# natum videte regem angelorum!



## dcx97

Hello,

Could someone translate "natum videte regem angelorum!" for me please?
And is "natum" (accusative of "natus") an adjective describing "regem", which I think is the accusative singular form "rex" (king")?

Thanks!


----------



## Pietruzzo

My try " (come and) witness that the King of angels has been born".


----------



## P2Grafn0l

_Natum_ is indeed accusative singular here, but in this sense, it is used as a masculine accusative singular perfect active participle...being the direct object of _videte _(the second-person plural present active imperative).
And I agree with Pietruzzo.


----------



## dcx97

Thanks, but if it were the direct object of "videte" it would have come after the imperative. I don't think the direct object can come before the verb if the verb is an imperative.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Apparently, the writer did deem it correct. 
And maybe the writer arranged it so, for the sake of flexibility.


----------



## bearded

dcx97 said:


> I don't think the direct object can come before the verb if the verb is an imperative.


Hi
I don't think that such a rule exists. There are many examples of accusative before an imperative, see e.g. here (from Plautus): An Abridgment of Ainsworth's Dictionary, English and Latin: _verum dic mihi. _
Besides, the actual direct object here is _regem - _coming _after_ the verb, _natum _being just a participle used as an adjective describing _regem _(and no doubt such a word can stand before the verb, due to the flexibility of Latin construction).


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> _natum _being just a participle used as an adjective describing _regem_


I tend to consider "natum" as the verb of the infinitive clause:
Videte angelorum regem natum (esse)


----------



## bearded

Pietruzzo said:


> I tend to consider "natum" as the verb of the infinitive clause:
> Videte angelorum regem natum (esse)


Yes, that may well be. Concerning word order, it can be situated before the imperative in any case, I believe.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

bearded said:


> Besides, the actual direct object here is _regem - _coming _after_ the verb, _natum _being just a participle used as an adjective describing _regem _(and no doubt such a word can stand before the verb, due to the flexibility of Latin construction).



But the participle being used as an adjective describing the actual direct object, is in the accusative case.
So would ' _Videte angelorum regem natum est '_ even work?
The sentence is about The Male Child named: Jesus Christ, and _Rex _is masculine, too.
Words connected to (a form of)_ esse _always go into the nominative case, or am I wrong?
Like this:
_Videte angelorum regem natus est. _= [Come and] Do see, The King of angels has been born. > View, ye, The King of angels has been born.


----------



## bearded

P2Grafn0l said:


> Videte angelorum regem natus est


No, in Latin there is a construction ''accusative + infinitive'' which renders subordinate objective clauses (in English normally introduced by ''that..''). The correct formulation is
1)either _Videte angelorum regem natum esse _or 2) _Videte! Angelorum rex natus est _(not suitable here).
In the first formulation (Pietruzzo's interpretation is very plausible) the participle ''natum'' could as well be placed before the imperative ''videte''.
The ''accusative+infinitive'' construction is typical for Latin, and you can find it illustrated in any good grammar handbook. See also  Accusative and infinitive.
A similar construction is possible also in English, e.g. _I thought him to be a friend._


----------



## P2Grafn0l

I did not know that in such a construction, even with the infinitive _esse_, an accusative+infinitive would be correct. 
Thanks for the wonderful explanation, Bearded. 
I had connected _angelorum_ and _regem _to _videte, _and consequently, I overlooked the fact that _natus est_ was incomplete, but part of a subconscious sentence of mine.  
That, and I didn't feel like using punctuation there. 

Here's the complete sentence that I, subconsciously, had in mind: 

_Videte angelorum regem, quia is natus est. = _View, ye, The King of angels, for He has been born. 

If this is wrong again, I would like to know what is.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

bearded said:


> Videte angelorum regem natum esse



I do not see how that translates as: 


Pietruzzo said:


> " (come and) witness that the King of angels has been born".


----------



## bearded

P2Grafn

Glad to be of help.
Your 'subconscious' sentence looks correct to me - though I'd omit the unnecessary ''is'.
A variant could be 'qui' (relative pronoun) instead of 'quia':  ...who has been born.

PS. What is not clear to you in Pietruzzo's translation? Perhaps ''witness''? I think it means ''see' in the sense of  be witnesses that... As concerns the 'accusative+infin.'' structure, I think he rendered it properly.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

_Videte angelorum regem natum esse. 
Videte angelorum regem natum fuisse._

The infinitive_ esse _is present active, and I find it very confusing that a present active infinitive gets rendered as "has been".

In addition_: 'Natus est' _I can view as "is born/ist geboren".


