Latin Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When discussing things "running in the blood", I suggested the word ingenitus for "innate", while Tom Cotton preferred innatus.
Is there a difference in meaning between these two words? The second one is clearly the origin of English "innate", via French.
EDIT: I'm specifically referring to the versions of these words meaning "innate" (prefixed with in- "in"), not the versions meaning "not having been born" (prefixed with in- "not").
Literally innatus is 'in-born' and ingenitus is 'begotten.'
In favour of ingenitus is the idea of a bloodline, a family continuity.
'claro sanguine genitus' Seneca Tragedies
source Dictionarium novum Latino-Gallicum, etc By Gui TACHARD (free e-book)also Ainsworth (Archive facsimile)
But the bigger problem in answering this question is scientific. When Harvey argued the case for the circulation of the blood round the heart/ lungs/ limbs, rather than and push and pull within the body 'flow' took on a new meaning. In classical Latin the flow of blood is copious (Caesar, Livy) but it is always out of the gashes and wounds of battle and treachery, and over the face, onto bodies, the earth.
As far as I can see, both ingenitus and innatus are found only in Christian authors, when debating things like whether the Holy Ghost is born or unborn. I am not able to perceive any difference in meaning, but perhaps there is some theological distinction that escapes me. Both are transparent derivatives of genitus (ppp. of gigno) and (g)natus (ppp. of nascor) respectively, themselves from the same root, IE full-grade *ǵen(H)- and zero-grade *ǵn(H)-, though they are of course separate words in Latin.
