It came to pass...

[GVR2]

How does one put into Latin, "It came to pass that ...." Does one have to use a ut clause after factum est? Or can it run on simply as factum est ...

Thanks.

[adrianus]

Salve GVR2

I think "ut" (alternatively "quod") should be given.
Nisi fallor, "ut" (vel "quod") suppeditandum est.

Factum est ut / Evenit ut / Accidit* ut / Processit ut / Contigit ut / Obtigit ut

*Gratias tibi, ptolemyauletes, de emendatione.

[GVR2]

Thank you very much for the quick response. Would the following be proper Latin?
factum est ut postridie mane diceret maior ad minorem

[adrianus]

I'd be interested in what others might say, but the sentence seems good to me at least. The dative ("minori') is better than "ad aliquem" which is OK in later latin.

De hâc re id mihi curae sit quod alii dicant, at bonam equidem habeo illam sententiam. Dativo casu ("minori") utere, ante "ad aliquem" quod reverâ post aevum classicum dici potest.

"It happened that, early on the following day, the older one was speaking to the younger." vel "minori"
Is that your intended meaning? // Visne sic dicere?

[GVR2]

Thank you ever so much, adrianus. Yes, that is what I meant. I- and a friend - started trying to learn Latin on our own about a year ago. I started on some composition but I tired of North and Hillard filled with military stuff. So I decided to try my hand at translating the book of Genesis from the Hebrew. I do my translation and then compare it with the vulgate. This sentence is from Genesis 19-34. Jerome does frequently say, "dixit ad aliquem.."

Thank you ever so much for responding in both English and in Latin. It is an inspiration to me!

[Damoetas]

This phrase, "It came to pass," is (I think) generally agreed to be a Hebraism, since it is especially common in Greek and Latin versions of the Bible (and translations of them). Glancing through Luke 2 in the Vulgate, I see that factum est is usually followed by 1) some kind of temporal clause to give the setting, and then 2) a finite verb. Examples:

Factum est autem in diebus illis exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus orbis (2.1).

Factum est autem cum essent ibi impleti sunt dies ut pareret (2.6).

Et factum est ut discesserunt ab eis angeli in caelum pastores loquebantur ad invicem ... (2.15 - NB. the ut-clause is temporal).

Et factum est post triduum invenerunt illum in templo sedentem in medio doctorum ... (2.46).

It would take a bit more study to see if this construction has many classical parallels (it probably occurs occasionally, but it's certainly not common), and whether or not an ut + subjunctive clause is normally used with it, and how it might be used elsewhere in the Vulgate.

[adrianus]

See / Vide A&G, §568 n.2 praeter "facio" vel "fit" + "ut"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hdLoMc6a9loC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=verbs+and+phrases+taking+an+ut+clause&source=bl&ots=Ur7i8_To-b&sig=PQLR9wNOpd0Bj_vjMbvhXWrqoXE&hl=en&ei=aD-gS7mKN6i80gS0-vyTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=verbs%20and%20phrases%20taking%20an%20ut%20clause&f=false

id fieri potest ut recte quis sentiat....
potest fieri ut iratus dixerit...
nec fieri possit ut non statim alienatio facienda sit

[Damoetas]

True.... But don't you think these expressions in the Vulgate are something fundamentally different? It's almost like they serve a larger "discourse function" in the narrative, as in, moving the story forward to it's next major component.... And in the four examples I looked at (an admittedly small sample!), they seemed like little more than "place holders" for the setting element, holding you over until a real main verb comes. I'm pretty sure there is a Hebrew (or Aramaic) expression that this is directly imitating; but they're using the resources that already existed in Latin, but for different purposes (as your A&G examples show).

So, to GVR2 (the original poster): I suppose it depends on whether you want your translation to imitate the style of the Vulgate, or of Ciceronian Latin.

[adrianus]

True.... But don't you think these expressions in the Vulgate are something fundamentally different?

Yes, indeed. In the Vulgate I now see "Factum est" + indicative for "It happened that", and "Ita factum est ut" + subj. for "Thus it was done in order that"

Rectè dicis. Duo sensus separes in Bibliâ Sacrâ Vulgatâ nunc video. "Factum est" cum verbo sequenti et indicativo modo , et "Ita factum est ut" cum verbo subjunctivo modo.

[thesaurus]

I'm pretty sure there is a Hebrew (or Aramaic) expression that this is directly imitating

In Hebrew you have "vayahi." As some website puts it:
Hebraice est "vayahi." Ut nescioqui situs interretialis dicit:

Genesis 11:1 in Hebrew starts out with the words, Vayahi, which is generally used to start a new narrative, especially a story. It is almost the equivalent of our “once upon a time.” Literally, it means “And there was.”

