Confused about perfect passive indicatives
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Confused about perfect passive indicatives
So, in this sentence here:
"Scriptum est in libro veteris testamenti primo quoniam Deus spiritum emisit et vivificavit Adam."
I would take "scriptum est" as a perfect passive indicative compound construction. And, would render it "it was written." But in the answer book (Dunlap answer key for Collins), he has it "It is written."
Now, I supposed with context that the present tense makes more sense. But it seems odd to include a subtle translating issue in an introductory text book?
And, I have noticed this before, and I am beginning to wonder if I'm simply and utterly confused beyond my own knowing.
So then I start to think: perhaps it's not a perfect passive indicative compound construction, but just a Perfect Passive Participle with a present tense "to be"?
How on earth am I supposed to tell the difference?
Any advice? Thanks!
"Scriptum est in libro veteris testamenti primo quoniam Deus spiritum emisit et vivificavit Adam."
I would take "scriptum est" as a perfect passive indicative compound construction. And, would render it "it was written." But in the answer book (Dunlap answer key for Collins), he has it "It is written."
Now, I supposed with context that the present tense makes more sense. But it seems odd to include a subtle translating issue in an introductory text book?
And, I have noticed this before, and I am beginning to wonder if I'm simply and utterly confused beyond my own knowing.
So then I start to think: perhaps it's not a perfect passive indicative compound construction, but just a Perfect Passive Participle with a present tense "to be"?
How on earth am I supposed to tell the difference?
Any advice? Thanks!
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
There’s no real difference. “It is written” is the same as “It has been written.” If someone has written something (perfect active), it’s written, it's been written.So then I start to think: perhaps it's not a perfect passive indicative compound construction, but just a Perfect Passive Participle with a present tense "to be"?
“It was written” would be scriptum erat.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
Hmmmm....I see. However:mwh wrote:There’s no real difference. “It is written” is the same as “It has been written.” If someone has written something (perfect active), it’s written, it's been written.So then I start to think: perhaps it's not a perfect passive indicative compound construction, but just a Perfect Passive Participle with a present tense "to be"?
“It was written” would be scriptum erat.
1. I thought the perfect tense is either rendered into the present perfect or the simple past in English, depending on context? (at least in ecclesiastical Latin)?
2. as far as I know, "scriptum erat" is the pluperfect passive indicative -> "it had been written"
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
Yes that’s so. scripsi could be either true perfect (I have written) or simple past (I wrote). They’re really two different tenses that have been collapsed into one in Latin (but still function as separate tenses when it comes to sequence of tenses, and still have separate forms in Greek, γέγραφα vs. ἔγραψα). But here the active corresponding to scriptum est would be scripsi representing true perfect (aka present perfect); that’s why I wrote “has written.” That's to say, scriptum est is present perfect, not simple past.1. I thought the perfect tense is either rendered into the present perfect or the simple past in English, depending on context? (at least in ecclesiastical Latin)?
OK but remember Latin makes no distinction between “it has been written” and “it is written,” as explained. scriptum erat is just the past of scriptum est.2. as far as I know, "scriptum erat" is the pluperfect passive indicative -> "it had been written"
Hope this clears things up.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
thanks!
I think you're saying that it would be either: "it had been written" or "it is written" - because they are effectively the same locution?
Thanks again.
Okay, so how would you translated "scriptum erat" (pluperfect passive indicative) into English?mwh wrote: scriptum erat is just the past of scriptum est.
I think you're saying that it would be either: "it had been written" or "it is written" - because they are effectively the same locution?
Thanks again.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
scriptum est It is written or It has been written.
scriptum erat It was written or It had been written.
scriptum erat It was written or It had been written.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
Thanks so very much mwh. Sorry, I'm a bit thick sometimes, lolmwh wrote:scriptum est It is written or It has been written.
scriptum erat It was written or It had been written.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
I'm glad we got it straightened out.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
So let's take: "Homo factus est."mwh wrote:scriptum est It is written or It has been written.
scriptum erat It was written or It had been written.
According to the above: "He is made man" or "he has been made man".
However, NO ONE translates it that way. Obviously, "He was made man."
How should I think about that^?
Thanks!
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
Context. It sounds subjective, but it often works, what sounds best in the context of what is being said? Sometimes the contextual clues are definitive, such as having the appropriate sequence of tenses in certain types of subordinate clauses (don't know if you've gotten that far yet).katzenjammer wrote:So let's take: "Homo factus est."mwh wrote:scriptum est It is written or It has been written.
scriptum erat It was written or It had been written.
According to the above: "He is made man" or "he has been made man".
However, NO ONE translates it that way. Obviously, "He was made man."
How should I think about that^?
Thanks!
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Confused about perfect passive indicatives
That makes sense! Thank you very much!