Salvete!
It’s been a while, but I’m back again with a query which, once it’s been answered by someone else, will no doubt seem obvious in retrospect!
It’s to do with the perfect passive participle and whether it can be used with esse to indicate the present.
For example,
“Catena qua canis vincitur ex ferro facta est”
Can facta est be translated as both “was made” and “is made”? Can it be both the perfect passive indicative and a form of the perfect passive participle?!
Thanks,
Einhard.
Salve Einharde
Yes.
You can also say, “Catena quâ canis vincitur ferro est.”
Ita est. Et hoc tibi dicere licet.
Not really. It is possible to read it as a predicate adjective, but more normal as a periphrastic.
“Is made” in English (even though it is literally an equivelant construction) doesn’t carry enough of a past tense connotation on behalf of the word “made” to be a good equivelant in meaning. Therefore it makes more sense just to translate it as “was made”.
“is made” is a present passive in english (and would be faciat in latin). However, if you were parsing facta as a predicate adjective (like gallia divisa est/gaul is divided) than you could indeed translate it as “is made from iron.” I don’t recommend this translation, though. It is not as clear as if a/ab were used to designate agent (passive sentences are an inversion of actant/patient where the patient becomes the subject and the actant, if present, is introduced by “by” in english a/ab in latin, hypo in greek, par in french, etc), but “was made from Iron” where facta forms a periphrastic with “to be” is a better and more natural reading than parsing facta as a predicate adjective.
In Plautus’s “E rubigine est, non è ferro factum” (Rudens, 5.3.14) what difference if you translate “is made” or “was made” in English? If anything, it works better in the present there, I think.
In Plauti comoediâ Rudens nomine, habes hoc: “E rubigine est, non è ferro factum”. Quid refert an anglicè vertas per tempus praesens? Meliùs istîc per praesens, dico.
I totally agree with Adrianus. A perfect passive verb is very often defined as a past action that has resulted in a present state. In Einhard’s sentence the phrase can, and in fact should be translated thusly:
Catena ex ferro facta est The chain is made of iron.
Latin Perfect passive verbs are periphrastic. Latin does not actually have a perfect passive verb, at least not in the way that it clearly has a perfect active verb (feci). Rather it uses a perfect passive participle in conjunction with the verb to be (factum esse). A true translation of the sentence would be thus:
Catena ex ferro facta est The chain is having been made from iron.
What sort of chain is it? It is a having been made of iron chain. It is a facta ex ferro chain.
When you think about it, this corresponds exactly to the English translation, ‘The chain is made of iron’, which some seem to be worried is in the present tense. Technically it isn’t.
The chain is made from iron. ‘is’ is certainly present tense, but ‘made’ is a perfect passive participle, corresponding exactly to the Latin ‘facta.’
A true present tense sentence would be ‘The chain is being made out of iron.’
The problem is, English has many more subtle distinction in tense than Latin.
Perfect passives can be translated either as a true past tense, or with a present tense, depending on context.
‘domus deleta est’ can clearly be translated as ‘The house was destroyed.’ Even though it is true to say that the past action has resulted in a present state of a destroyed house, there is no house left, and it works better to say the house was destroyed. However, one could justify translating domus deleta est as ‘the house is destroyed’. That’s what kind of house it is.
However, if one was talking about the construction of the house, and stated ‘domus e lapide facta est’, this is clearly best translated as ‘the house is made of stone’, unless the context is historical… it really depends on context.
First, I think your citation is wrong. I have that line as 5.2.
Second, my version has e robigine, non est e ferro factum
Finally, the line ought to be translated as a past tense: “from rust, not from iron [this] was made.”
Hence “is made” which is present passive, is not an adequate translation. A perfect passive is not translated as a present passive, even if it is perfective in aspect (and latin does not distinguish between a perfective past and a simple past).
In Einhard’s sentence the phrase can, and in fact should be translated thusly:
Catena ex ferro facta est The chain is made of iron.
