Why is "et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est" translated into past tense?

Question

I'm a beginner and noticing "est" a present tense verb, being translated in dozens of resources as "was." Why?

et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est = and without him nothing was made that was made

Answer 1

It's because the verb in each clause of that sentence isn't really est: it's factum est, a compound verb form that combines a present tense of the verb 'to be' and the perfect (past) participle of the verb 'to do/make' (or 'to become/happen').

If it helps, think of an English clause such as 'the picture has fallen': it uses the present tense 'has' but this, in combination with the past/passive participle 'fallen,' is used to describe an action that was completed earlier in time.

In both English and Latin, you have to think about the timeframe denoted by whole verbal idea, not the individual elements that constitute it.

Answer 2

This is actually a peculiar feature of English, not of Latin.

In most languages that I know, a form of be with a past participle indicates a past verbal phrase; it describes something in the past (or something that precedes something else).

Il est vu au cinéma avec un femme.

Er ist gesehen (worden) im Kino mit einer Frau.

Hij is gezien in de bioscoop met een vrouw.

Visus est in cinemate cum femina.

In all of these examples, the seeing usually happened in the past, it's not still going on or still awaiting repetition. This only makes sense, for the past participle includes a sense of past or preceding (in addition to a sense of passivity).

So we probably should not translate this literally as *he is seen at the cinema, which often implies some relation to the present in modern English, e.g. he is seen at the cinema every week (including this week and the next). The usual way to write a passive verb in the normal past in English is through a past form of be with a past participle:

He was seen at the cinema with a woman.