Dea bellum non amat, imperator pacem amat, et nos omnes possumus dormire.

Dea is in the nominative singular, which is the form used for the subject of the sentence.

In Dea bellum non amat, dea is the one doing the action of loving/not loving, so it must be nominative.

• dea = the goddess as subject
• deam = the goddess as direct object
• deae can mean of the goddess, to/for the goddess, or goddesses, depending on context

So here dea is the correct form because the goddess is the subject.

Bellum is the accusative singular form of bellum, belli meaning war.

The verb amat means loves, and the thing being loved is the direct object, which in Latin normally takes the accusative case.

So:

• dea = subject
• bellum = direct object

That is why Latin says Dea bellum non amat.

Because the two nouns belong to different declensions and have different accusative forms.

Both words are direct objects, but they change differently:

• bellum is a 2nd-declension neuter noun

  • nominative: bellum
  • accusative: bellum

• pax is a 3rd-declension noun

  • nominative: pax
  • accusative: pacem

So even though both mean the object of amat, they do not look the same.

Non is the normal Latin word for not, and it usually goes before the word it negates.

So:

• non amat = does not love

Latin word order is flexible, but non often comes right before the verb when it negates the whole action.

Latin does not have articles like English the and a/an.

So a word like dea can mean:

• a goddess
• the goddess

Which one is best depends on context. The same is true for imperator, bellum, and pacem.

Because imperator is the subject of the second clause: imperator pacem amat.

The subject must be in the nominative case, and for this noun the nominative singular is imperator.

If it were the direct object, then it would be imperatorem.

So:

• imperator = the commander/general as subject
• imperatorem = the commander/general as object

Because pacem is the accusative singular of pax, meaning peace.

In imperator pacem amat, peace is the thing being loved, so it is the direct object and must be accusative.

This is a very common pattern in Latin:

• dictionary form: pax
• object form: pacem

Latin can sometimes leave out a repeated verb, but here repeating amat makes the sentence very clear and balanced:

• Dea bellum non amat
• imperator pacem amat

This creates a neat contrast:

• goddess / commander
• war / peace
• does not love / loves

So the repetition is natural and stylistically clear.

Yes. Possumus already includes the subject we.

Latin verb endings usually show the person and number:

• possumus = we are able / we can

So nos is not required for basic grammar. It is added for emphasis or clarity.

• possumus dormire = we can sleep
• nos possumus dormire = we can sleep, with extra emphasis on we

Omnes means all and agrees with nos.

Together, nos omnes means all of us or we all.

Since nos is first person plural, omnes is also plural. Here it is in a form that fits the group being referred to.

So:

• nos = we/us
• nos omnes = we all / all of us

Both orders can exist in Latin, because Latin word order is fairly flexible. But nos omnes is a very natural way to say we all or all of us.

Word order in Latin often depends on emphasis, rhythm, or style more than strict grammatical rules.

So nos omnes possumus dormire is perfectly normal.

Because dormire is the infinitive used with possumus.

Latin often places the infinitive after a verb like possumus:

• possumus dormire = we can sleep

Also, Latin often likes to place important verbs near the end of a clause, though this is not an absolute rule.

Because after possumus Latin uses an infinitive, not a second finite verb.

Compare:

• dormimus = we sleep
• possumus dormire = we can sleep

So possumus is the main finite verb, and dormire is the infinitive completing its meaning.

Possumus is:

• 1st person plural
• present tense
• from posse = to be able

So it means we are able or more naturally we can.

It is an irregular verb, but it is extremely common in Latin.

Et is the basic Latin word for and.

It simply connects the last clause to what comes before:

• Dea bellum non amat
• imperator pacem amat
• et nos omnes possumus dormire

So the sentence moves from two statements into a final connected idea: and we all can sleep.

The main clue is case endings, not word order.

In this sentence:

• dea = nominative subject
• bellum = accusative object
• imperator = nominative subject
• pacem = accusative object
• nos = subject of possumus
• dormire = infinitive after possumus

So even if some words moved around, the endings would still tell you their roles.

That is one of the biggest differences between Latin and English: English relies heavily on word order, while Latin relies much more on endings.

It can mean different things depending on context.

Originally, imperator means something like commander or general. In later contexts it can also be associated with emperor.

In a simple learner sentence like this, commander or general is usually the safest understanding unless the broader context suggests emperor.

Because the third clause expresses a different idea.

The first two clauses are about what someone loves or does not love:

• Dea bellum non amat
• imperator pacem amat

The third clause gives a result or consequence in meaning:

• et nos omnes possumus dormire = and we all can sleep

So the sentence shifts from loving to being able to sleep, and therefore it uses a different verb structure.

Yes, that is possible, but it would sound more marked.

• Dea bellum non amat is the straightforward way: The goddess does not love war
• Dea non bellum amat would place special focus on bellum, almost like It is not war that the goddess loves

So changing the position of non can affect emphasis. In beginner sentences, placing non before the verb is the clearest pattern.