Lanista gladiatores spectat.

Because Latin noun endings do not always match natural gender the way an English learner might expect.

Lanista is a masculine noun, even though it belongs to the first declension, a group that often contains feminine nouns. Latin has a number of masculine first-declension nouns, especially for jobs or social roles.

So in this sentence, lanista is still masculine and means a male gladiator trainer or owner.

Lanista is in the nominative singular, which is the case normally used for the subject of the sentence.

Also, the verb spectat is singular, so we expect a singular subject. Lanista is singular, while gladiatores is plural, so lanista is the natural match for the subject.

Because the verb agrees with the subject, not with the object.

Here:

• lanista = subject = singular
• gladiatores = object = plural

So the verb must be singular: spectat = he watches / is watching

If the gladiators were the subject, then you would expect spectant.

There are two main clues:

• The verb spectat is singular, so the subject should be singular.
• Gladiatores is plural, so it does not fit the verb as the subject here.

Also, spectare is a transitive verb, so it can take a direct object. In this sentence, gladiatores is that direct object: the gladiators.

A tricky point: gladiatores can be either nominative plural or accusative plural in form. So the form by itself is ambiguous. The rest of the sentence tells you how to understand it.

Spectat is:

• 3rd person singular
• present tense
• active voice
• indicative mood

It comes from spectare, meaning to watch, to look at, or to observe.

So spectat can mean:

• he watches
• she watches
• it watches
• depending on context, also is watching

The verb ending tells you the person and number, but not the gender.

Because Classical Latin has no articles.

So lanista can mean:

• a gladiator trainer
• the gladiator trainer

And gladiatores can mean:

• gladiators
• the gladiators

You decide from context which English wording is best.

It matters much less in Latin than in English, because Latin uses endings to show grammatical function.

So all of these could mean roughly the same thing:

• Lanista gladiatores spectat
• Gladiatores lanista spectat
• Spectat lanista gladiatores

The differences are mostly about emphasis or style, not basic meaning.

That said, putting the verb at the end, as in Lanista gladiatores spectat, is very common in Latin.

Yes. Latin often omits a subject pronoun or even a subject noun when the meaning is already clear.

Since spectat already means he/she/it watches, Latin could simply say:

Gladiatores spectat

That would mean he/she is watching the gladiators, with the subject understood from context.

In your sentence, lanista is included to make the subject explicit.

It can mean either, depending on context.

Latin present tense often covers both:

• he watches
• he is watching

English has to choose between simple present and progressive, but Latin usually does not make that distinction in the same way.

So spectat could describe:

• a general action or habit
• an action happening right now

They are usually given as:

• lanista, lanistae — gladiator trainer / owner
• gladiator, gladiatoris — gladiator
• specto, spectare — to watch / observe

More fully, the verb is often listed as:

• specto, spectare, spectavi, spectatus

Knowing the dictionary forms helps you identify declension or conjugation and understand how the word is being used in the sentence.