You are misunderstanding not only the perfect tense in general but specifically the latin perfect. In english (and greek) the perfect is a past completed action with present implications. However, it is still a PAST action. Even in a language which distinuishes between a simple past of some sort and a perfect, a perfect passive should be translated a past tense. The french perfect lacks a “simple past” and is thus used in this capacity. Yet when made passive it is NOT translated into an english present tense. The same is true in German (where the perfect and simple past have no real difference). In greek, there IS a difference between the aorist and perfect, yet STILL we do no translate a perfect passive with an english present.
The best translation is “the chain WAS MADE from iron” nor “is made.”
Latin Perfect passive verbs are periphrastic. Latin does not actually have a perfect passive verb
Only it does. That is like saying we don’t have a future, because our future (will go, will make, etc) is periphrastic. The perfect passive is like english, german, french, greek, italian, and others in that some tenses are formed with auxiliaries. This does not mean they aren’t full verbs.
Catena ex ferro facta est The chain is having been made from iron.
This is to mistake constructions, which play a large part in grammar (see the various works of Fillmore, Croft, Croft & Cruse, Goldberg, etc). The english future tense originated from the volitional “will,” as in “it is my will that this be done.” However, it is now used purely as an auxiliary to form a future tense, where the auxiliary is semantically bleached, providing only the tense.
What sort of chain is it? It is a having been made of iron chain. It is a facta ex ferro chain.
When you think about it, this corresponds exactly to the English translation, ‘The chain is made of iron’, which some seem to be worried is in the present tense. Technically it isn’t.
“The chain was made from iron” allows for the past tense and the passive tense of the periphrastic construction. Why on earth would you choose a present tense passive over this?
Thanks for the replies everyone. I can see why some would say that “is made” is incorrect, or at least less correct. It seems to be something of a grey area, governed by subjective opinion rather than absolute grammatical rules. The sentence itself illustrates this. It comes from Lingua Latina, and the surrounding text is in the present tense. Thus, I thought that “The chain was made”, while technically correct, would be slightly incongruous. I suppose it really depends on what makes sense in translation.
You’re right.
Rectè dicis.
“Why on earth”??
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae… >
All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae occupy…
Why translate “All Gaul was divided into three parts”? Can you find a published translation in English that does, oberon?
Cur aliter quàm sic anglicè vertas? Potesne, ô oberon, exemplum in traductione anglicâ invenire quod sic facit?
Why translate “All Gaul was divided into three parts”? Can you find a published translation in English that does, oberon?
[/quote]
Did you even read what I said?
I said that when parsing sum+ participle you can parse it as a predicate adjective. Sometimes, as in gallia divisa est this is the best reading. However, this is the exception, not the rule. The periphrastic perfect passive is “was X” not “is X.” Only when you assume that the participle is to be read as a predicate adjective should est or other forms of sum be understood as verbs independent of a passive construction.
As for translations, a quick look through Plautus translations reveals past tense translations of your quote.
There are times when what looks like a periphrastic passive past should be interpreted as “to be”+ participle-as-adjective. This isn’t one of them. “The chain was made from iron” is more natural not only for latin but also in english.
I think that as an independent sentence, then “the chain was made from iron” is indeed more correct. However, as you acknowledge oberon, it’s sometimes best to translate as a predicate nominative rather than a periphrastic, and within the context of the surrounding sentences in the passge, I think this may be one of those times. It’s good to know though that it is something of a grey area, and that, in certain circumstances, one would not be entirely wrong to choose “is made” rather than the alternative.
Different editors divide the scenes in different way. Schneider (Rudens, 1824) and Riley (The Comedies of Plautus, 1881) have it in 5.3. I didn’t check it in Leo (where it’s 5.2) or Lindsay.
Redactores variè inter se scaenas dividunt. Recensiones de Schneider et de Riley, non Leonis nec de Lindsay, citò consultavi.
I know. Nothing wrong with that. I say the present tense might be better in modern English and reflect better the sense in Latin. Note that an older translation may use “has been made” rather than “was made” to convey the sense of “present perfect” in English.