----------



## bearded

No, ''natus sum'' is perfect tense in Latin (I have been born), and ''natum esse'' is perfect infinitive.
Present is ''nascor'' (present infinitive is ''nasci''). In Latin it's intransitive, not passive.
''Natus fui'' would be plusquamperfect (= I had been born), infin.''natum fuisse''.
Tenses are a bit tricky in Latin - and different from English!

PS: Nascor is called 'verbum medium'', i.e. passive in form, but active/intransitive in meaning.
In English ''to be born'' is originally passive in meaning, hence the confusion.
I'll give you another (hopefully clearer) example of 'verbum medium':
Proficiscor = I leave/depart, profectus sum = I have left, scio eum profectum esse = I know that he has left.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Then why does Wiktionary say that the pluperfect can be made by: _nātus_ + imperfect active indicative of _sum?_


----------



## bearded

Please consider my above additions.  The imperfect thing is a different story, I'm afraid all this is too long to be explained here (you should consult a manual), also complicated by different terminologies in different languages.


----------



## Pietruzzo

P2Grafn0l said:


> Then why does Wiktionary say that the pluperfect can be made by: _nātus_ + imperfect active indicative of _sum?_


We'll have to agree with Wictionary, even if I don't quite understand why you're asking "why". As said above "nascor" is an intransitive verb with a passive form, i.e. the form is passive but the meaning is active.
Nascor - I come to life
Natus sum - I came to life
Natus eram - I had come to life
Nasci - to come to life
Natus esse - to have come to life
And so on


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Pietruzzo said:


> Natus eram - I had come to life





bearded said:


> ''Natus fui'' would be plusquamperfect (= I had been born)



I asked why, because of the above.
You two have given two plusquamperfects.


----------



## bearded

Well, in Latin 'eram' (imperfect) and 'fui' (past) differ from each other approximately like in English ''I was being'' and ''I was'' (English does not actually possess an imperfect tense...). To say ''he had been born'' (plusquamperfect) you can use ''natus erat'' or ''natus fuit'' according to context or other nuances.  Therefore, in a sense, Wiktionary is right... But since plusquamperfect is of no relevance for the OP sentence, please let's not go off-topic with demands for exhaustive Latin lessons in this forum!


----------



## radagasty

bearded said:


> ''Natus fui'' would be plusquamperfect (= I had been born), infin.''natum fuisse''.



This is incorrect. _Natus fui_ 'I was/have been born' (ich wurde geboren) is the perfect tense, roughly equivalent to _natus sum_, and _natum fuisse_ is the corresponding infinitive. To form the pluperfect (plusquamperfectum) from the _fu-_ stem would require _natus fueram _'I had been born', which is roughly equivalent to _natus eram_. There is no pluperfect infinitive.



bearded said:


> PS: Nascor is called 'verbum medium'', i.e. passive in form, but active/intransitive in meaning.



In English, 'deponent'.


----------



## bearded

Sorry, radagasty, I cannot agree that 'natus fui' and 'natus sum' are equivalent to each other. Anyway, I feel that a discussion on pluperfect is off topic here, and I will not continue.
And (contrary to #22) ..._natum esse_ is correct, whereas_ videte...natum fuisse_ is wrong (my opinion).


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Bearded, I do believe I understand the logic behind _natum esse_, yet _natum fuisse_ sounds more logical when the rendition is "has been born".


----------



## Pietruzzo

P2Grafn0l said:


> Bearded, I do believe I understand the logic behind _natum esse_, yet _natum fuisse_ sounds more logical when the rendition is "has been born".


Unfortunately there is no such thing as the infinitive pluperfect. We only have present (nasci), perfect (natus esse) and future (naturum esse).


----------



## radagasty

There are a number of (at times slight) misapprehensions in the last few posts above, so, without citing them individually, I shall attempt to set out the state of affairs, first of all pointing out that, where language is concerned, logic doesn't always prevail.

The normal way of forming the perfect is _natus sum_ 'I was/have been born.' The perfect infinitive is naturally _natus esse_.

An alternative way of forming the perfect, one perhaps more often encountered in verse, is _natus fui_, with the corresponding infinitive _natus fuisse_. Note that this latter is still a perfect infinitive, and not a pluperfect infinitive, which does not exist in Latin.

Naturally, there arises the question of whether these two forms of the perfect differ in meaning or nuance. It may be that the forms in _fu_- express a consequent state or a certain sense of anteriority. On the other hand, and especially in verse, they may be chosen seemingly for metrical reasons, with no difference in meaning.

What is clear, at any rate, is that all the forms mentioned above belong to the perfect tense. The pluperfect is usually formed _natus eram_, with an alternative form _natus fueram_, paralleling the two forms of the perfect. Again, no pluperfect infinitive exists.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

I have not said there was a thing called "the infinitive pluperfect", have I?
It is settled then, I will go for the alternative way, as I was heading there already.


