Colonus lapidem terminalem non invenit, nedum controversiam finium decernat.

Yes. Invenit can be either:

• present: he finds
• perfect: he found / has found

So non invenit can mean either he does not find or he did not find / has not found.

Which meaning is best depends on context. In a sentence like this, many learners will naturally understand it as a more general present idea: the farmer does not find the boundary stone, let alone settle the boundary dispute. But without more context, the perfect sense is also grammatically possible.

Nedum means something like:

• much less
• let alone
• still less

It introduces something that is even less likely, less possible, or more difficult than what came before.

So the logic is:

• the farmer does not even find the boundary stone;
• much less can he settle the dispute about the boundaries.

This is a very common Latin way of building an argument from the easier thing to the harder thing.

Because nedum is commonly followed by the subjunctive, especially when it means let alone / much less after a negative idea.

So:

• non invenit = he does not find
• nedum ... decernat = much less would he settle / let alone settle

The subjunctive here does not necessarily make the action doubtful in the same way as in all Latin subjunctives; rather, it is part of the normal construction after nedum.

Because after nedum, Latin often uses the subjunctive, not the indicative.

So:

• decernit would simply mean he decides / settles
• decernat is the expected form in this nedum clause

In other words, the sentence is not just making two plain statements. It is saying:

• he does not do the lesser thing,
• let alone the greater thing.

That second part is what triggers the subjunctive.

Controversiam finium means a dispute about boundaries or a boundary dispute.

Breakdown:

• controversiam = dispute, controversy (accusative singular)
• finium = of boundaries (genitive plural)

So finium depends on controversiam and tells you what the dispute is about.

This is a very common Latin pattern:

• noun + genitive
• the dispute of boundaries = the boundary dispute

Because Latin often uses fines, finium in the plural to mean:

• boundaries
• borders
• territory limits

So although English might say a boundary dispute in the singular, Latin naturally says a dispute of boundaries.

Also, do not confuse this fines with the English-derived word fine meaning money paid as punishment. Latin fines here has nothing to do with penalties; it means boundaries/borders.

It is accusative singular, because it is the direct object of invenit.

Breakdown:

• lapidem = stone (accusative singular of lapis)
• terminalem = boundary-marking / terminal (accusative singular adjective agreeing with lapidem)

So the farmer is finding what?
lapidem terminalem = the boundary stone

Yes, it is related in origin, but here it has a specific sense.

Terminalis, terminale means belonging to a boundary or end-point. In this sentence, lapis terminalis is a boundary stone, a stone marking the limit between properties or territories.

So terminalem does not mean final here in the everyday English sense. It means something like:

• boundary-marking
• serving as a border marker

Because colonus is in the nominative singular, the case normally used for the subject.

So:

• colonus = the farmer / settler
• lapidem terminalem = the object
• controversiam finium = another object, with a genitive dependent on it

Latin uses endings, not word position alone, to show these roles.

Usually colonus means something like:

• farmer
• cultivator
• settler
• tenant farmer, depending on context

In a sentence about boundary stones and land disputes, farmer is a very natural translation. But the Latin word can carry a broader sense connected with working or occupying land.

Latin word order is much freer than English word order because Latin shows grammatical relationships mostly through endings, not fixed position.

So in:

Colonus lapidem terminalem non invenit, nedum controversiam finium decernat.

the sentence puts the subject first, then the first object, then the verb, and then the nedum clause. That is perfectly normal Latin.

English would more naturally say:

• The farmer does not find the boundary stone, let alone settle the boundary dispute.

Latin can move words around for emphasis, rhythm, or style without changing the basic meaning, as long as the endings make the syntax clear.

Often, yes, English naturally adds something like can, could, or would even though there is no separate Latin word for it here.

Latin says simply:

• nedum ... decernat

But idiomatic English often prefers:

• much less can he settle
• let alone settle
• still less could he settle

That extra helping verb is just an English way of making the comparison sound natural. It is not a separate Latin word hidden in the sentence.

Yes, sometimes Latin uses nedum with an infinitive, and in English we often translate with an infinitive too: let alone settle.

But in your sentence, the Latin actually has a full finite verb:

• decernat

So when reading this sentence, it is important to notice that Latin has chosen a subjunctive clause, not an infinitive construction.

It has two parts:

1. Colonus lapidem terminalem non invenit
   = The farmer does not find the boundary stone

2. nedum controversiam finium decernat
   = much less / let alone settle the boundary dispute

So the pattern is:

• negative statement
• followed by nedum
• followed by something even less likely or more difficult

That is the key idea holding the whole sentence together.