Non est quod funem subductarium iam mutemus.

This is a very common Latin idiom: non est quod + subjunctive.

It means something like:

• there is no reason to ...
• there is no need to ...
• there is no reason why ... should ...

So Non est quod funem subductarium iam mutemus does not mean something like It is not what.... You should understand non est quod as a set phrase.

A very literal unpacking would be something like there is not a reason why we should change..., but in smoother English it usually becomes there is no need to change... or there is no reason to change....

Because the idiom non est quod regularly takes the subjunctive.

So mutemus is not subjunctive because the speaker is expressing doubt or a wish. It is subjunctive because Latin grammar expects it after non est quod.

Here mutemus is:

• present
• active
• subjunctive
• 1st person plural

from mutare.

In this sentence it means that we should change or, more naturally in English, simply to change.

Not in this sentence.

By itself, a 1st person plural present subjunctive can sometimes be hortatory, meaning let us .... For example, eamus can mean let us go.

But here the form is inside the fixed construction non est quod ... mutemus. So the sense is not an exhortation like let us change the rope, but rather:

• that we should change the rope
• to change the rope

So the form is the same, but the construction tells you how to understand it.

Funem subductarium is accusative singular masculine.

It is the direct object of mutemus: it is the thing being changed.

Breakdown:

• funem = accusative singular of funis
• subductarium = accusative singular masculine adjective agreeing with funem

So Latin is saying change the _ rope, with the whole noun phrase in the accusative because it is the object of the verb.

Because it agrees with funem in:

• gender: masculine
• number: singular
• case: accusative

That is how Latin shows that an adjective belongs to a noun.

So funem subductarium is one unit: the subductary / hauling / etc. rope depending on the translation you have been given.

Even though English often relies heavily on word order, Latin relies much more on endings.

Here quod is best learned as part of the idiom non est quod.

That means it is not functioning in the ordinary way you may already know from sentences like:

• quod venit = because he came
• id quod vidi = that which I saw

In non est quod + subjunctive, it has a more idiomatic force, roughly connected with why or reason why. That is why the whole phrase is best translated as:

• there is no reason to ...
• there is no reason why ... should ...

So for a learner, the safest approach is: do not isolate quod too much here; treat non est quod as a single expression.

Because Latin often uses different constructions from English for the idea there is no need to....

English naturally says:

• There is no need to change...

Latin can express that idea with the idiom:

• non est quod mutemus

So even though English uses to change, Latin here prefers quod + subjunctive.

That is very normal Latin usage. When reading, it is often better to translate the whole structure idiomatically rather than word-for-word.

Iam usually means now, already, or by this time, depending on context.

Here it most naturally modifies the verbal idea:

• to change ... now
• to be changing ... at this point

So it adds a sense of timing: there is no need to change the rope now.

Exactly how strongly you bring out already depends on the context, but the core idea is that the speaker is talking about the present stage of things.

Because that is a very common Latin word order.

Latin word order is much freer than English word order because grammatical relationships are shown by endings, not mainly by position. So a sentence like this can place words for emphasis or rhythm.

Here you can think of the structure as:

• Non est quod = fixed introductory idiom
• funem subductarium = the object
• iam = time word
• mutemus = verb, placed at the end in a very typical Latin way

Putting the verb at the end is often the most natural arrangement in Latin prose.

Yes: it is built into the verb ending.

Mutemus is 1st person plural, so it already means we may/should change or, in this construction, for us to change / that we should change.

Latin does not need a separate nos unless the speaker wants extra emphasis.

So:

• mutemus = we change / we should change
• nos mutemus = we change, with extra stress on we

In this sentence, the ending -mus already tells you the subject is we.