Talk:Carthago delenda est

message: I have seen the phrase written this way, also.  A quick search on Google shows that "Delenda est Carthago" is more common.  Could somebody verify if which phrase is grammatically and historically correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.102.53 (talk • contribs) 
:This has already been verified; there is no need to consider a change.  It is grammatically correct.  From the article, note that: (1) neither form is "historically correct," (2) the cited article "The Authenticity and Form of Cato's Saying 'Carthago Delenda Est'" chooses this form for the title.  Wareh 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delenda est Carthago?

message: *First, the "est" in "Carthago delenda est" does not mean "is."  When a form of the verb "sum, est, fui, futurus" is used with a future passive participle (i.e., "delenda" from the verb "deleo, delere, delvi, deletus") then the phrase is used to express necessity or a force of action.  This construction is called a "passive periphrastic."  Thus, "Carthago delenda est" means "Carthage MUST be destroyed," or "Carthage SHOULD be destroyed," or something along those line and not "Carthage is destroyed," etc.
: Second, both "Carthago delenda est" and the longer "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delandam esse" mean the equivalent (sort of).  The former is a direct statement: "Carthage must be destroyed"; whereas the latter is an indirect statement with the same essence: "Furthermore, I believe THAT Carthage must be destroyed." In Latin, when using an indirect statement, the subject of the indirect statement goes into the accusative case (thus, "Carthago" (nom. sing.) becomes "Carthaginem" (acc. sing.)) and the verb of the sentence goes into an infinitive form.  In this case, the verb is a participle, which is a verbal adjective, so the participle takes the form of the subject it is modifying (which in this case is an acc. sing., so "delenda" becomes "delendam" to match "Carthaginem").  The "est," which is used for the passive periphrastic, matches the this construct, and takes an infinitive form "esse," as verbs are to do in indirect statements.  Thus, "Carthago delenda est" and "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delandam esse" are saying the same thing, just in two different constructions (and with the latter having the "Furthermore, I believe that" added to make it more like what Cato probably would have actually said to other Romans).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.16.44 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *About the first comment I alert that in the phrase "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" the subordinate clause (i.e. the accusative and infinitive construction) does not entail indirect speech, because even "Ceterum censeo" are Cato's words quoted verbatim. --Frognall (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Clarifications

message: In Third Punic War#Background, Appian and Cicero's Cato Maior de Senectute are given as sources, but not here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hi,
Reference 4 ("To be clear, the semantic import of "Carthage is to be destroyed" ...") should be something other than a reference.  I think it should be a note, or possibly merged into the main text.
79.180.54.228 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 4 should be changed