This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Whichever way words in a Latin sentence are arranged the meaning of the sentence is always clear. This is because Latin words (noun, verb, adverb, adjective or even preposition) display their relevance and meaning by how they end. Est delenda Carthago will still have the same meaning and grammatical correctness as Carthago delenda est. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapoadepoju (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Also, the latter is the formal way to say it whereas the former is colloquial. I'm not even sure "delendam esse" would've been used by any Roman in spoken Latin, unless reading from a script or quoting a prepared statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, in Senatorial speech, censeo ut or censeo + AcI with gerundive means what, according to lexica (I'm no native speaker) is in English "I move that", viz., "I do hereby propose to take the following measures". So, the sentence, as Cato had it (or at least as legend has him have it) means this: "So therefore, I move, Fathers and Adjoints, to pass Consultum-proposal no. 647 [e.g., in anachronistic expression]; and in addition, I move to delete Carthage."--88.217.180.233 (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In (very belated) response to the first comment, the "Grammatical Analysis" section of the article has been updated accordingly; the relevant clarifications have been made. Passerculus90 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I see that this page was recently moved, without any discussion here, from Carthago delenda est to the current title Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

The reason given for the page move in the edit summary was that the current title is the full version and the previous title is but an abbreviation of it.

This is not a reason grounded in Wikipedia policy. Our policy is WP:COMMONNAME. It's my contention that the common usage in English language reliable sources is "Carthago delenda est". Does anyone disagree? --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME#Article title format also advises to "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". Regards BECK's 17:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carthago delenda est is the best title. I don't think that abbreviation is even an issue here—that's meant to cover issues such as Dr. Who versus Doctor Who.

No one in the world is going to be looking for an article called "Ceterum censeo Cathaginem esse delendam." I often teach Latin, and I don't recognize that quote; when I think of this phrase, I think "Carthago delenda est." (I doubt that Wikipedia needs an article about this topic at all, but that's a separate question.) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Move back to Carthago delenda est. That's the catchphrase. Per Akhilleus's reasoning and WP:COMMONNAME. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved it back. Sorry for the inconvenience I may have caused. Regards BECK's 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the well-known catchphrase is "Ceterum censeo". (Google fight: "Carthago delenda est" 105.000 against 929.000 "ceterum censeo"). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google fights as you put it, are a very blunt instrument. Searching the two terms on Google books gives 5,180 hits for the shorter form and 3,900 for the longer. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to look the short form "ceterum censeo" (without "carthaginem esse delendam") up. As I understand it, Andreas wanted to proof, that the abbreviations "Ceterum censeo" is the most well-known/common form and per WP:COMMONNAME should hence be the article's title. BECK's 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that "ceterum censeo" (without "Carthaginem esse delendam") is a common way to refer to what Cato said, at least not in English. The citations in the article don't seem to support this idea, and my casual Google searches haven't turned up anything. It does seem to be a way to refer to Cato's saying in German, but that's not so relevant to the question of English usage... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. When it's not common in English to abbreviate it as "Centerum censeo" but rather as "Carthago delenda est", the current title should be kept. BECK's 16:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]