Leviticus 27:10

Posted on April 27, 2006 by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

10 et mutari non poterit, id est, nec melius malo, nec peius bono. quod si mutaverit: et ipsum quod mutatum est, et illud pro quo mutatum est, consecratum erit Domino.

and it will not be changed, that is, neither the better for the worse, nor the worse for the better; but if he will have changed it, both that which has been changed, and that for which it has been changed, will be consecrated to the LORD.

# Latin Gloss Grammar Tag
1 et and CONJ
2 mutari to be changed PRES.PASS.INF
3 non not ADV
4 poterit he/she/it will be able 3SG.FUT.ACT.IND
5 id that PRON.DEM.NOM.SG.N
6 est is 3SG.PRES.ACT.IND
7 nec and not / nor CONJ
8 melius better ADV.CMPR
9 malo for the worse ADJ.CMPR.ABL.SG.N
10 nec and not / nor CONJ
11 peius worse ADV.CMPR
12 bono for the good ADJ.ABL.SG.N
13 quod but / however CONJ
14 si if CONJ
15 mutaverit he will have changed 3SG.FUTP.ACT.SUBJ
16 et and CONJ
17 ipsum itself PRON.DEM.ACC.SG.N
18 quod which PRON.REL.NOM.SG.N
19 mutatum changed PERF.PASS.PTCP.NOM.SG.N
20 est is / has been 3SG.PRES.ACT.IND
21 et and CONJ
22 illud that PRON.DEM.NOM.SG.N
23 pro for PREP+ABL
24 quo which PRON.REL.ABL.SG.N
25 mutatum changed PERF.PASS.PTCP.NOM.SG.N
26 est is / has been 3SG.PRES.ACT.IND
27 consecratum consecrated PERF.PASS.PTCP.NOM.SG.N
28 erit will be 3SG.FUT.ACT.IND
29 Domino to the LORD NOUN.DAT.SG.M

Syntax

Main Clause 1: mutari (passive infinitive as complementary infinitive) + poterit (finite verb expressing ability); non negates the whole infinitival idea.

Coordinator: et links this clause to the preceding context.

Clarifying Apposition: id + est introduces an explanation (“that is”).

Balanced Negated Pair: nec … nec coordinates two parallel prohibitions: melius (comparative adverb) with malo (ablative of comparison/standard) and peius (comparative adverb) with bono (ablative of comparison/standard).

Conditional Clause: si + mutaverit states the condition.

Main Clause 2: ipsum (first subject, “the very thing”) + relative clause quod … mutatum est (identifying it) + coordinated subject illud (second subject, “that other thing”) + prepositional phrase pro quo (replacement phrase) + relative clause mutatum est (identifying it) + predicate adjective consecratum with copula erit; dative Domino marks the recipient (“to the LORD”).