Id scio. Licet. Quoàd attinet ad sensum loci fideliorem, per linguam nostrorum dierum anglicam, usum praesentis temporis praefero. Meliùs “has been made” quàm “was made” istîc in traductionibus serioribus anglicé.
You said / scripsisti hoc: “Why on earth would you choose a present tense passive over this?”
You said / et hoc: “There are times when what looks like a periphrastic passive past should be interpreted as “to be”+ participle-as-adjective”
You said / et hoc: “This isn’t one of them. “The chain was made from iron” is more natural not only for latin but also in english.”
How do you know that (“This isn’t one of them” & “more natural not only for latin but also in english”), or what evidence have you for that?
Quomodò id scis? Vel ubi est argumentum?
Addendum
“is made” is a present passive in english (and would be faciat in latin).
But faciat is active. Am I misunderstanding something?
No, I meant to say fit. My error
I say the present tense might be better in modern English and reflect better the sense in Latin. Note that an older translation may use “has been made” rather than “was made” to convey the sense of “present perfect” in English.
First, “has been made” is not conveying the sense of the present perfect. “Has been made” is a perfect passive in english.
The problem here is that latin does not distinguish between a simple past and a perfect. The perfect is a past action. It can be translated as an english perfect or simple past, and this depends not only on context but also to a large degree on the translator’s choice.
In other words, conveying the sense of the english perfect is often an incorrect translation, because english, (like greek) makes a distinction which latin does not. Its like the continous present in english (he is making). I have yet to come across a language which has this as a present tense. So translating present tense verbs from latin, greek, german, or french is made more difficult because english often uses the continous present.
How do you know that (“This isn’t one of them” & “more natural not only for latin but also in english”), or what evidence have you for that?
First let’s go back to the options. Either facta est is a perfect passive, in which case it should not be translated with “is,” (which is present not past) or it is a predicate adjective + copula, in which case facta is simply an adjective (not a periphrastic with est) and “is” is correct, because in this case est is the only verb, and it is present (as opposed to be part of a verbal periphrastic construction).
One reason facta should not be read as an adjective is pretty simple. Adjectives are descriptive in particular ways, and certain verbs lend themselves to such uses. For example, “divided” is easily read as an adjective. Likewise, “the door is closed,” “His head was turned,” the painting was colored" and so forth all use verbs as adjectives (participles). This is because they are describing what is or could be a state or aspect of something.
“to make” does not lend itself to adjectival use. “Made” is a one time occurance the results of which are permanent (barring destruction). “Made” is not descriptive in the way “colored” or “divided” is. It is in all forms an action. In the sentence “the book is colored” the adjective colored describes the book. However, in “the chain is made” made doesn’t describe the chain (it isn’t really a quality or aspect of the chain the way that colored is of a book); rather, the passive “is made” describes an EVENT (which makes it a verb). So it doesn’t work well as a predicate adjective. This reading is strengthened by the PP “out of iron.” The prepositional phrase is adverbial in that it describes the PROCESS (a verbal element) of making.
“What does the book look like?” “It is colored.” Colored describes the book.
“What is the book made out of?” “The book is made out of paper.” “out of paper” is a description of how the book was made (an action). Adverbs describe the “how” of actions, not adjectives.
Also, this copula+ predicate adjective is where the passive construction came from. See, e.g. Allen & Greenough 495: "From this predicate use arises the compound tenses of the passive,- the participle of completed action with the incomplete tenses of esse developing the idea of past time: as, interfectus est, he was, (or has been) killed.
Moreover, it is far less common for the perfect participle to carry present meaning (which is why there is a present participle). The same is true for the perfect in general.
Finally, the ex ferro is akin to an agent of a passive construction, forcing a passive reading rather than a predicate adjective reading.
When you think about it, this corresponds exactly to the English translation, ‘The chain is made of iron’, which some seem to be worried is in the present tense. Technically it isn’t.
