Re: Carthage?
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 0:45 |
|---|
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:24:44AM +0100, Rene Uittenbogaard wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it's :
> > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!
> >
> > (besides, by the way) (I mean, I am of the opinion that) (Carthage)
> > (is to be destroyed)
You mean (is) (to be destroyed).
> I like the translation "is to be destroyed". Other languages seem to
> have the same type of construct ("to be" meaning "must")
But that's not the case here. The "to be" just means "to be"; the sense of
"must" comes from the adjective "delenda" which means "needing to be
destroyed". I believe the -enda suffix for verbs, turning
"to X" into "needing to be Xed", was generally productive in Latin,
but that could be Esperanto interference confusing me.
-Marcos
Reply