“To destroy my obstacles, I stand forth true and resolved”
Which of these is better?
Ad delenda impedimenta mea verus firmusque maneo
OR
Verus obstinatusque maneo ut moram/adversum deleam
I’d prefer the first, but I think there are good parts about each of them. “Mora” signifies “delay” more than an obstacle, so I’d use impedimenta. You could also use “adversa” as the neuter plural, which would mean adverse circumstances/obstacles in general.
I personally, rather than using ‘Ad delenda impedimenta mea,’ would render ‘to destroy’ with the supine. The final product would look something like ‘Impedimenta mea deletum verus firmusque sto.’
“consisto” vel “exsto” pro “stand forth” anglicè benè est, ut opinor.
Salvete omnes!
Thesaurus and Adrianus, thank you both.
Adrianus, how to you know when to use the supine vs the subjunctive or an infinitive? Is there a hard rule?
Gratias tibi ago.
Ah, you think I mentioned the supine, Quis ut Deus, which is why you forgot about arcacaerula. Easily done scanning a thread.
Heia, me supinum tetigisse credis, Quis ut Deus, quod cur nomen arcaecaerulae praetermittas explicat. Facilè factum filo perlegendo.
Vide, Quis ut Deus, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001&query=head%3D%23276
Maybe the supine in the accusative isn’t the best choice with the verbs “destroying” and “standing”. And the supine in “u” is found for the most part only after particular adjectives.
Fortassè supini usus accusativo casu hîc cum “delere” et “exsto” verbis non aptus est. Supinum quidem per “-u” paenè solùm post quosdam adjectivos invenitur.
Salve!
I would be comfortable using the supine for matters of destroying, but certainly not for standing for or against something. Now, I see destruction as a definite move toward an end, as the end is the removal of some noun x; true, destruction is not an end to action, as things cannot be destroyed once and for all, but I think that the intentional dimension ought not be overlooked. The goal is to end at some definite point, i.e. a world in which x no longer exists- I interpreted the usage as being one of a contracted purpose clause of the form ‘I perform (action) in order to destroy object x (v for the sake of arriving in a world in which x no longer exists).’ I believe that destruction is a verb that implies duration, and thereby movement from the incipience to the ‘end;’ as the song goes,
“The time is with the month of winter solstice
When the change is due to come.
Thunder in the other course of heaven.
Things cannot be destroyed once and for all.
Change returns success
Going and coming without error.
Action brings good fortune.
Sunset, sunrise.”
(Pink Floyd magne amo- compulsionem nec obsistere potui!)
If my interpretation is too loose, though, and it very well may be, the supine might had best be reserved for verbs that indicate basic movement of an agent from one place to another…or special cases like verbs of thinking or believing.
Arca,
Salve!
I’m still not even clear on the supine!
Here’s what I (think I) know:
the supine looks like the fourth declension, but is used like an infinitive after verbs of motion.
I THINK.
Vale!
Salve Quis ut Deus.
You’re correct in your beliefs concerning the supine. I just took a short nap and woke up thinking about the subject, and at that point realized what my mistake was: I was focusing on the transitivity of the stop, which really doesn’t matter for our purposes, and NOT on that of the initial verb. 
I concede that the supine is definitely not what you want in this case, since, as already noted, there was no motion implied at the outset of the sentence by a verb of standing. It was really a crumby suggestion- I cannot believe that I had overlooked that specific detail. Thanks for having patience with me!
Vale!