erant autem uterque nudi

By Gnaeus Marcius, in 'Latin Beginners', Apr 11, 2018.

  1. Gnaeus Marcius New Member

    I'm looking at two slightly different versions of the Vulgate, and am just wondering about the use of 'nudi' here:

    erant autem uterque nudi Adam scilicet et uxor eius et non erubescebant
    Alternate: Erat autem uterque nudus, Adam scilicet et uxor eius: et non erubescebant.

    In the first version, nudi is used. I was curious why they changed it so I looked up nudi, and gives these possible uses of it:

    1. nominative masculine plural of nūdus
    2. genitive masculine singular of nūdus
    3. genitive neuter singular of nūdus
    4. vocative masculine plural of nūdus

    Since it is talking about Adam and his wife, I don't see how any of those are grammatically appropriate - it can't be singular because it's talking about him and his wife, but according to that list nudi can only be masculine in the plural. Should it not be in the neuter since it refers to both male and a female?
  2. Pacifica grammaticissima

    • Civis Illustris
    Erat uterque nudus is more regular Latin because uterque is singular—it means literally "either" though it's often natural to translate it as "both" in English. Erat uterque nudus = "either [of them] was naked".

    Erant uterque nudi is slightly less regular, taking the plural subject but throwing in the singular uterque, sort of like "they were, either [of them], naked".

    It shouldn't be neuter. The default gender for people (i.e. the gender used when speaking about a mixed-gender group or when the gender is unspecified) is the masculine. The neuter is the default gender for things.
    Gutavulfus likes this.
  3. Gnaeus Marcius New Member

    Ah. I think I vaguely remember that mentioned early in Wheelock's and others (I have a few on the go but haven't read any in full yet) but evidently forgot. Thank you.

    Incidentally, the first version is St Jerome's, the second from what I gather is a modern revision in the public domain.
  4. Pacifica grammaticissima

    • Civis Illustris
    So I thought. The newer version must be the Nova Vulgata.
  5. Gnaeus Marcius New Member

    It's the Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV). According to the site a number of versions were consulted in the translating process, with the 1914 Hetzenauer edition of the Vulgate as the main source.
  6. Gnaeus Marcius New Member

    Now that you mention it, I'll probably be using the Nova Vulgata as my main point of reference from hereon. I've been looking into different versions and trying to determine which is most accurate. Apparently there is a glaring mistranslation in the older Latin versions in which it changes 'he' (as in her seed, the coming Messiah) to 'she': And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15)

    Of all the ones I've referenced only the Nova Vulgata corrects this.

Share This Page


Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.

Latin Boards on this Forum:

English to Latin, Latin to English translation, general Latin language, Latin grammar, Latine loquere, ancient and medieval world links.