Tempus in urbe fugit, sed in silva manet.

• tempus is nominative singular. It is the subject of both verbs.
• urbe is ablative singular of urbs, urbis (city).
• silva is ablative singular of silva, silvae (forest/wood).

Because in urbe and in silva mean in the city and in the forest, Latin uses in + ablative for location.

They are actually in the same case: both are ablative singular. They look different because they belong to different declensions.

• urbs, urbis is a 3rd-declension noun, so its ablative singular is urbe
• silva, silvae is a 1st-declension noun, so its ablative singular is silva

So the difference is not a difference in meaning here, just a difference in noun pattern.

With in, Latin usually makes this distinction:

• in + ablative = in/on somewhere, showing location
• in + accusative = into/onto somewhere, showing motion toward

So:

• in urbe = in the city
• in silva = in the forest

If the sentence meant into the city or into the forest, Latin would normally use the accusative instead.

Both are present indicative active, 3rd person singular.

• fugit = he/she/it flees, or in this context it flies/passes quickly
• manet = he/she/it remains/stays

Since the subject is tempus (time), both verbs are translated as time flies and time remains/stays.

Because the subject, tempus, is singular.

Latin verbs agree with their subject in number and person. Since tempus is one thing, the verbs are:

• fugit = singular
• manet = singular

If the subject were plural, the verbs would also be plural.

Yes, fugit literally means flees, runs away, or escapes. But with time, Latin often uses it in the sense of:

• time flies
• time passes quickly
• time slips away

So this is a very natural Latin way to speak about time moving quickly.

manet literally means remains, stays, or abides.

Depending on the translation style, it could be understood as:

• remains
• stays
• lingers

So in this sentence, the contrast is between time that flies in one place and time that remains/seems to stay in another.

Latin has no articles like English the or a/an.

So:

• urbs can mean city, a city, or the city
• silva can mean forest, a forest, or the forest

You decide from the context which English article sounds best.

Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order because the grammar is shown by endings, not mostly by position.

This sentence begins with tempus to put time first as the topic. Then each prepositional phrase is placed near its verb:

• in urbe fugit
• in silva manet

That creates a neat contrast:

• in urbe ... fugit
• in silva ... manet

Latin often uses word order for emphasis, balance, and style, not just for basic grammar.

Yes, often they could.

For example, Latin could also say something like:

• In urbe tempus fugit, sed in silva manet
• Tempus fugit in urbe, sed manet in silva

The basic meaning would stay similar, though the emphasis might change. The original version is especially elegant because it balances the two halves of the sentence nicely.

sed means but. It introduces a contrast between the two ideas:

• in urbe fugit
• in silva manet

So the sentence is deliberately setting up an opposition: in one place time seems to fly, in another it seems to remain.

Yes. tempus can have several related meanings, such as:

• time
• season
• period
• sometimes the right time or opportunity, depending on context

But in this sentence, time is clearly the intended meaning.

Latin usually does not need an explicit subject pronoun like it, he, or she, because the verb ending already tells you the person and number.

Here, the noun tempus is already stated, so there is no need to add a pronoun. Once tempus appears as the subject, Latin can simply continue with fugit and manet.