It is a compound structure, to be compared to the English "as much as", for instance. Here it is « autant … que … ».
Note that you could also write « dessert les garçons autant que les filles » instead, the meaning being slightly different and translated "does a disservice to boys as much as to girls".
How do you say, "these lessons are here just to help you learn the French language, its expressions and idioms, and are not meant as ideological sociopolitical statements about human nature that need to be debated or negated by a member's own sociopolitical ideologies?"
"Ces leçons sont ici pour aider simplement on apprend la langue de français, ses expressions et ses expressions idiomatiques, et ils ne sont pas fait comme des expressions idéologiques ni des expressions sociopolitique sur la nature humaine qu'il ne faut pour débattre ni pour nier par les idéologies sociopolitiques d'un membre"
That was a shot in the dark. I'm still really new at this and that was actually kind of a hard statement. . . ;)
Well, I would say that while this saying is indeed rather unpleasant, that's not on Duolingo. What Duolingo is doing is presenting French and giving English translations, so that we can learn. I don't think these phrases necessarily should be interpreted as being endorsements of the idea(l)s behind them. Sometimes there are some kind of mean sentences, and it might be that the learner never wants to use them, but it's still fair to learn them so as to be able to recognize and understand them when others use them to or around the learner.
So I would say instead, "Yuck, this saying".
I agree. The [big] boys are not acting their age; they continue to act like [little] boys. Also called the Peter Pan syndrome. "Boys will be boys" is idiomatic, whereas "The boys are staying boys" is a literal translation but also perfectly acceptable English and grammatically correct.
This means that boys remain boys. "keep" when used with people means that boys hold boys and don't let them go. The expression is "Boys will be boys." for big boys that continue to act like little boys. It is not necessarily about bad behavior, but this expression has been used in the past by some to excuse bad behavior.
Well, that doesn’t work for an explanation, because French uses the definite article for generalizations, unlike English. The first instance “Les garçons....” is actually the generalization form which leads to “Boys...” in English. Maybe the French expression is less bad than the English one? Boys will remain (indefinite amount) boys. Yes, they never grow up, but only some of them?
It makes as much sense to me as "Owls drink beer". Besides, this is an actual phrase that is still in use with a precise meaning (just like some French court decided to acquit a defendant who had fought with the plaintiff judging « C'est gaulois! »: "it is a Gaul's nature"). Whether we like it or not is not really relevant.
Non-harmfull acts such as liking cars, playing games or going biking can just as easily hold this idiom. It sounds like you are "so mad" because you are projecting a negative view of groups onto it. Even when it's a bad act, saying boys "will be" something isn't itself saying the act it justified, of the hook or anything of the sort. It also doesn't necessitate that the same logic doesn't get applied to other groups.
The first one just has to be « les » because it is referring to boys in general, all the boys. Using « des » instead would mean that the sentence applies only to some boys or some particular boys.
The second one doesn't refer to “boys in general” but rather to the “characteristics of boys”, pretty much like a substance and its characteristics. So it must be « des » (de les).
Yes, that's a tricky one.
Advanced students on this board say that the French present tense is sometimes used to indicate the future. In English, boys will be boys is a common phrase that employs the future tense.
Most of the time, when this phrase is used in English, it is a comment on current behavior not speculation about likely future possibilities. It is actually an acknowledgement of the past and the present. It is cast in the future to suggest an expectation the current behavior will be continued.
It is an idiom. It is usually used when a boy or a man does something that is considered 'typical boy-like' , like getting exited when he sees a sports car, staring at the waitress' bum, trying to impress a girl or guy but failing, etc.
This sentence seems to upset a lot of people who have a very fixed mindset
Pim, this phrase is most commonly used in current English (especially in the States) to excuse bad behaviour based on gender. To argue otherwise would be disingenuous or wilfully ignorant.
It may once have been innocent enough, but the associations and inferences it now holds quite rightly makes a lot of people ill.
That's a tricky one, and it is greatly tempting to answer "It's an idiom, and it's the way it is". Let me have a try at explaining why it is like this, even though it's just my take on it.
The first « Les garçons » is embracing all boys, by selecting the gender (and young age). The second « des garçons » is expressing "some boys" or if you expand it "some people with the attributes of boys".
You can actually put that in practice in many other sentences :
Le bois provient des arbres = Wood comes from trees
Le pain, c'est de la farine! = Bread is flour!
La neige fondue devient de la pluie = Melted snow becomes rain.
In all cases, there is the same structure : general subject + verb + some constituent of the subject.
The translation immediately made me think of Benny's "Boys will be boys", it's a great song. I was doing the select the missing word exercise, if I had to translate this myself I think I might've put "The boys are staying boys". As an idiom this is a little frustrating as it's in present tense but when translated becomes future.
