Hostes urbem perdere volunt.

Yes. Hostes can be either:

• nominative plural = the enemies as the subject
• accusative plural = the enemies as the direct object

So how do we know which it is here?

Because of the rest of the sentence:

• volunt = they want, so it needs a plural subject
• urbem is clearly accusative singular, so that is the direct object of perdere

That makes hostes the most natural subject: the enemies want to destroy the city.

So Latin often uses context and agreement to show the role of a word.

Because urbem is the accusative singular form of urbs.

• urbs = nominative singular, used for the subject
• urbem = accusative singular, used for the direct object

Since the city is the thing being destroyed, it must be in the accusative case, so Latin uses urbem.

Because after volunt (they want), Latin normally uses an infinitive.

So the structure is:

• volunt = they want
• perdere = to destroy

Together: they want to destroy

This is very similar to English, where want is also followed by an infinitive: want to destroy.

If you used perdunt, that would mean they destroy, not to destroy.

Because in Latin, the infinitive form itself already includes the idea of to.

So:

• perdere = to destroy
• not to + destroy as two separate words

This is normal in Latin. The infinitive is a single word.

Volunt is present tense.

It comes from velle, meaning to want.

So volunt means:

• they want
• or sometimes they are willing

In this sentence, they want is the natural meaning.

Because the subject is plural: hostes = the enemies.

Latin verbs must agree with their subject in person and number.

• hostis = singular enemy
• hostes = plural enemies
• so the verb must be plural too: volunt = they want

If the subject were singular, you would expect vult = he/she/it wants.

They are:

• hostis, hostis = enemy
• urbs, urbis = city
• perdo, perdere, perdidi, perditum = destroy, ruin, lose
• volo, velle, volui = want, wish

A learner often sees sentence forms first, but dictionary forms help you recognize where they come from.

For this sentence:

• hostes comes from hostis
• urbem comes from urbs
• perdere is already a dictionary form, the present active infinitive
• volunt comes from volo / velle

Both nouns belong to the third declension.

• hostis, hostis is a third-declension noun
• urbs, urbis is also a third-declension noun

Their forms here are:

• hostes = nominative plural
• urbem = accusative singular

Third-declension nouns can have forms that look less predictable to English speakers, so these are worth memorizing carefully.

Yes. Latin word order is more flexible than English word order because endings show grammatical function.

So all of these could mean basically the same thing:

• Hostes urbem perdere volunt.
• Urbem hostes perdere volunt.
• Volunt hostes urbem perdere.
• Hostes volunt urbem perdere.

The original order is perfectly normal, but changing the order can shift emphasis.

For example:

• putting urbem first can emphasize the city
• putting volunt first can emphasize the wanting

English relies much more heavily on word order to show who is doing what.

Because Classical Latin has no definite article and no indefinite article.

So Latin does not have separate words exactly like:

• the
• a / an

A noun like hostes can mean:

• enemies
• the enemies

And urbem can mean:

• a city
• the city

You decide from context which English translation sounds best.

Because velle (to want) does not make sense here with urbem as its direct object.

What the enemies want is not the city; what they want is to destroy the city.

So the structure is:

• hostes = subject
• volunt = main verb
• perdere urbem = infinitive phrase, to destroy the city

Inside that infinitive phrase:

• perdere is the infinitive
• urbem is its direct object

Not always. Perdere can have a range of meanings, including:

• destroy
• ruin
• waste
• lose

But with urbem (city) as its object, destroy or ruin is the most natural translation.

So in this sentence, destroy is the clearest choice.

A careful classroom pronunciation would be approximately:

HOS-tays OOR-bem PER-de-reh WOH-loont

More exactly in reconstructed Classical pronunciation:

• hostēs = hos-tays
• urbem = oor-bem
• perdere = pehr-deh-reh
• volunt = woh-loont

A few useful notes:

• final -m is light
• v is pronounced like English w in Classical pronunciation
• e is always pronounced, never silent

The pattern is:

subject + object + infinitive + main verb

More specifically:

• Hostes = subject
• urbem = object of the infinitive
• perdere = infinitive
• volunt = main verb

So this is a very common Latin construction:

[someone] + [something] + [infinitive] + volunt

meaning

[someone] wants to [do something to something]

Yes. With macrons, it is:

Hostēs urbem perdere volunt.

The macron here is on ē in hostēs because that vowel is long.

Macrons are often omitted in ordinary texts, but they are very helpful for learners because they show vowel length, which can matter for:

• pronunciation
• poetry
• sometimes distinguishing forms

So both of these are the same sentence:

• Hostes urbem perdere volunt.
• Hostēs urbem perdere volunt.