[adrianus]

§134. (a) The Noun-Clause: (1) as Subject, attached to the main sentence by ut or quod. In English the Subject is expressed provisionally by "it" and the clause containing the logical Subject is introduced by "that". It follows Verbs used impersonally, as est, factum est, absit, accidit, paenitet, etc., and the Subordinate Verb is in the Subjunctive: thus "mihi pro minimo est ut a vobis iudicer" I Cor. 4.3, "manifestum...quod ex Iuda ortus sit Dominus" Hebr. 7.14, ..."factum est...ut intraret"...Lk.6.6

According to Plater & White, otherwise the construction is "Factum est et" ["Factum est...et ipse stabat" Lk.5.1] but the "et" is often dropped in the New Testament and the Verb is in the Indicative ("sometimes this arises from the Greek"), especially when a cum clause intervenes. (p.119)

Secundum Plater & White (A Grammar of the Vulgate, 1926), plerumque "et" conjunctio includitur: "factum est et..." quae saepè in Novo Testamento omittitur, praesertìm clausulâ per "cum" intercedenti.

"Obs. 3...in Latin an infinitive is commonly subjoined to impersonal verbs or the subjunctive with "ut"..."accidit, evenit, contigit ut ibi essemus" (p.189)

[Damoetas]

According to Plater & White, otherwise the construction is "Factum est et" ["Factum est...et ipse stabat" Lk.5.1] but the "et" is often dropped in the New Testament and the Verb is in the Indicative ("sometimes this arises from the Greek"), especially when a cum clause intervenes. (p.119)

That part seems especially applicable....

Vayahi cum hoc legissem mihi persuasum est, et ecce surrexi et ... meum Vulgatum ipse scribere coepi
And it came to pass that when I had read this I was persuaded, and behold I arose and ... began to write my own Vulgate!

[adrianus]

facio 15c (pf. pass) to have come about (that)...
c Paene factum est, quin castra relinquerent QUAD. hist.58 [Claudius Quadrigarius, priscis primi saeculi annis ante aevum commune];
hinc factum est, ut usus anulorum exemptus dexterae...in laeuam relegaretur CAP.iur.10 [Ateius Capito, consul, anno domini quinto];

What you wrote earlier, GVR2, definitely seems to me proper latin (still myself preferring "minori", though).

Reverâ GVR2, quod priùs scriptus es ("Factum est ut postridie mane diceret maior ad minorem" scilicet) verum latinum mihi videtur (etsi etiam "minori" praeferendum est, ut opinor).

Meo in exemplo vulgatae editionis (Hetzenhauer, 1922), hoc scribitur

Altera quoque die dixit major ad minorem ("Likewise on the next/another day the older one said to the younger")

Where does the "early" come from and "It came to pass" (in St. James)? The Hebrew?
Unde venit "manè" et "factum est"? Hebraicâ linguâ?

[ptolemyauletes]

Latin usually uses such phrases as 'evenit ut' or 'accidit ut' followed by the subjunctive for 'it came to pass' or 'it happened that'.

[adrianus]

Et Processit ut / Contigit ut / Obtigit ut
All are possible // Omnia possibilia sunt

[GVR2]

Where does the "early" come from and "It came to pass" (in St. James)? The Hebrew?

In Hebrew (I apologize for my transcription) the first two words of Gen. 19.34 are "vyihi mimmaħarath" which King James translates as "And it came to pass on the morrow." "mimmaħrath" according to Gesenius (who cites this verse) means on the morrow whereas for the general definition of "maħrath" he gives "morrow (the day following a past day). I translated "mimmaħrath" as “postridie mane.”

[adrianus]

"Postridie" is enough for "on the morrow", I think. "Postridie mane" would be "the following morning".
Sufficit "postridiè" pro anglicè "on the morrow". "Postridiè manè" spatium temporis ante meridiem die sequenti dicere vult, puto.

(I just noticed that I sanctified King James!) And ptolemyauletes is right indeed that the impersonal verbs "evenit ut" or "accidit" are more often seen than "factum est" but that doesn't mean "factum est" isn't good.

(Modò animadverti me Jacobum Regem sanctificasse!) Rectè dicit ptolemyauletes de usu verborum "evenit" atque "accidit" impersonale; malum autem non est eodem loco "factum est" poni.

[ptolemyauletes]

Sorry Adrianus, I just realised I had somehow missed your second post in this thread, where you had already suggested the suggestions I just gave.

[adrianus]

But you did a good thing, because I accidentally wrote "accessit" not "accidit" above. I can't explain why, when "accidit" is so much used, but I did. So you corrected the mistake. Thanks. I'll correct above.

At bonum factus es, quià perperàm "accessit" non "accidit" scriptus eram (cur id factus sim ignoro, tàm naturale est "accidit"; interim erravi) et erratum emendasti. Statim suprà corrigam. Gratias tibi ago.