# If Caesar had not gone into Gaul or if he had been defeated



## Lamb67

If Caesar had not gone into Gaul or if he had been defeated there, what would have happened?

_Nisi Caesar Galliam inisset_ OR _si esset victum ibi,quid accidisset_?

I don't know how to translate OR here into Latin, any suggestions please, thanks.


----------



## XiaoRoel

si + OR: siue.
La estructura sería si… non + inisset, siue.… esset


----------



## Lamb67

The improved version is as the following:

_Nisi Caesar Galliam inisset sive ibi victum esset, quid accidisset?_


----------



## Lamb67

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1670220

Above thread translate' what ...?' by quod

Why here 'what would have happened?' by quid?


----------



## Lamb67

I hope it is related to my another post titled ' If you do not know what to be done...'.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Lamb67 said:


> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1670220
> 
> Above thread translate' what ...?' by quod
> 
> Why here 'what would have happened?' by quid?



You mean, why is it _Aliqui quod factum est_ and not _Aliqui quid factum est_? Because _quod_ is a relative pronoun (= "that which/what"); _quid_ is an interrogative pronoun (="what?")

I think it would be better as _quae facta sunt_, because we're probably talking about many things that have been done, not just one thing. It's a matter of interpretation, though.


----------



## XiaoRoel

En el hilo que citas el *quid* _interrogativo_ se mantiene. La confusión venía por el *quod* _relativo_ de la segunda frase.


----------



## Imber Ranae

XiaoRoel said:


> En el hilo que citas el *quid* _interrogativo_ se mantiene. La confusión venía por el *quod* _relativo_ de la segunda frase.



EDIT: Never mind. You were responding to Lamb67, not me. It's hard to tell sometimes.


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> The improved version is as the following:
> 
> _Nisi Caesar Galliam inisset sive ibi victum esset, quid accidisset?_


I think I would probably write:

_"Si Caesar Galliam non inisset..."_

In this case, I think it might be best to place the negative emphasis on _inisset_ to stress that we know he did in fact come into Gaul.  Then again, the difference between the two may be just that--a difference in the placement of emphasis.


----------



## XiaoRoel

The difference is that *nisi* denies all the phrase, but *non* only makes negative the verb.


----------



## Starfrown

XiaoRoel said:


> The difference is that *nisi* denies all the phrase, but *non* only makes negative the verb.


Exactly.  The _non _before the verb in the Latin conditional has the same effect as stressing the negative "not" in English speech:

"If Caesar had *not* gone into Gaul..."

I'm not sure how Spanish would convey such emphasis.


----------

