Possessor tacet, quasi fundum non habeat.

Because possessor is in the nominative singular, the case normally used for the subject.

It is a third-declension noun:

• nominative: possessor
• genitive: possessoris

So here possessor means the possessor / owner / holder and is the one doing the action of tacet.

Tacet is the 3rd person singular present active indicative of tacere, meaning to be silent, to keep quiet, or to say nothing.

So possessor tacet means:

• the possessor is silent
• the possessor keeps quiet

All of those are natural translations.

Quasi means as if, as though, or just as if.

It introduces a comparison: the possessor is silent as if something were the case.

So the second part of the sentence describes the appearance or impression, not necessarily a fact.

Because after quasi Latin very often uses the subjunctive.

The idea is:

• habet = he has
• habeat = he may have / he would have / as if he has, depending on context

Here the subjunctive shows that the clause is not being stated as a plain fact. It is part of an as if comparison.

So:

• quasi fundum non habet would sound more like a straightforward statement
• quasi fundum non habeat means as if he did not have an estate

Habeat is present subjunctive, and it matches a present-time main verb, tacet.

The sense is contemporaneous:

• he is silent
• as if he does not have or as if he did not have

Latin often uses the present subjunctive in this kind of present-time comparison.

If the main verb were past, you would more naturally expect something like:

• tacebat, quasi fundum non haberet
• he was silent, as if he did not have an estate

So habeat fits the present-time setting of the sentence.

Because it is the direct object of habeat.

The noun is fundus, a second-declension masculine noun. Its forms include:

• nominative singular: fundus
• accusative singular: fundum

Since habere takes a direct object, Latin uses the accusative:

• fundum habet = he has an estate / farm / property

Fundus usually means farm, estate, piece of landed property, or tract of land.

In many contexts it is not just any bit of ground, but a property holding, often with an economic or legal sense.

So fundum non habeat means something like:

• he does not have an estate
• he does not own land
• he has no property

The best English wording depends on the context.

Because the verb ending already tells you the subject.

The ending -at means he/she/it in the 3rd person singular subjunctive.

So habeat by itself already includes:

• he may have
• she may have
• it may have

Here the subject is understood to be the same person as possessor.

Because non normally negates the verb or the whole verbal idea.

So:

• fundum non habeat = he does not have an estate

Latin word order is flexible, but this placement is very normal and clear. The negation applies to habeat, not to quasi.

Latin has no articles.

So possessor can mean:

• a possessor
• the possessor

And fundum can mean:

• an estate
• the estate

English has to choose a or the when translating, but Latin leaves that to context.

Not always.

Possessor literally means possessor or one in possession. In some contexts that may overlap with owner, but in legal Latin a person can possess something without necessarily being the full legal owner.

So depending on context, possessor may be best translated as:

• possessor
• holder
• occupier
• sometimes owner

That is a nuance worth noticing, especially in legal or historical texts.