Choragus clamat, sed spectatores catervam exsibilant.

Because choragus is in the nominative singular, which is the case normally used for the subject of a clause.

Also, the verb clamat ends in -t, which tells you it is third person singular: he/she/it shouts. That matches a single subject such as choragus.

So the grammar lines up neatly:

• choragus = one subject
• clamat = one person is doing the action

The two clauses have different subjects.

• choragus clamat: choragus is singular, so the verb is singular: clamat
• spectatores ... exsibilant: spectatores is plural, so the verb is plural: exsibilant

This is a very basic but important Latin pattern: the verb agrees with its subject in number.

A useful shortcut:

• -t = he/she/it
• -nt = they

So:

• clama-t = he/she shouts
• exsibila-nt = they hiss/boo

Because spectatores is nominative plural, the normal case for a plural subject.

The ending -es here belongs to the noun spectator, spectatoris, a third-declension noun. Its nominative plural is spectatores.

So in the second clause:

• spectatores = the people doing the action
• catervam = the thing receiving the action
• exsibilant = they hiss/boo

The endings, not the position alone, tell you the job of each word.

Because it is in the accusative singular, which is the case commonly used for a direct object.

Here catervam is what the spectators are booing/hissing. The accusative ending -am is very typical of a first-declension singular noun.

So:

• caterva = nominative singular
• catervam = accusative singular

A learner should notice that -am often signals direct object in first-declension nouns.

Because a singular noun can still refer to a collection of people.

Caterva means something like crowd, band, troop, or group. In English too, a singular word like crowd can refer to many individuals.

So the grammar is singular, but the sense can still be collective.

Because Latin does not have definite or indefinite articles like English the, a, or an.

So Latin often leaves that idea unstated, and English has to supply it from context.

For example:

• choragus could mean the chorus-leader or a chorus-leader
• spectatores could mean the spectators or simply spectators

The context or the given translation tells you which is most natural.

Because the verb endings already tell you the person and number.

• clamat already means he/she shouts
• exsibilant already means they hiss/boo

Latin can add pronouns for emphasis, but it usually does not need them.

So instead of saying something like he shouts, Latin can simply say clamat.

They are both present active indicative.

That usually gives a basic meaning like:

• clamat = shouts / is shouting
• exsibilant = hiss / are hissing / boo

Latin present tense is often a bit broader than English. Depending on context, it can sound like either:

• a simple present: shouts
• a present progressive: is shouting

So if the meaning already shown to the learner uses either English form, that is normal.

Because Latin verbs do not always match English constructions exactly.

In English, we often say:

• hiss at
• boo

But Latin exsibilare can take a direct object in the accusative. So Latin says, literally, something like they hiss out the troupe/crowd or more naturally they boo the troupe.

This is a good reminder that you should learn a Latin verb together with the case pattern it uses, not assume it will copy English.

Sed is a coordinating conjunction meaning but.

It links the two clauses and shows a contrast:

• Choragus clamat
• sed spectatores catervam exsibilant

So the sense is: one thing is happening, but something different or opposing is happening in the second clause.

Yes, but not in the same way as in English.

Latin word order is more flexible because the endings show the grammatical roles. In this sentence:

• Choragus clamat = subject + verb
• sed spectatores catervam exsibilant = subject + object + verb

That is a perfectly normal Latin arrangement, especially with the verb at the end of the clause.

If you changed the order, the endings would still show who is doing what. For example, catervam spectatores exsibilant would still mean that the spectators are booing the troupe/group, not the other way around.

So word order can add emphasis or style, but the case endings do the main grammatical work.

It is a masculine noun used in Latin, borrowed from Greek.

Even though it comes from Greek, here it behaves like a normal Latin noun in -us, so a learner can treat it as a second-declension masculine noun for practical purposes.

In this sentence, the important thing is simply:

• choragus = nominative singular
• it is the subject of clamat

So you do not need to be worried just because it is not a very common everyday Latin word.