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Pietruzzo said:


> Your red cross is still upon my shoulders though.



I have deleted the red cross, Pietruzzo.


----------



## bearded

Pietruzzo said:


> We only have present (nasci), perfect (natus esse) and future (naturum esse).


Contrary to my intention, I'm induced to briefly discuss the topic of pluperfect infinitive.
There are several examples of _natus/-m fuisse _(see also #25 above), especially in late Latin. E.g. Cornelii Nepotis opera.  We usually call it pluperfect infinitive (infinitum plusquamperfectum) to distinguish it from _natus/-um esse.  _In British terminology, it is apparently still a perfect infinitive.



Pietruzzo said:


> I tend to consider "natum" as the verb of the infinitive clause: videte angelorum regem natum (esse)


An alternative interpretation could be to regard _natum _as a nominalized adjective/participle (the baby/the newly born one):
_Natum videte regem angelorum! _See the king of angels just born! ('natum' would be a predicative of the object).


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> There are several examples of _natus/-m fuisse _


I see. Thanks for the clarification. But wouldn't it be used after a perfect tense? Eg "viderunt regem natum fuisse".


----------



## bearded

Pietruzzo said:


> I see. Thanks for the clarification. But wouldn't it be used after a perfect tense? Eg "viderunt regem natum fuisse".


Yes, preferably.  But mostly in case of an action preceding something that already happened in the past.
_Dixerunt eum anno tertio natum esse.  Dixerunt eum ante urbem conditam (iam) natum fuisse_ (late Latin).
I just meant to say that the form exists, not that it is applicable to the OP sentence.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all

Sorry to butt in here, but this...


Pietruzzo said:


> But wouldn't it be used after a perfect tense? Eg "viderunt regem natum fuisse"


...cannot be allowed to pass. It is a firm principle of indirect speech (_oratio obliqua_) in Latin that the tense of the infinitive in the Acc. + Infin. construction reflects the tense of the statement or belief that is being reported, irrespective of the tense of the verb that introduces and governs the clause. See A&G [available in Perseus] §§ 577ff.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> irrespective of the tense of the verb that introduces and governs the clause.


Scholiast is right! My ''preferably'' was not quite accurate.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Don't expect the passage to follow classical Latin rules. It's late Church Latin.  The words come from "Adeste Fideles", the Latin version of the Christmas Carol "Oh come all ye faithful!". 

The Latin version was written by John Francis Wade (1711-86), who fled England after the 1745 Jacobite rebellion to teach music in the school for British Roman Catholic exiles in Douai in France. The English translation was made by Frederick Oakley and William Brooke in 1841. The tune ‘Adeste Fideles’ is usually attributed to Samuel Webbe, and dated to 1782. But it is has also been ascribed to Wade himself or to the French composer Charles Favart.

_Adeste, fideles,
Laeti triumphantes,
Venite, venite in Bethlehem!
*Natum videte,
Regem angelorum*
Venite, adoremus!
Venite, adoremus!
Venite, adoremus Dominum!_

Oh come all ye faithful,
Joyful and triumphant.
Oh, come ye, oh come ye to Bethlehem!
*Come and behold Him
Born the king of angels*
Oh come let us adore Him
(Etc)
Oh come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!



I have sung the Latin version thousands of times!


----------



## bearded

I find that the English version doesn't cast much light on the syntactic Latin construction.  If the comma after _videte _is really there in the original text, one might even interpret the sentence as ''See (look at) the baby, come, let's adore the king of angels!'' - where the accusative _regem _would be governed by the subsequent _adoremus_, and not by _videte _any more...
In any case, I agree that the late-Latin construction of this text does not satisfactorily comply with the rules of classical Latin - maybe intentionally so, as it is more suitable for a sung text than for a solely written composition.


----------



## Kevin Beach

It was written for singing. The comma may be a later addition by publishers or printers. Unfortunately, it is one of those places where the musical phrasing is allowed to dictate the verbal phrasing.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again


Kevin Beach said:


> It was written for singing. The comma may be a later addition by publishers or printers


Quite so. One may also remark that the word _natus_, though originally a past participle (from _nascor_, _nasci_) already has a respectable pedigree as a noun in its own right in classical Latin, from as early as Naevius and Ennius (my source for this is the _Oxford Latin Dictionary_ (1968-75)).
Σ


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> One may also remark that the word _natus_, though originally a past participle (from _nascor_, _nasci_) already has a respectable pedigree as a noun in its own right in classical Latin, from as early as Naevius and Ennius (my source for this is the _Oxford Latin Dictionary_ (1968-75)).
> Σ


Good to know!  The last part of my above #28 is not at all far-fetched then.


----------