Actually the verb is in present tense, just as it is in Latin. “Is made” is more like the Latin in structure, but not usually in meaning. The difference I think is that when we say “The chain is made of iron”, we focus on the tense of “is” for the sentence, rather than the past tense of “made” and therefore “is” determines the tense of the sentence more than the participle “made”. But in Latin I think it is usually the other way around. Instead of focusing on the tense “est”, the focus is on the tense of the participle/adjective facta, and therefore the participle itself determines the tense more than the est.
Cripes. Who would have thought such a topic would get people so worked up. I am actually quite enjoying this. It is great to have a forum where people can debate something as interesting as the finer points of Latin grammar.
Oberon, I am afraid I am still going to have to disagree totally with your asseessment of this matter. Having said that, I am not entirely certain of the context of the original sentence, and don’t have the time to re-read the whole posting. Nevertheless, here is my summary of how 'catena ex ferro facta est might be translated.
Ultimately, context is what matters, not grammatical rules, not what Lingua Latina, or Fillmore, or Bennett, or Allen and Greenough, or Gilbert and Sullivan say. Grammatical rules are based on observations of language, but do not dictate language. Common sense must rule.
“is made” is a present passive in english
Sorry, but I don’t agree… ‘is being made’ is a present passive in English, or a present progressive passive as Grammarians might say. ‘Is made’ is a combination of the present verb ‘to be’ and the perfect passive participle of ‘to make’ It is a mathematical equation. est (present =0) + facta (past =-1) = -1. It is a past action resulting in a present state. The Latin perfect is frequently used to describe the present.
Why on earth would you choose a present tense passive over this?
I haven’t - see above.
You are misunderstanding not only the perfect tense in general but specifically the latin perfect.
I don’t think I am. ‘est’ is not past tense. ‘facta’ is past tense. ‘It is made’. ‘catena ex ferro facta est’ literally means ‘the chain is having been made of iron’. It does not matter whether you describe it as a periphrastic perfect, or est with a predicative adjective or as green cheese. Behind the grammatical explanation lies a present verb plus a perfect participle. that is what the Latin perfect passive is.
In english (and greek) the perfect is a past completed action with present implications. However, it is still a PAST action.
Yes, the making of the chain was a past action, and now here sits the chain, before our eyes, in the present. How is it in the past? Surely i could not see it if it was in the past?
Once again, context matters.
catenam viderunt. ex ferro facta est. They saw a chain. It was made of iron.
Here we use the past tense in English because of context.
‘ecce! catenam video. ex ferro facta est.’ ‘Look! I see a chain. It is made of iron.’
Who would say ‘it was made of iron’ here? That makes it sound like it suddenly vanished.
If, as you argue, Oberon, ‘it is made of iron’ is a present passive, then the Latin would have had to be to be ‘catena ex ferro fit.’ But this cannot work, as this would mean ‘it is being made of iron’, implying it is magically happening before our eyes.
Finally, English does not have a proper future tense. It just doesn’t. It has multiple ways to express the future, but it does not have a future tense in the way Latin has amabo, amabis etc.
Equally, Latin does not have a perfect passive. It has a means of expressing the perfect passive, which is the verb to be combined with a participle.
Essorant, despite what it may seem like above, I really wouldn’t argue that ‘is made’ is not a present tense, bu nor that it entirely is. For all intents and purposes it certainly can be argued such. But, as you say, it has a perfect participle in it, and must be said to be a past action resulting in a present state, as I am arguing about perfect tenses. The perfect tense is unique and straddles the line between past and present. And ‘is made’ can certainly NOT be rendered in this case by the Latin present passive, which would have to be translated as ‘being made’.
Again, my other example of the destroyed house applies.
domus ardebat multas horas. denique senex reveniebat. ‘eheu!’ inquit. ‘mea domus deleta est.’
How might we translate this?
Sure, we could say ‘My house has been destroyed.’ But it is just as likely that we could say ‘My house is destroyed.’ There is really not much of a diference.
Is the second example present tense? Perhaps, perhaps not, but certainly if you put it back into Latin using a Latin present passive you would end up with a totally different meaning.
‘mea domus deletur.’ clearly means ‘my house is being destroyed’, a far cry from either ‘My house has been destroyed’ or ‘My house is destroyed.’