Comoedus gesticulari et spectatores ridere vult.

The main verb is vult, which means wants.

It comes from volo, velle, volui = to want.

Everything else in the sentence is built around that verb:

• Comoedus = the actor/comedian
• vult = wants
• gesticulari = to gesture
• spectatores ridere = the spectators to laugh

So the sentence is centered on what the actor wants.

Because after vult Latin commonly uses infinitives, just as English uses to + verb after wants.

Compare:

• English: The actor wants to gesture.
• Latin: Comoedus gesticulari vult.

And:

• English: The actor wants the spectators to laugh.
• Latin: Comoedus spectatores ridere vult.

So gesticulari and ridere are both dependent on vult.

Good question. Gesticulari is the infinitive of a deponent verb.

Its dictionary form is:

• gesticulor, gesticulari, gesticulatus sum

Deponent verbs look passive in form, but have an active meaning.

So:

• gesticulari looks like a passive infinitive
• but it means to gesture, not to be gestured

This is very common in Latin and is something learners have to get used to.

The subject of gesticulari is the same as the subject of vult, namely comoedus.

So:

• comoedus gesticulari vult = the actor wants to gesture

But ridere has a different subject:

• spectatores ridere = the spectators to laugh

So the sentence has two different understood subjects for the two infinitives:

• the actor gestures
• the spectators laugh

Because Latin can use an accusative + infinitive construction after verbs like want, especially when the person who does the infinitive is different from the subject of the main verb.

So:

• comoedus ... vult = the actor wants ...
• spectatores ridere = the spectators to laugh

In English we say:

• He wants the spectators to laugh.

Latin expresses that with:

• spectatores ridere

So spectatores is the subject of ridere, but it appears in the accusative.

In the plural of many third-declension masculine nouns, the nominative plural and accusative plural have the same form.

So spectatores can be either:

• nominative plural: the spectators
• accusative plural: the spectators

You tell the case from the grammar of the sentence, not from the spelling alone.

Here it is understood as accusative, because it is the subject of the infinitive ridere after vult:

• He wants the spectators to laugh

Et connects two infinitive phrases that both depend on vult:

• gesticulari
• spectatores ridere

So the structure is basically:

Comoedus
[gesticulari] et [spectatores ridere]
vult

In other words:

The actor wants [to gesture] and [the spectators to laugh].

No. Latin uses the infinitive form itself.

So:

• ridere = to laugh
• gesticulari = to gesture

There is no separate word corresponding to English to here.

That is why English learners often need to stop thinking of to as a separate piece when reading Latin infinitives.

It is very similar to the accusative-and-infinitive pattern used in indirect statement, and many learners notice that right away.

A simple way to think about it here is:

• after vult, Latin can use an infinitive
• if the infinitive has a different subject, that subject goes into the accusative

So whether you want to label it more technically or not, the practical point is this:

• same subject: comoedus gesticulari vult
• different subject: comoedus spectatores ridere vult

That is the key pattern to learn.

Yes. Latin word order is much freer than English word order.

For example, Latin could also say:

• Comoedus vult gesticulari et spectatores ridere.
• Spectatores ridere et gesticulari comoedus vult.

Those are different in emphasis or style, but the basic grammar remains the same because the endings and constructions show the relationships.

In your sentence, vult comes at the end, which is a very normal Latin position for the main verb.