Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres

    • I think in theory it could be translated that way, but in context it seems to make more sense as "is divided" since Caesar is simply describing Gaul rather than narrating any events.
     
    Joca said:
    Well, I was wondering if the right traduction wouldn't rather be...

    The whole of Gaul was divided into 3 parts.
    Click to expand...

    I am not sure I understand Why you want to do that? Wouldn't The whole of Gaul was divided into 3 parts rather be Gallia erat omnis divisa in partes tres?
     
    I thought word order mattered for once here: passive pluperfect would be divisa erat. In the above sentence, I would understand divisa as an adjective. But maybe I am wrong.
     
    I don't think word order distinguishes between the two. For example, from later on in Caesar:

    Ea res est Helvetiis per indicium enuntiata.
    The design was revealed to the Helvetii by informers.

    But just so I can make sure I'm clear on this, because English be + past participle is also ambiguous, we have the following equivalences, right? (I included the hopefully correct German because I believe it distinguishes everything).

    is divided = est divisus = ist geteilet
    was divided = est divisus = ist geteilet worden
    was divided = erat divisus = war geteilet
    had been divided = erat divisus = war geteilet worden

    And come to think of it, there's also the following, right?

    is (being) divided = dividitur = wird geteilet
    was (being) divided = dividebatur = ward geteilet
     
    modus.irrealis said:
    I don't think word order distinguishes between the two. For example, from later on in Caesar:

    Ea res est Helvetiis per indicium enuntiata.
    The design was revealed to the Helvetii by informers.
    Click to expand...

    Accepted. This is certainly a passive perfect.

    The difference is than only context. In the sentence Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres it is the state of being divided which matters and not the act of dividing. Therefore divisa is an adjective.
     
    I suppose you are all quoting this correctly, but my recollection of this line is "Gallia in tres partes divisa est". Have I been wrong all these years? It has to mean "Gaul is divided into three parts" because when Caesar wrote it, it was.
     
    MrsBeeton said:
    I suppose you are all quoting this correctly, but my recollection of this line is "Gallia in tres partes divisa est". Have I been wrong all these years? It has to mean "Gaul is divided into three parts" because when Caesar wrote it, it was.
    Click to expand...

    As Kevin Beach says in post #3, the thread title is the opening of the first book of Caesar's Gallic War.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
    ​
    The version you remember is a more conventional Latin word order, but the flexibility of Latin has allowed Caesar to put place the relative ("of which ....) immediately after its antecedent: three parts.
    "The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, of which the Belgae inhabit one, another, the Aquitani, and the third, those who are called 'Celts' in their own tongue, 'Gauls' in ours."
    ​
    The discussion above agrees with you that it must be "is divided." They also agree that accurate translation must involve knowledge of the historical context: syntax alone would allow it to be translated as "was divided/ has been divided" as well as "is divided".
     
    roymail said:
    It's called in French "un parfait résultatif".
    Click to expand...
    It means that the perfect can express the result, in the present, of an action or an event of the past.
    Gaul was divided and is still divided now (when Caesar wrote it).
    The present incolunt shows that it is so here.

    I hope my English is clear enough :eek:
     
    Last edited:
    MrsBeeton said:
    I suppose you are all quoting this correctly, but my recollection of this line is "Gallia in tres partes divisa est". Have I been wrong all these years? It has to mean "Gaul is divided into three parts" because when Caesar wrote it, it was.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, that's the wording I remember, too. So have we both been wrong all these years? 50 years, in my case.
     
    I don't quite get why some would hesitate, it's present tense and that is what we see in translations.

    My understanding is that they were Celts (Gauls), Basques (Aquitanians) and people from the Northwestblock or Belgians. But while the tense is rather clear, the peoples are still indeed a matter of debate.
     
    De bello gallico - liber I

    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit...

    All verbs are in present tense. Can you read divisa est (passive perfect) with that word order? No, you can't.
     
    Last edited:
    Riprendo questa discussione (anche contraddicendo quanto detto precedentemente), perché mi si è presentato un problema analogo di traduzione.
    Non si riesce a risolvere questo rebus saltando a piè pari dalla lingua latina alla lingua inglese, senza passare prima dall'italiano.
    Libro di grammatica latina (nella lingua italiana) alla mano, est... divisa, o divisa... est si può tradurre in due modi diversi: a) fu divisa; b) è stata divisa.
    Quest'ultima opzione [ b) ...] è quella più pertinente, perché Cesare dice che la Gallia è stata divisa, senza alcun riferimento temporale diretto o indiretto. Perciò, a senso, per Cesare la Gallia è ancora divisa in tre parti.
    Adesso provate a tradurre dall'italiano al latino il cartello che riporta la dicitura "Il Colosseo è chiuso", partendo dalle considerazioni precedenti.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top