# Erat and Fuit



## Felis ichthyophilus

I'm a biologist learning Latin and have a question that is unavailable to increase English vocabulary or understand any meanings of scientific names.

*What is the difference between "Deus erat Verbum" and "Deus fuit Verbum"? *

I can't help thinking that both means the same.  Do you say "Erat homo qui missus a Deo cui nomen fuit Iohannes."?

The difference between "was watching" and "watched" is clear: e.g.; 
bellum inter Angliam et Germaniam spectabam (not spectavi), ad axem electricum proximum tonuit, ergo et erratum arbitri et victoriam Germanicorum non spectavi (not spectabam). and so will be the difference between "Stabat Mater" and "Stetit Mater".

I can't imagine "The Word used to be God" or "The Word was being God".


----------



## Ben Jamin

Felis ichthyophilus said:


> I'm a biologist learning Latin and have a question that is unavailable to increase English vocabulary or understand any meanings of scientific names.
> 
> *What is the difference between "Deus erat Verbum" and "Deus fuit Verbum"? *
> 
> I can't help thinking that both means the same. Do you say "Erat homo qui missus a Deo cui nomen fuit Iohannes."?
> 
> The difference between "was watching" and "watched" is clear: e.g.;
> bellum inter Angliam et Germaniam spectabam (not spectavi), ad axem electricum proximum tonuit, ergo et erratum arbitri et victoriam Germanicorum non spectavi (not spectabam). and so will be the difference between "Stabat Mater" and "Stetit Mater".
> 
> I can't imagine "The Word used to be God" or "The Word was being God".


 In Latin there is a clear difference between the two forms, but it is difficult to translate it to English. Erat is something that was lasting, fuit is what happened. In this context one can possibly translate fuit as "became".


----------



## Starfrown

Felis ichthyophilus said:


> I can't imagine "The Word used to be God" or "The Word was being God".


The Latin imperfect may be translated into English with "used to," "kept," the past progressive, or in some cases "tried to," but in many other cases it corresponds to the English plain past form, which often has progressive and habitual/repeated aspect.

Thus, the best way to understand Latin verb forms is to understand how they present actions both temporally and aspectually without reference to an English translation--unless of course such translation is what you're interested in.



Felis ichthyophilus said:


> I can't help thinking that both means the same.  Do you say "Fuit homo  qui missus a Deo cui nomen erat Iohannes."?


----------



## Outsider

Making an analogy with the perfect/imperfect distinction in the Romance languages, I would say that _Deus erat Verbum_ can be translated as "God was the Word" with the connotation that He may well still be the Word, whereas _Deus fuit Verbum_ would be closer to "God was (once) the Word" -- with a strong implication that He no longer is the Word.

I hesitate somewhat, because from what I understand the Latin _perfectum_ can also correspond to the English present perfect, as its name suggests. In that case the meaning would be "God has been the Word (so far)", or even "God has become the Word" (as Ben Jamin suggested above)...

Are my doubts misguided? Is there a way to tell which of these meanings was most likely intended?


----------



## relativamente

In fact there is more than an analogy between the perfect (aorist)/ and imperfect distinction in the Latin and in the Romance languages. This two tenses exist in all romance languages as far as I know, and their use is the same as in Latin.So for speakers of any romance language those forms in Latin do not pose any problem.

The aorist which in Greek means without horizon, is used when you want to give a more accurate account and suggest than something happenned really in a certain point in the past.Whereas in the imperfect you can suggest for example that this fact lasted for some time, or was repeated several times, or maybe that you witnessed personaly or you know it for someone who saw the facts, or that you have a personal attitudes regarding those facts so despite it really happenned in the past it is still present somehow in you mind and affecting your feelings.This tense is used preferably in tales. IN Spanish tales begin with imperfect "eráse que se era...." while they end with aorist "y fueron felices y comieron perdices".


----------



## Ben Jamin

relativamente said:


> In fact there is more than an analogy between the perfect (aorist)/ and imperfect distinction in the Latin and in the Romance languages. This two tenses exist in all romance languages as far as I know, and their use is the same as in Latin.So for speakers of any romance language those forms in Latin do not pose any problem.
> 
> The aorist which in Greek means without horizon, is used when you want to give a more accurate account and suggest than something happenned really in a certain point in the past.Whereas in the imperfect you can suggest for example that this fact lasted for some time, or was repeated several times, or maybe that you witnessed personaly or you know it for someone who saw the facts, or that you have a personal attitudes regarding those facts so despite it really happenned in the past it is still present somehow in you mind and affecting your feelings.This tense is used preferably in tales. IN Spanish tales begin with imperfect "eráse que se era...." while they end with aorist "y fueron felices y comieron perdices".


 
Aorist is not the same as Latin perfectum or Castillan preterito perfecto, even if it has a similar function.
Can't you use preterito perfecto in Castillan in ordinary speech? For instance "Cuando murió tu padre? Mi padre murió en 2001".


----------