I know I am a little bit late to this discussion but those who think Duo or any other website or anyone who is teaching a language isn't responsible for the phrases they use, they are horribly mistaken. By teaching a language you are teaching the culture as well, but regarding this topic don't you think we should start leaving out the phrases that were used when making excuses for people? or just generally aren't improving our behavior? the reason why we are moving so slow in terms of humanity is that we are always whining about why we should be more careful about what we say and how we act. I am extremely happy that in this discussion ignorant comments didn't get any undeserved likes. Language learners kudos to you.
Why do you think the worse? My husband and I have two sons and when they were being rambunctious we would joke "boys will be boys". They were children and behaving as, well, boys. If you are reading an extra meaning into the wording then maybe you should be looking at yourself and your mind - is it in the gutter?
Since instead of arguing politely you went straight to insulting, I don't see a reason why I should be polite either. Your argument is so stupid you just gave me an example of your nonsense mind, you didn't give a valid reason. I'm sure that's how you raise your boys, that's why we still have so many problems with sexism. I usually don't waste my time on illiterated rude people like you, but know that some phrases has been used in so many wrong ways that they still carry that negativity. Even if you use it harmlessly. So next time think about what you do more. And don't reply me please. I don't like arguing with rude people.
If we are translating directly and not implying another concept/saying, then it should read, "Les garçons seront les garçons". "Will be" implies future tense, not present. Sayings become tricky to those who are not familiar with the meaning or implication of the words being put together to form an adage.
There is no sense of futurity in "boys will be boys"; rather it implies a sense of resolve or determination, or even of that is the way things are. Trouble is, in English the formation of the future tense in general is mixed up with the present tense of the verb "to will": future tense is I shall, you will, he/she/it will, we shall, you will, they will; the present tense of "to will" (or "to be obliged to") is the converse of this: I will, you shall, etc. Strictly speaking, it should be "boys shall be boys", but that's idiom for you. Excuse the grammatical detour but I find grammar fascinating.
Answer to Wunel: Similarity between the two idioms that ("Boys will be boys." and " "you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ". that the silk purse will be silk purse. From a bad thing we can't do a good thing. We can't change its nature -ironically they can be synonyms, I think so.
Yes it is. We also have « Les chiens ne font pas des chats » (meaning bad parents make bad children, and good parents make good children, or any other characteristic you can think of that could potentially inherited) among so many other quite controversial/backward/aged/... but also sometimes true sayings.
The negative backlash to this idiom astounds me. As a mother of 3 grown boys, this idiom doesn't just refer to a bad behavior. Nor is this an expression to excuse that behavior. By genetic design boys and girls operate, interpret and live life very differently. Consider how boys and girls greet close friends. MOST of the time boys will bump shoulders, fist bump or just nod to each other where girls are generally more affectionate and likely to hug each other. My boys often greeted each other or their friends in the most masculine, and often ridiculous ways. There were many times I would laugh, shake my head and say "boys will be boys." My boys and their friends were constantly wrestling each other, rough housing and being goofs where these behaviors are rarely exhibited by girls (I'm of one three sisters) . At our basic level, we are still animals, born with the same instincts and base natures that all males and females in the animal world have. There's nothing mysogonist about it, nor is it "just an excuse" for boys bad behavior. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Seriously, lightened up a bit people.
This is a language learning site, not a political forum. If you wish to spew, go to Facebook. We are trying to learn French here. Your point about all the deeper more profound implications of Les garcons.... etc, has been made. If you do not wish to discuss language get off of this site.
Not for native English speakers who are familiar with the expression. And if English isn't your native language, well, then you are learning more about that, too. In cases involving people's behavior, "will be" emphasizes that they are set in their ways and are unchangeable, and are never going to change. "Remain" has a weaker denotation, more suitable for something that merely happens to be the same as it was before.
I thought of it not as an expression but as the 'will' of the future tense... No I am not native with latin languages as you guessed)) To make easier to remember, I tend to formulate like math; this equals to this etc., I also tend to make connections between similar words of two languages, remain sounded closer to restent ))) Anyways, good explanation and info, thanks a lot )).
I don't condone violence against girls/women. However, we need to look at these language learning lessons objectively. Analogy: A lot of awful things happened in the past, but does this mean they should be completely removed from the history books? I actually think we should know about them, learn from them and ensure the mistakes aren't repeated. As some users previously mentioned, the expression is often a reference to innocent things, like boys playing in the mud, talking about airplanes, bragging about how cool their grandfather is. Knowing an expression isn't an issue, using it under inappropriate circumstances can be an issue.
Technically it means “boys will remain boys.” The English expression “boys will be boys” means that boys will act like boys. So the two sentences seem similar. The French seems to emphasize that when they grow up that they will still act like boys. The toys just get bigger and more expensive, like a sports car. The English seems to emphasize that we cannot expect them to act differently, since they will always be boys, how can they act like something that they are not - which would be okay if you expect a lot of great things from boys. Some people misuse this expression to excuse bad behavior which is wrong. Bad behavior is not what boys are designed to do. So, if boys will be boys, then someone should find out why the boys are acting out of character, because when boys are little they do not do the kinds of things that people tend to excuse with this expression.