Learn Hardcore Latin: Heri magister in schola multum docuit, et discipuli eum audiverunt. - Yesterday the male teacher taught a lot in the school, and the students listened to him.

magister … docuit = “the teacher taught” or “the teacher has taught.”
Latin perfect can cover both English simple past and present perfect; here, “(yesterday) the teacher taught…” is the natural translation.

Why is it audiverunt and not something like audiunt?

Audiverunt comes from audiō, audīre, audīvī/audīī, audītum = to hear, to listen to.

audiverunt is 3rd person plural, perfect active indicative
It means “they heard” or “they have heard.”

In context:

discipuli eum audiverunt = “the students heard/listened to him.”

If it were audiunt, that would be present tense (“they hear / are hearing”). Since we have heri (“yesterday”), the past (perfect) tense is needed, so audiverunt is correct.

How do I know magister is the subject and not the object?

Magister (“teacher”) ends in -er, which here is a nominative singular ending for a masculine noun of the 2nd declension.

magister = nominative singular = subject: “the teacher”
If it were object, it would be magistrum (accusative singular).

In the sentence:

magister … docuit = “the teacher taught”
There is no other nominative noun that could be the subject of docuit, so magister must be the subject.

What case is discipuli, and how do I know it’s the subject of audiverunt?

Discipuli is from discipulus, discipulī, m. = student, pupil.

discipulī (with long i) can be:
- nominative plural = students (subject)
- genitive singular = of the student (context usually clarifies)

Here, it must be nominative plural, because:

It is followed by a verb audiverunt (“they heard”).
The verb is 3rd person plural, so it needs a plural subject.
Nothing else in that clause can be the subject.

So discipulī audiverunt = “the students heard.”

Why do we use eum and not is or ille?

Eum is the accusative singular masculine of is, ea, id (“he, she, it / that person, that thing”).

eum = “him” (as a direct object)

We choose eum here because “the students heard him”; that “him” refers back to magister (a masculine noun).

is would be nominative (“he”), not object.
ille (“that man, that one”) would be more emphatic or contrastive (“that teacher (over there / mentioned before)”), not necessary here.

So eum is the normal, neutral direct object pronoun:

discipuli eum audiverunt = “the students heard him.”

Why is it in schola and not just schola on its own?

Latin usually uses prepositions to express many location ideas that English can sometimes show just with a bare noun.

in
- ablative typically = “in, on, at” a place (location).
schola here is ablative singular of schola, scholae, f.

So:

in schola = “in the school” / “at school.”

If you just said magister multum docuit, you’d say “The teacher taught a lot,” but you wouldn’t say where. Adding in schola specifies the location.

What exactly does multum mean here? Is it an adjective or an adverb?

Multum can be:

Accusative singular neuter of multus, -a, -um used as a noun:
- multum = “much, a lot (of something)”
Or it can act adverbially, meaning “much, greatly, a lot.”

With verbs of activity or teaching, multum is commonly used adverbially:

multum docuit = “(he) taught a lot / much / a great deal.”

You can think of it as functioning like an adverb modifying docuit: “taught a lot.”

Latin word order feels different. Could the words be in a different order and still mean the same thing?

Yes. Latin word order is much freer than English because endings show the grammatical roles.

Your sentence is:

Heri magister in schola multum docuit, et discipuli eum audiverunt.

You could also find:

Heri in schola magister multum docuit, et eum discipuli audiverunt.
Magister heri in schola multum docuit, et discipuli audiverunt eum.

All still mean “Yesterday the teacher taught a lot in the school, and the students heard him.”
The differences in order may affect emphasis or style, but not the basic meaning, because:

magister and discipuli are nominative → subjects
eum is accusative → object
in schola is clearly a prepositional phrase of place

Why is there no word for “and” before magister? Is et connecting whole clauses?

Yes. Et is used here to join two clauses, not two individual words in the same clause.

Sentence structure:

Heri magister in schola multum docuit,
et discipuli eum audiverunt.

So et = “and” connecting:

(1) The teacher taught a lot in the school yesterday
(2) and the students heard him.

If you wanted to connect two nouns with “and,” you would also use et, but it would stand between them, e.g.:

magister et discipuli = “the teacher and the students.”

Here, though, it’s clearly between two clauses.

What does heri mean, and where does it usually go in the sentence?

Heri is an adverb meaning “yesterday.”

It doesn’t change form (no cases, no gender).
It can appear in several positions: beginning, middle, or even end of the sentence, though beginning is very common.

Examples:

Heri magister multum docuit.
Magister heri multum docuit.
Magister multum docuit heri.

All mean “Yesterday the teacher taught a lot.”
The first position (Heri magister…) sounds very natural and slightly emphasizes “yesterday” as the time.

Can audiverunt also appear as audierunt? Which one is correct?

Yes, both forms are found in Latin:

audiverunt and audierunt are two acceptable perfect forms of audiō in the 3rd plural.
Both mean “they heard” / “they have heard.”

This variation happens with many 4th-conjugation and some 3rd-conjugation-io verbs:

audīvērunt → audīērunt
fēcērunt / fēvērunt types (with other verbs)

In classical Latin, audiverunt is common and perfectly fine; audierunt is also classical but is often felt a bit more contracted or poetic in style, depending on the author.

How do I know in schola uses the ablative and not the accusative?

The preposition in can take either:

ablative = location: “in, on, at” (where?)
accusative = motion towards: “into, onto” (where to?)

Here we express a place where the teaching happened:

in schola = ablative (scholā) → “in the school / at school”

If it were motion towards, you might see something like:

in scholam intravit = “he entered into the school.”

So:

in scholā (abl.) = in the school (location)
in scholam (acc.) = into the school (motion)

Is there any difference between “the students heard him” and “the students listened to him” in Latin here?

Latin audiō covers both meanings that English often distinguishes:

“to hear” (perceive a sound)
“to listen to” (pay attention to what is said)

So discipulī eum audiverunt can be translated as:

“the students heard him”
or more contextually: “the students listened to him.”

Without extra context, either English version is acceptable. If the context is a classroom, “listened to him” may better capture the intended sense.

What are the dictionary forms of the verbs and nouns in this sentence?

Here are the main words with their dictionary forms:

heri – indeclinable adverb: yesterday
magister, magistrī, m. – teacher
schola, scholae, f. – school
multus, multa, multum – much, many
doceō, docēre, docuī, doctum – to teach
et – conjunction: and
discipulus, discipulī, m. – student, pupil
is, ea, id – demonstrative pronoun: he, she, it / that (here: eum)
audiō, audīre, audīvī/audīī, audītum – to hear, listen (to)

These dictionary forms help you identify the conjugation, declension, and the meaning of each word.