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

Quite right, CapnPrep (#13), but this does not quite tell the whole story.


> *nascor*, nātus, nasci ... _to be born, to be begotten_ (of or by male or female).
> *I.  	    * *Lit.*; constr. with _ex_ or _de_ and abl., or with abl. alone; rarely with _ab_ and abl.
> 
> *1.  	    * With _ex_ and abl. (*esp. with name or other appellation of the mother*)... [my emphasis]
> 
> *2.  	    * With _de_ and abl...



Xiao may object that Lewis & Short are outdated, but for this purpose it hardly matters: seventeen instances (from Terence to the Vulgate, with Cicero, Val. Max., Seneca, Tacitus, Juvenal among others on the way) are cited of _ex_ + an ablative mother + _nasci_, four of _de_ - three of them from Ovid - and the citation offered by bibax (#8) does not quite carry weight, because Cecrops was the male parent.

I respectfully suggest, therefore, that _tendentially_ (to put it no more strongly), in the context of conception and birth, classical usage prefers _de_ for the male, "causative", progenitor, _ex_ for the mother.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Todos ,os problemas son efectos de adecuación del latín (LO, lengua de origen) en su traducción a las lenguas modernas (LD, lengua de destino). El que no correspondan nuesras categorías con las del latín causa estas perplejidades, malas traducciones y definiciones poco claras en diccionarios y gramáticas. Pero en latín las cosas son muy claras. El conjunto de las tres preposiciones que indican la procedencia, y que rigen siempre un ablativo propiamente dicho, en puridad (aparte de motivaciones métricas o estilísticas) tienen estos sendos valores (de los que derivan los distintos usos):
Las tres responden a la cuestión unde? ('¿de dónde?'), expresan el alejamiento a partir de algo. Pero *de* sólo tiene este valor general, mientras que ex y ab son más precisas: *ex* (gr. ὲκ) indica el alejamiento a parir del interior y *ab* (gr. ὰπό) desde el exterior. De esto se deduce que de, término semánticamente neutro, se puede usar por ab o por ex.
*De* se usará cuando los semas interior/exterior no tengan importancia para el emisor del discurso (o para el receptor). Cuando la idea de "exterioridad/cercanía" o la _interioridad_ sean pertinentes en el mensaje se usarán respectivamente *ab* o *ex*.
La estructura que elijamos para traducir estos valores en nuestras lenguas modernas no significa que tal estructura exista en latín como sinonimia o polisemia que, repito, sólo existen como hechos de traducción.


----------



## Cagey

My attempt to render XiaoRoel's post in English:
All these problems are the effect of the adaptation of Latin (LO, the language of origin [=original language]) in its translation to the modern languages (LD, language of destination [= target language]).  That fact that our categories don't correspond with those of Latin causes these perplexities, bad translations, and definitions that not very clear in dictionaries and grammars.  The set of the three prepositions that indicate the origin, and that strictly speaking always take an ablative, in truth (apart from metrical or stylistic reasons) have these two distinct values/meanings (from which the different uses derive): The three respond to the question _unde_ (from where?) they express the separation from something.  But *de* alone has this general meaning, while *ex* and *ab* are more precise. *ex* (gr. ὲκ) indicates the removal/ separation  of birth from within, and *ab* (gr. ὰπό) from the exterior.  From this one deduces that *de*, a semantically neutral term, can be used for *ab* or *ex*. 

*De* would be used when the meanings 'interior/exterior' have no importance for the producer of the discourse (or for the recipient).  When the idea of 'exteriority/nearness' or the _interiority_ would be pertinent in the message, *ab* or *ex* respectively would be used. 

The structure which we chose to translate these meanings in modern languages does not mean that such a structure exists in Latin as a synonym or polysemia that, I repeat, exist only as constructs of translation.​


----------



## XiaoRoel

Cagey, gratias tibi ago.


----------

