Comments on: What is Latin for 'Boys will be boys'?

Question: What is Latin for 'Boys will be boys'?

BorgLove — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:31:49 -0800

Latin speakers: What is Latin for the expression 'Boys will be boys'?

Yep, there are online translation devices around, but I want to be sure I get it right.

By: unSane

unSane — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:53:29 -0800

literally, something like

pueri pueri erunt

I think.

Although it's been a long time.

I think the 'erunt' ('they will be') is probably droppable.

By: DrtyBlvd

DrtyBlvd — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:07:31 -0800

1900 Latin Phrases & Sayings - Very useful generally - perhaps your answer lies there?

By: defreckled

defreckled — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:50:53 -0800

The original is:

Sunt pueri pueri, pueri puerilia tractant.

Boys are boys, and boys do boyish things (or something like that).

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:24:08 -0800

your question is rather puerile

By: Oddly

Oddly — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:35:24 -0800

Googling "boys will be boys" latin pueri seems to support defreckled's answer. But for a refresher on Latin grammar in general, ask a Centurion.

By: thebabelfish

thebabelfish — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:18:39 -0800

I'm confused by the answers above. Shouldn't it be Pueri erunt pueros?

Pueri = nominative plural
erunt = 3rd person plural
pueros = accusative plural

Puer is a second declension masculine noun.

(Oddly enough, I'm working on a translation of Catullus's poem 64 for class. Perhaps my brain is fried.)

By: ikkyu2

ikkyu2 — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:39:31 -0800

No, babelfish; state of being verbs take predicate nominatives, not accusative direct objects.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:08:32 -0800

state of being verbs take predicate nominatives, not accusative direct objects

The rule is more general than that, surely? "To be" always connects grammatical equivalents.

By: MarkAnd

MarkAnd — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:43:35 -0800

I read "pueri pueros erunt" as "boys will be (some other) boys," which doesn't really make much sense, and what little sense it makes kind of contradicts what you're trying to say.

I'm with the others saying "pueri pueri erunt," or maybe just "pueri erunt," if you think that people won't take that as a science fiction-type suggestion like, "at some point in the future on this spot, boys will be." I generally like to shorten things as much as possible, and Latin's pretty good at that when you're going for sententiousness, so I say, "pueri erunt."

By: ikkyu2

ikkyu2 — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:24:08 -0800

"To be" always connects grammatical equivalents.

Except when it's connecting a noun with an adjective, or a noun with a gerund, or a noun with an infinitive, or et c.

Of course, if you're defining grammatical equivalents as things that it's grammatically correct to connect with state-of-being verbs, then why sure, you're right.