Talk:Carthago delenda est/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrong link

The link to Alan Wilkins does not point to the correct entry. It points to a cricketer. What should be done about it? 83.235.22.171 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. You could have done it yourself, you know? Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. :-) You'll find it easier joining in if you get an account (it's free and takes about 2 mins if that) but you can also edit as an anonymous IP. --Dweller (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

"Carthago delenda est" means "Carthago is destroyed". The correct version is "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". See also the German entry. Someone please fix the headline, because this is embarrassing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.214.2 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"delenda" is a gerundive. The idea of 'fit to be' is expressed with the gerundive of deleo, ergo "Carthago delenda est", expressing that Carthage must/ is fit to be/ should be destroyed. This is not the indicative mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.253.219 (talk • contribs)

The preceding comment is correct. Moreover, the longer version is not more correct, and the article does not need to be moved (though the title in German wiki is certainly equally correct); if you follow up the references in note #3, you'll learn that the versions of this saying familiar to moderns have evolved from different forms in the ancient sources. Wareh (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of Carthago deleta est. — Chameleon 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

should/must/is to be

i still think "is to be destroyed" is the correct translation for a gerundive.-- ExpImp^talkcon 17:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Too vague. That could mean that it is going to be destroyed. The true sense is that it must, needs to or ought to be destroyed. — Chameleon 09:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Cato could not have said this, since the verb censeo in Classical usage is construed with the gerund or gerundive *without* the verb to be (esse). Can someone please edit the article to reflect this? Patricius oenus 18:45, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that rule from? A simple Google search shows that many texts use censeo with esse. — Chameleon 09:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Patricius videtur regulam recte protulisse: nam verbum censendi apud priscos et antiquos hoc sensu sententiae suadendi causa proferendae adhibebatur semper cum gerundivo, sed semper sine infinitivo quod est "esse." Nec me fallit verbum censendi nonnumquam cum eo "esse" legi, sed non una cum gerundivo: nam "censeo id esse huiusmodi" sibi vult "puto verum esse id hanc qualitatem habere." At "censeo id faciendum" possumus fusius dicere "mea sententia, quam rite pronuntio, hoc debemus facere." Id "censeo esse" ad statum coniecturalem vel qualitatis spectat, dum "censeo faciendum" (sine esse) potius suadet ut res efficiatur. Ut exempla afferantur:

* Caesar BC 2.30: "erant sententiae, quae conandum omnibus modis castraque Vari oppugnanda censerent"

* Livius 9.26.4: " Lucerini ac Samnites ad internecionem caesi; eoque ira processit ut Romae quoque, cum de colonis mittendis Luceriam consuleretur senatus, multi delendam urbem censerent."

Immo id "esse delendam" de Catonis sententia dictum invenitur primum apud Florum, qui scripsit: " Cato inexpiabili odio delendam esse Carthaginem, et cum de alio consuleretur, pronuntiabat." Sed hoc verbum pronuntiandi non idem est atque id censendi. Legimus tertio saeculo post Christum natum Ampelii verba haec: "censuit in senatu tamen Carthaginem non esse delendam; propterea optimus iudicatus." Sed Ampelius non est inter probatissimos auctores nominandus.

Also a short story

Should this be one of those "references in popular culture" things: http://escapepod.org/2009/08/13/ep211-carthago-delenda-est/ ? DenisHowe (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile, but my rule on "in popular culture" would be if you have to ask, then no. 4pq1injbok (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from Latin texts needed

This article would be much improved as a reference source if the source Latin wording could be quoted from Plutarch et.al., with English translations. If anyone has the Latin texts to hand, please consider doing so. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)) Just realised Plutarch wrote in Greek! - A Greek quote would be equally as informative. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Image

I think that a disservice is done when ancient statuary continues to be represented, with little or no supporting evidence, as portraiture of the famous. Many of these dubious ascriptions were clearly made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to enhance the value of the piece. I don't know that about the statue pictured, but I very much doubt that it represents Cato Major as he appeared in life.

When we listen on the radio to someone we have never seen, we tend to form in our minds a picture of that person, and I do admit that Old Vinegarpuss (whoever he may have been) does very much resemble my mental picture of Cato Censorius, formed by reading him, and about him.

We do have evidence, though, that Cato did sometimes smile:

Vetus illud Catonis admonum scitum est, qui mirari aiebat quod non rideret hasuspex haruspicem cum videsset.

There is that old saying of Cato’s, who used to wonder how one soothsayer could look at another withou laughing.

Cicero: De Divinatione ii: 51

But I digress. My point is that by continuing to present this image, without qualification, as a portrait of Cato, Wikpedia may be perpetuating error.

Mjhrynick (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the file File:Marco Porcio Caton Major.jpg is surely misnamed. The file description states it to be of the "So called patrician Torlonia it:Patrizio Torlonia", which appears to have no connection to Cato at all. I have therefore removed the image and replaced with one with a slightly better claim to represent Cato. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

However, except for statues of the reigning emperor, and those commissioned directly by the subject's family, the ancients themselves often had a somewhat casual attitude about authenticity of portraiture, and statues were fairly often reused in various ways... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)