# Be the man you were created to be



## Aaronius

Looking for a Latin translation of “Be the man you were created to be”. I’ve been through a period of intense personal growth since turning 40, and this is a phrase that means a lot to me.  

I have asked for this translation elsewhere - apparently it is quite a tricky one.

I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thanks.


----------



## Snodv

Thinking about this.  One of the tricky bits is that _es _is not only the command "be," but also the indicative statement "you are."  Indistinguishable.  Another is that English can use the simple present infinitive (in this case, "to be") to express purpose, but Latin does so rarely.  Nevertheless...
_Es qui creatus es ut esses.  _
I'm not satisfied that's the best.  It's awkward if translated literally:  "Be who you were created that you should be."


----------



## Aaronius

Thanks for the response, Snodv.  Another translation I’ve been given is “Esto ille vir qui ut esses creatus es”.  Does this make sense to you?


----------



## bearded

Snodv said:


> _es _is not only the command "be


Can _es _really  be also imperative? That's new to me.
I would suggest a combination of the two translations: _Esto qui/qualis creatus es ut esses._
The formulation with _ille vir _seems grammatically correct to me, but stylistically a bit 'heavy'.


----------



## Novanas

Yes, _es_ can be imperative, but it seems to me, too, the future imperative _esto_ would be better.  I was wondering if _fias_ wouldn't be appropriate.

I myself was thinking along different lines altogether, something like,

_Qualis (vir) natura debes esse, talis esto/fias_.

_Natura _here is the ablative "by nature", although perhaps the adverb _naturaliter _might be better.

However, I freely admit I'm not the world's greatest Latin scholar, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if others don't like this suggestion.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

As ever, I am prepared to be corrected, but isn't _esto_ 3rd-person (re. ## 4, 5)?

My own alternative suggestion is the jussive subjunctive: _sis qui homo naturā creatus es.
_
Σ


----------



## Novanas

My information is that _esto _is both 2nd and 3rd person, singular, future imperative.

Actually, I like your suggestion.


----------



## Snodv

Yes, I too was taught _esto_ was both 2nd and 3rd person imperative.  And I like _esto_ better than my suggestion _es_ as less ambiguous.  I agree that _ille vir _does seem a bit heavy, and while very literal, adds no more real information than my _qui_.  I rather like bearded's synthesis.


----------

