Eventus sequens non facit actum malum qui erat bonus, nec bonum qui erat malus

English translation: A subsequent event does not make an action that was good evil, nor one that was evil good.

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Latin term or phrase:Eventus sequens non facit actum malum qui erat bonus, nec bonum qui erat malus
English translation:A subsequent event does not make an action that was good evil, nor one that was evil good.
Entered by: talyao

15:07 Dec 1, 2009
Latin to English translations [PRO]
Government / Politics
Latin term or phrase: Eventus sequens non facit actum malum qui erat bonus, nec bonum qui erat malus
Writen by St. Thomas. Talks about power.
talyao
A subsequent event does not make an action that was good evil, nor one that was evil good.
Explanation:
I take actum as the ACC of actus, fourth declension masculine noun. Qui refers to actus, not to a person.
Selected response from:

Stephen C. Farrand
United States
Local time: 03:02
Grading comment
Thank you :o)
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
5 +4A subsequent event does not make an action that was good evil, nor one that was evil good.
Stephen C. Farrand
4 +2an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was
David Hollywood
5 -2according to events, he who was good does no evil he who was bad does no good
Clifford Marcus
4 -2The subsequent outcome does not make evil an deed of one who was good, nor good the deed of one who
Joseph Brazauskas
4 -3the following/upcoming event will not do bad to someone who's been bad, neither good to someone ...
danya


  

Answers


20 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -3
the following/upcoming event will not do bad to someone who's been bad, neither good to someone ...


Explanation:
the following/upcoming event will not do bad to someone who's been gad, neither good to someone who's been bad

in the Lating the tense is Present - non facit, does not do, but I chose Future for the translation

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 mins (2009-12-01 15:30:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

oops, corrections:
the following/upcoming event will NEITHER do bad to someone who's been GOOD, NOR good to someone who's been bad.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 26 mins (2009-12-01 15:33:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and meseems I jumbled the eventus thing: it's rather "exit, outcome", or even "success", depending on the broader context, than "event"


danya
Local time: 10:02
Native speaker of: Native in RussianRussian

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Clifford Marcus: are you sure eventus is not accusative plural?
8 mins
  -> err... no!) thank you

disagree  Stephen C. Farrand: qui refers to actum.
11 mins
  -> now I see, thank you

disagree  Joseph Brazauskas: Cf. Stephen's remarks.
36 mins
  -> thank you
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

26 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -2
The subsequent outcome does not make evil an deed of one who was good, nor good the deed of one who


Explanation:
The subsequent outcome does not make evil a deed of one who was good, nor good a deed of one who was evil.

This seems to be the sense, although the grammar is odd. 'Eventus sequens' must be subject nominative, with 'actum malum' and '[actum] bonum' being the direct objects of 'facit' and 'qui erat bonus' and 'qui erat malus' being descriptive relative clauses. But one would expect a construction 'Eventus sequens non facit actum malum eius qui erat bonus, nec bonum eius qui erat malus'. Perhaps an 'eius' (or 'illius' or other equivilent) has fallen out.



Joseph Brazauskas
United States
Local time: 03:02
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in SpanishSpanish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Clifford Marcus: I think eventus is accusative plural here
2 mins
  -> If so, then 'sequens' would have to be 'sequentes', since it obviously agrees with 'eventus'. Likewise, 'facit' would have to be 'faciunt'.

disagree  Stephen C. Farrand: 'Actum' is fourth declension accusative masculine; (I thought you took it as second decl. neuter). 'Qui' refers back to this strictly, not to a person. Perhaps you mean 'that' in your translation of 'qui', rather than 'who'?
6 mins
  -> I agree. I wish I knew how to change my 'disagree' to an 'agree'.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

27 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): -2
according to events, he who was good does no evil he who was bad does no good


Explanation:
As above.
Eventus (acc plural) sequens, following events, in accord with events.
qui erat bonus, he who was good
non facit actum malum doesn't do good (does no evil
... and so on for the other bit.
With respect, I can't quite see how Danya's suggestion fits the Latin

Clifford Marcus
Local time: 07:02
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Stephen C. Farrand: Even for Thomas, I think 'sequens' would have to be a gerund in your translation.
6 mins

disagree  Joseph Brazauskas: I believe that Stephen's translation is the correct one. Cf. his explanations.
32 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

29 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +4
A subsequent event does not make an action that was good evil, nor one that was evil good.


Explanation:
I take actum as the ACC of actus, fourth declension masculine noun. Qui refers to actus, not to a person.

Stephen C. Farrand
United States
Local time: 03:02
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Thank you :o)
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you so much. It was very helpful.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Joseph Brazauskas: By Jove, I think that you've got it. Superb analysis.
21 mins

agree  David Hollywood: I think this sounds very natural and corresponds to the original as far as I can see :)
9 hrs

agree  Péter Jutai: This is such a simple sentence, and Stephen got its meaning right. How can such a long dicussion be built upon this short passage? You are absolutley right, Stephen.
21 hrs

agree  Rebecca Garber
23 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

28 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +2
an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was


Explanation:
In ST I-II, Q. 20.5, Aquinas speaks directly about the consequences of a action: "an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was bad."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 30 mins (2009-12-01 15:38:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

wasn't enough room for "bad" and here's the full reference address:

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ebe/ebe_01aquinaseuthanasi...

and the section in which this quotation appears:

Aquinas also states that the appropriation of property, which is per se morally permissible, becomes an evil if the action includes the defining circumstance of the appropriated property being "another's."65 Here, a good action is changed to an evil action due to one of its circumstances. How is the present case to be considered? Does the attendant circumstance of the hastening of the patient's death due to the administration of palliative medication change the species of the action from good to evil? What role do foreseen concomitant consequences play in defining the specific nature of an action?

In ST I-II, Q. 20.5, Aquinas speaks directly about the consequences of a action: "an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was bad."66 On the specific issue of foreseen consequences of an action, Aquinas merely states, "If it is foreseen, it is clear that it adds to the goodness or malice."67 Aquinas does not assert that foreseen consequences can change the specific nature of an action from good to evil. But, they can make a good action better or an evil action worse.




David Hollywood
Local time: 04:02
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Stephen C. Farrand: This seems definitive!
8 mins

agree  Joseph Brazauskas
32 mins

agree  danya
1 hr

disagree  Clifford Marcus: Are you then saying that "qui" is a relative for "actum", that can't be, surely....
3 hrs
  -> I'm not saying anything Clifford :) just submitting what I think is an appropriate translation I found :) not an expert in Latin although I did have a few years in school but this is translation, a legitimate aspect of which is researching :)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search