Ancilla spongia guttas aquae de mensa tergit.

Ancilla is understood as the subject because it is in the nominative singular, and the verb tergit is third-person singular: she wipes.

Latin usually shows sentence roles by endings, not mainly by word order. So even though English depends heavily on position, Latin tells you who is doing the action through case and verb form.

With macrons, this would be clearer: ancilla is nominative, while an ablative singular would be ancillā.

Here spongia is an ablative of means/instrument, which tells you what tool is used to do the action: with a sponge.

Latin often uses the ablative without a preposition for an inanimate instrument:

• gladio pugnat = he fights with a sword
• spongia tergit = she wipes with a sponge

A beginner may wonder why it does not look different from the nominative. In the first declension, the nominative singular and ablative singular can look the same if macrons are not written. With macrons, this would be spongiā.

Guttas is accusative plural, so it is the direct object: the thing being wiped away.

The noun is gutta, meaning drop. Its accusative plural is guttas.

So Latin is literally saying that the maid wipes the drops from the table, rather than making table the direct object. English can say this too: wipes drops from the table.

Here aquae is genitive singular, so guttas aquae means drops of water.

This is a very common Latin pattern:

• copia frumenti = a supply of grain
• amor patriae = love of country
• guttae aquae = drops of water

A learner may notice that aquae could also be other forms in other contexts, such as nominative plural or dative singular. But here the grammar and meaning show that it is genitive singular, modifying guttas.

Because the sentence is talking about individual drops, not just water in general.

So:

• aquam would mean water as a substance
• guttas aquae means drops of water

That is more precise. The maid is wiping away separate droplets.

De takes the ablative, and de mensa means from the table or off the table.

This is a natural choice when something is being removed from the surface of something:

• de muro = off the wall
• de capite = from the head
• de mensa = off the table

A beginner might ask why not ex mensa. Ex usually suggests out of or from inside something, while de is especially good for off/from a surface.

Because the sentence is not saying the maid wipes the table. It is saying the maid wipes drops of water from the table.

So:

• guttas is the direct object
• de mensa tells you where the drops are being removed from

Latin often makes this distinction very clearly through case endings.

Latin often places the verb near or at the end of the sentence. That is a very common word order, although Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order.

So this sentence could be rearranged in other ways without changing the basic meaning, because the endings still show the roles:

• Ancilla spongia guttas aquae de mensa tergit
• Guttas aquae ancilla spongia de mensa tergit

The version you were given is very natural and clear.

Tergit comes from tergō, tergere, tersī, tersum, meaning wipe, clean off, or wipe away.

In this sentence, tergit is:

• present tense
• active voice
• indicative mood
• third person singular

So it means she wipes or, depending on context, she is wiping.

No. Classical Latin does not have articles like English the and a/an.

So ancilla can mean:

• the maid
• a maid

And mensa can mean:

• the table
• a table

Context tells you which is meant. In many teaching translations, English adds the because it sounds more natural.

In practice, no. The sentence is understood as having one subject, ancilla, and spongia as the instrument.

Why?

• The verb is singular, so only one subject is expected unless there is some special construction.
• The meaning strongly supports maid as the doer and sponge as the tool.
• Latin commonly uses the ablative of means exactly this way.

So the natural reading is The maid wipes the drops of water from the table with a sponge.