Simul ac stillicidium vidit, conductor locatorem vocavit.

Simul ac is a temporal conjunction meaning as soon as.

Literally, simul has the idea of at the same time, and ac means and or and then, but together they often function idiomatically as as soon as.

So:

• Simul ac stillicidium vidit = As soon as he saw the leak / dripping

You may also see similar expressions such as simul atque.

In Latin narrative, the perfect tense often corresponds to the ordinary English simple past:

• vidit = he saw
• vocavit = he called

So both verbs are in the perfect because the sentence describes two completed past actions:

1. he saw the leak
2. he called the landlord

The conjunction simul ac shows that the first action happened immediately before the second.

Because Latin perfect tense has a wider range than English has seen.

A Latin perfect can mean either:

• a simple past action: he saw
• or, in some contexts, something closer to he has seen

In straightforward storytelling like this, the normal translation is the simple past:

• vidit = saw
• not usually has seen

Most likely, yes.

Latin often leaves the subject unstated when it can be understood from context. The form vidit by itself means he/she saw. Then the main clause gives conductor as the subject of vocavit.

So the natural reading is:

• As soon as the tenant saw the leak, the tenant called the landlord.

In other words, the understood subject of vidit is the same person later named as conductor.

Because it is the direct object of vidit.

He saw what?
He saw the leak / dripping.

So:

• vidit = verb
• stillicidium = direct object, therefore accusative singular

Also, stillicidium is a neuter noun, and in the singular its nominative and accusative forms are the same, both stillicidium.

Stillicidium refers to a dripping, a leak, or water dripping from a roof.

Depending on context, it can suggest:

• the act of dripping
• the water that drips
• a roof leak

In this sentence, leak or dripping is a natural translation.

Because they have different jobs in the sentence.

• conductor is the subject of vocavit, so it is nominative
• locatorem is the direct object of vocavit, so it is accusative

So:

• conductor vocavit locatorem = the tenant called the landlord

More literally:

• conductor = the one doing the calling
• locatorem = the person being called

Yes, in this sort of legal or rental context.

These words can be confusing because their English look-alikes suggest other meanings. But in Roman legal language:

• conductor = lessee, hirer, often tenant
• locator = lessor, the person who lets the property, often landlord

So this is not a musical conductor, and locator is not just someone who locates things.

Because Latin has no articles.

Latin does not have separate words for:

• the
• a
• an

So a noun like conductor can mean:

• the tenant
• a tenant

The context determines which is best in English. In this sentence, English usually wants the tenant and the landlord.

It is important for style and emphasis, but not as rigidly as in English.

Latin relies heavily on case endings, so the grammar is clear even if the order changes:

• conductor is nominative, so it is the subject
• locatorem is accusative, so it is the object

The sentence as written has a very natural flow:

1. subordinate clause first: Simul ac stillicidium vidit
2. main clause after it: conductor locatorem vocavit

Also, Latin often puts the verb late in the clause, which you can see in both parts of this sentence.

Because vidit presents the sighting as a completed event.

• vidit = he saw
• videbat = he was seeing or he used to see, depending on context

With simul ac meaning as soon as, Latin normally wants the moment of perception as a single event:

• As soon as he saw the leak, he called...

If you used videbat, it would suggest an ongoing or repeated action, which does not fit as well here.

Normally the indicative, when it refers to a real event.

That is exactly what happens here:

• vidit is perfect indicative

The clause is simply stating that he really did see the leak, and then he called the landlord. There is no special idea of uncertainty, purpose, or indirect speech that would call for the subjunctive here.