Learn Hardcore Latin: Hodie dies brevis fuit, sed cras dies longus erit in schola. - Today the day was short, but tomorrow the day will be long at school.

dies, diei (m.) = day (in general)
It can be feminine in some special senses (e.g. an appointed day, a deadline), but that’s not the case here.

You can see the masculine gender in the adjective longus:

Masculine: longus
Feminine: longa
Neuter: longum

Because dies is treated as masculine, the adjective is dies longus, not dies longa.

Why is the adjective brevis after dies, but longus is also after dies? Could I say brevis dies or longus dies?

Yes, you can say brevis dies or longus dies. Latin word order is flexible.

In this sentence:

dies brevis fuit = “the day was short”
dies longus erit = “the day will be long”

Adjectives in Latin often follow the noun, but they can also come before it. Moving the adjective can add a slight emphasis or stylistic flavor, but it usually doesn’t change the core meaning.

So these are all grammatical:

hodie dies brevis fuit
hodie brevis dies fuit
cras dies longus erit
cras longus dies erit

How do brevis and longus agree with dies grammatically?

They agree in gender, number, and case with dies.

dies: nominative singular, masculine
brevis: nominative singular, masculine/feminine form (3rd-declension adjective)
longus: nominative singular, masculine (1st/2nd-declension adjective)

So:

dies brevis = nominative singular (subject)
dies longus = nominative singular (subject)

Both adjectives describe dies, so they must match its grammatical form.

Why is there no word for “the” or “a” before dies?

Latin has no articles like English the or a/an.

So dies brevis can mean:

“the day was short”
“a day was short”

The choice between the and a in English comes from context, not from a Latin word. In this sentence, English speakers would normally understand it as:

“Today the day was short, but tomorrow the day will be long at school.”

Why is hodie just one word and not something like in hoc die?

Hodie is an adverb meaning “today.” Historically it comes from hoc die (“on this day”), but in Classical Latin it is treated as a single word, an adverb.

hodie = today
It does not change its form (no case endings).
It does not need a preposition.

So you simply say:

hodie dies brevis fuit = “today the day was short.”

Similarly, what is cras exactly?

Cras is also an adverb, meaning “tomorrow.”

It behaves like hodie: it doesn’t decline and doesn’t take a preposition.
You just put it in the sentence to show future time:

sed cras dies longus erit
= “but tomorrow the day will be long.”

Why do we use fuit instead of erat for “was short”?

Both are past-tense forms of esse (“to be”), but they express different kinds of past:

fuit = perfect tense: “was” as a completed event, often seen as a whole (“the day was short” and it’s now over).
erat = imperfect tense: “was” as ongoing or repeated in the past (“was being” short, “used to be” short, or giving background).

In hodie dies brevis fuit, the speaker is looking back at today as a completed day:
“Today, the day turned out to be short / was short (and now it’s finished).”

If you said hodie dies brevis erat, it might suggest more of a descriptive background past, less focused on the completeness of the day. In many contexts, though, both would be understood similarly; the perfect here nicely matches the idea that “today is (effectively) over.”

Why do we use erit instead of something like futurus est for “will be”?

Erit is the normal, straightforward future tense of esse:

erit = “he/she/it will be”

Futurus est is a periphrastic future construction (literally “is about to be / is going to be”) and is often used when you want to emphasize intention or imminence.

In simple future statements like this sentence, Latin prefers:

dies longus erit = “the day will be long”

rather than dies longus futurus est.

Why is in schola at the end, and what case is schola in?

In schola means “in (the) school.”

in
- ablative = “in, on, at” (location)
schola is ablative singular of schola, scholae (f.) = school, class.

Word order:

Latin often puts adverbial phrases (like in schola) near the end of the clause.
The phrase in schola modifies erit (“will be long in school”), but Latin doesn’t need it to be next to the verb.

So:

cras dies longus erit in schola
and
cras dies longus in schola erit

are both possible, with similar meaning. The chosen order sounds quite natural in Latin.

Could we leave out the second dies and just say sed cras longus erit in schola?

You can omit repeated nouns when they’re clear from context, and Latin often does this. So:

hodie dies brevis fuit, sed cras longus erit in schola

would be understandable as:

“Today the day was short, but tomorrow (it) will be long in school.”

However, repeating dies:

sed cras dies longus erit in schola

gives clarity and balance to the sentence. Especially for learners (and also often in good style), repeating the noun keeps the structure clear:

dies brevis fuit … dies longus erit.

Is there any reason the sentence doesn’t use a present tense with hodie, like hodie dies brevis est?

You could say:

hodie dies brevis est = “today the day is short”

That would usually imply you are speaking during the day, while it’s still going on.

Using fuit:

hodie dies brevis fuit = “today the day was short”

suggests that you are looking back on the day as something basically completed (or at least mostly over).

So the choice of est vs fuit depends on the speaker’s viewpoint in time:

est: the short day is currently happening.
fuit: we are now after (or at the end of) the short day, reflecting on it.