# natum Iuppiter



## Whodunit

> Monstravit ei denique animam Caesaris Augusti: "Eum virum", inquit, "e gente tua natum Iuppiter populo Romano promisit."


 
"Monstravit" refers to a person mentioned before. Not important for this sentence. My question is about the direct speech:


"Iuppiter" is the nominative singular (and nothing else, I think), so does he _promise_ something to the Roman people?
Furthermore, I'm not sure about "natum" - what does it mean in this context?
And I have difficulty translating "eum virum"; for which word is this the object?
Thanks for your answers.


----------



## Brazilian dude

"Iuppiter" is the nominative singular (and nothing else, I think), so does he _promise_ something to the Roman people? - Yes.

Furthermore, I'm not sure about "natum" - what does it mean in this context? - Natum is the past participle of nasco, nascere, here with a future meaning and an implied esse.

And I have difficulty translating "eum virum"; for which word is this the object? - The verb promitto, promittere.

Thus: Jupiter, said he, promised to the Roman people that this man would be born from your kins/people.

Funny that virum in this case could be confused with virus, virum (venom, poison).  

Brazilian dude


----------



## Whodunit

Brazilian dude said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I'm not sure about "natum" - what does it mean in this context? - Natum is the past participle of nasco, nascere, here with a future meaning and an implied esse.


 
That's what confused me! I thought it meant "birth", which wouldn't have made any sense in the sentence given.



> And I have difficulty translating "eum virum"; for which word is this the object? - The verb promitto, promittere.


 
Okay, I thought there must be a conjunctional sentence (accusativus cum infinitivo), but in vain I searched for a second verb - which I couldn't find, because I considered "natum" to be a noun. 



> Thus: Jupiter, said he, promised to the Roman people that this man would be born from your kins/people.


 
Interesting that you used the subjunctive in English. Good idea. I think I'll go with your wording. 



> Funny that virum in this case could be confused with virus, virum (venom, poison).


 
There are always so many Latin words whose meanings cross each other!


----------



## Brazilian dude

> Interesting that you used the subjunctive in English. Good idea. I think I'll go with your wording. /


Nope, I used the conditional.

Brazilian dude


----------



## Whodunit

Brazilian dude said:
			
		

> Nope, I used the conditional.
> 
> Brazilian dude


 
Not much better! It's definitely not "conditional". It's the future in the past. I'm not sure if there's a term for that in English.


----------



## Brazilian dude

Conditional.

Brazilian dude


----------



## elroy

The term "conditional" is not normally used at all in discussions of English grammar, let alone in cases like this one - where there is nothing conditional about the "would."

We would call it "future in the past."  If there is a more elegant or academic term, I do not know of it - but it's certainly not "conditional."


----------



## Brazilian dude

That's the term that all English books I've worked with (and it's been 8 years) use, but I thought we were discussing Latin.

Brazilian dude


----------



## elroy

Whodunit was referring to your English translation.  I repeat, the term "conditional" is not used - in English - to describe _this_ "would."


----------



## Brazilian dude

Oh, first you meant general " 


> The term "conditional" is not normally used at all in discussions of English grammar


; now you are specific 





> I repeat, the term "conditional" is not used - in English - to describe _this_ "would."


. It's just hard to follow. Your _at all_ was just too emphatic, to which I said 





> That's the term that all English books I've worked with (and it's been 8 years) use, but I thought we were discussing Latin.


 
But I agree with you, in _this_ instance the semantically correct term is not _conditional_, but I was referring to its morphology. Anyway, none of this is important.

Brazilian dude


----------



## elroy

Sorry about the confusion.  

In my first sentence, the emphasis was supposed to be on "normally":



> The term "conditional" is not *normally* used at all in discussions of English grammar


 
What I meant by that is that when we who have not studied English as a foreign language discuss English grammar, the term "conditional," rarely, if ever, comes up.  I am, however, aware that it is used in the teaching of English as a foreign language - and I see that that's what you were referring to in post #8.

Hope that helps eliminate all misunderstandings.


----------



## Brazilian dude

I think it does.

Brazilian dude


----------



## kamome

"Jupiter - he said - promised to Romans that man, BORN _(natum/WHO WOULD BE BORN: past-in-the-future participle)_ among your Gens"

かもめ


----------



## Whodunit

kamome said:
			
		

> "Jupiter - he said - promised to Romans that man, BORN _(natum/WHO WOULD BE BORN: past-in-the-future participle)_ among your Gens"
> 
> かもめ


 
Your sentence doesn't make much sense to me. What did he promise?


----------



## kamome

sorry, I thought it was clear....so, then:

_"HE SAID THAT JUPITER HAD PROMISED ROMANS SUCH A MAN TO BE BORN IN FUTURE AMONG THE GENS_.......(omitted, we don't know which one, I assume it must be the family/Gens Julia, whom Caesar belonged to)_"_



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Your sentence doesn't make much sense to me. What did he promise?


​


----------



## judkinsc

Future historic, I'd call it.

Brazilian dude's translation of the Latin to English looks good to me.


----------