Morphology

  1. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable coordinator; Function: links this sentence to the surrounding context; Translation: and; Notes: often introduces a further stipulation rather than a new topic.
  2. mutari — Lemma: mutare; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present passive infinitive; Function: complementary infinitive dependent on poterit; Translation: to be changed; Notes: passive voice keeps the focus on the item being exchanged rather than the actor.
  3. non — Lemma: non; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: indeclinable negator; Function: negates the infinitival construction; Translation: not; Notes: scopes over the whole “be able to be changed” idea.
  4. poterit — Lemma: posse; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular future active indicative; Function: main verb of ability governing mutari; Translation: will be able; Notes: future can function as a legal/mandated prohibition in context.
  5. id — Lemma: is; Part of Speech: demonstrative pronoun; Form: nominative singular neuter; Function: anticipatory subject for the explanatory phrase; Translation: that; Notes: points back to the prohibition just stated.
  6. est — Lemma: esse; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular present active indicative; Function: copula in the explanatory formula id est; Translation: is; Notes: frequently used to introduce an interpretive gloss.
  7. nec — Lemma: nec; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable negative coordinator; Function: begins the first half of a balanced “neither…nor” pair; Translation: nor; Notes: expects a parallel nec to follow.
  8. melius — Lemma: bene; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: comparative degree; Function: comparative adverb modifying the implied act of exchange; Translation: better; Notes: comparative adverbs commonly pair with an ablative standard of comparison.
  9. malo — Lemma: malus; Part of Speech: adjective; Form: ablative singular neuter comparative degree; Function: ablative of comparison/standard with melius; Translation: for the worse; Notes: legal phrasing forbids upgrading by swapping a better item for a worse one.
  10. nec — Lemma: nec; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable negative coordinator; Function: introduces the second parallel prohibition; Translation: nor; Notes: coordinates a second matching comparative expression.
  11. peius — Lemma: male; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: comparative degree; Function: comparative adverb modifying the implied act of exchange; Translation: worse; Notes: balances melius to cover both directions of swapping.
  12. bono — Lemma: bonus; Part of Speech: adjective; Form: ablative singular neuter positive degree; Function: ablative of standard with peius; Translation: for the good; Notes: states the forbidden downgrade: exchanging a worse item “for a good one.”
  13. quod — Lemma: quod; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces an adversative transition to the conditional provision; Translation: but; Notes: here it shifts from prohibition to the legal consequence clause.
  14. si — Lemma: si; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable conditional marker; Function: introduces the condition; Translation: if; Notes: sets up a case where the rule is violated or acted upon.
  15. mutaverit — Lemma: mutare; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular future perfect active subjunctive; Function: verb of the conditional protasis; Translation: he will have changed; Notes: typical legal Latin uses this form in conditions to denote a completed act prior to the stated consequence.
  16. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable coordinator; Function: links the consequence clause to the condition; Translation: and; Notes: often adds the result as an extension of the conditional statement.
  17. ipsum — Lemma: ipse; Part of Speech: demonstrative pronoun; Form: accusative singular neuter; Function: first coordinated subject in the consequence (understood with erit); Translation: itself; Notes: emphasizes the very item involved, marking it as included in the consecration.
  18. quod — Lemma: qui; Part of Speech: relative pronoun; Form: nominative singular neuter; Function: subject of the relative clause describing ipsum; Translation: which; Notes: introduces a defining clause: “that which has been changed.”
  19. mutatum — Lemma: mutare; Part of Speech: participle; Form: perfect passive participle nominative singular neuter; Function: predicate participle with est in the relative clause; Translation: changed; Notes: perfect aspect presents the change as a completed fact.
  20. est — Lemma: esse; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular present active indicative; Function: auxiliary/copula completing the periphrastic passive idea; Translation: is / has been; Notes: in context it carries a completed-result sense with the perfect participle.
  21. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable coordinator; Function: coordinates the two consecrated items; Translation: and; Notes: joins two parallel noun phrases under one predicate.
  22. illud — Lemma: ille; Part of Speech: demonstrative pronoun; Form: nominative singular neuter; Function: second coordinated subject of the consequence; Translation: that; Notes: points to the counterpart item in the exchange.
  23. pro — Lemma: pro; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governing the ablative; Function: marks substitution or exchange; Translation: for; Notes: expresses replacement: one thing given in place of another.
  24. quo — Lemma: qui; Part of Speech: relative pronoun; Form: ablative singular neuter; Function: object of pro referring to illud; Translation: which; Notes: links the second item to the one it replaces.
  25. mutatum — Lemma: mutare; Part of Speech: participle; Form: perfect passive participle nominative singular neuter; Function: predicate participle in the second relative clause; Translation: changed; Notes: repeats the same legal description to include the exchanged counterpart explicitly.
  26. est — Lemma: esse; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular present active indicative; Function: auxiliary/copula with mutatum in the relative clause; Translation: is / has been; Notes: maintains the formulaic “has been changed” characterization.
  27. consecratum — Lemma: consecrare; Part of Speech: participle; Form: perfect passive participle nominative singular neuter; Function: predicate adjective with erit describing the status of both subjects; Translation: consecrated; Notes: indicates legal dedication: the items become set apart and no longer free for ordinary use.
  28. erit — Lemma: esse; Part of Speech: verb; Form: third person singular future active indicative; Function: main verb of the consequence clause; Translation: will be; Notes: future expresses the fixed outcome once the exchange occurs.
  29. Domino — Lemma: Dominus; Part of Speech: noun; Form: dative singular masculine; Function: dative of reference/recipient with consecratum erit; Translation: to the LORD; Notes: dative marks the one to whom the consecration belongs; in this legal context it denotes YHWH.

 

About Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Born around 346 A.D. in Stridon, St. Jerome was a scholar fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew whose ascetic discipline and deep engagement with Scripture prepared him for a monumental task: translating the Bible into Latin. Commissioned by Pope Damasus I around 382 A.D., Jerome began by revising the flawed Old Latin Gospels, then expanded his work to the entire Bible. For the New Testament, he corrected Latin texts using Greek manuscripts; for the Old Testament, he translated most books directly from Hebrew—a controversial but principled choice. His final Psalter, however, followed the Greek Septuagint tradition for liturgical use. This composite translation, later known as the Vulgate (editio vulgata), became the authoritative biblical text of the Western Church, formally endorsed at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Vulgate’s influence extends beyond theology into textual criticism and Latin education. As one of the earliest translations grounded in original-language scholarship, it offers a vital witness to the state of biblical texts in late antiquity. Jerome’s lexical and syntactic decisions are studied to trace manuscript history and assess variant readings. Its elegant Latin, consistent in grammar and rich in vocabulary, became a model for medieval and Renaissance learning, bridging classical and ecclesiastical Latin. More than a translation, the Vulgate helped define Christian doctrine, preserved the Latin language, and laid essential groundwork for the critical study of Scripture—remaining indispensable to students of Latin, theology, and textual history.
This entry was posted in Leviticus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.