Armatura hoplomachi hastam et parmam continet.

The subject is armatura.

It is nominative singular, and it is the thing doing the action of continet. So grammatically, armatura is what contains the spear and shield.

Here hoplomachi is genitive singular: of the hoplomachus.

Latin often shows possession or close association with the genitive case. So:

• armatura hoplomachi = the equipment of the hoplomachus

A natural English learner’s shortcut is:

• genitive often corresponds to of ... or sometimes an apostrophe-s in English

In isolation, yes: hoplomachi could also be nominative plural.

But in this sentence, it is understood as genitive singular, because it fits the phrase armatura hoplomachi much better:

• the equipment of the hoplomachus

If you took hoplomachi as nominative plural, the sentence structure would become awkward and would no longer match the intended meaning.

Because they are accusative singular.

They are the direct objects of continet, meaning they are the things being contained. In Latin, direct objects often go in the accusative case.

So:

• hastam = spear, as a direct object
• parmam = shield, as a direct object

Both are first-declension nouns, so their accusative singular ends in -am.

Et simply means and.

It links the two direct objects:

• hastam et parmam = a spear and a shield

So the sentence says that the equipment contains both items.

Continet is:

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

It comes from contineo, continere.

Because the subject armatura is singular, the verb is singular too:

• armatura ... continet = the equipment ... contains

Because armatura is a collective idea here.

It means something like equipment, gear, or armament as a single set. A single set of equipment can include more than one object.

So there is no problem with:

• one armatura
• containing two things: hastam et parmam

Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order, because the endings show each word’s job.

This sentence has a very natural order:

• Armatura hoplomachi hastam et parmam continet.

A Latin writer could rearrange it and still keep the same basic meaning, for example:

• Hastam et parmam armatura hoplomachi continet.

The difference would mainly be emphasis, not core meaning.

Because Latin has no articles.

Latin does not have separate words that exactly match English the, a, or an. Whether you translate a noun with the or a depends on context.

So:

• hastam could be translated as a spear or the spear
• parmam could be a shield or the shield

The same is true for armatura.

It is a Greek-derived noun used in Latin.

Even though it comes from Greek, it is treated much like a second-declension masculine noun in Latin:

• nominative singular: hoplomachus
• genitive singular: hoplomachi
• nominative plural: hoplomachi

So its forms may look familiar if you already know regular second-declension nouns such as servus, servi.

The form armatura could, in theory, be either:

• nominative singular, or
• ablative singular

But in this sentence it is clearly nominative singular, because it is the subject of continet.

So even when a form is ambiguous by itself, the sentence structure usually makes the function clear.

Not quite. Parma usually refers to a small shield, often a round one.

That can matter because Latin often has several words that English might translate the same way. So parma is more specific than just a completely generic shield.

That is useful vocabulary to notice, especially in a gladiatorial context.