Learn Hardcore Latin: Heri nox quoque quieta fuit, nam ignem in via numquam vidimus. - Yesterday the night was also quiet, for we never saw a fire in the road.

Dictionary form: nox, noctis (feminine, 3rd declension)
In the sentence it is nominative singular, which is the standard form for the subject of a finite verb.

So nox quieta fuit = the night was quiet.

Why is quieta in that particular form, and what does it agree with?

Quieta is a predicate adjective describing the subject nox.

Nox is feminine, singular, nominative.
Predicate adjectives must agree with the noun they describe in gender, number, and case.

So quieta is feminative nominative singular, agreeing with nox:
nox quieta fuit = the night was quiet / the night was peaceful.

Why is the verb fuit used instead of erat? Aren’t they both “was”?

Both fuit and erat are forms of esse (to be), but they are different tenses:

fuit = 3rd person singular perfect (he/she/it has been / was [completed])
erat = 3rd person singular imperfect (he/she/it was [ongoing / in the background])

Using fuit presents the night’s quietness as a completed fact about yesterday:
nox quieta fuit = the night was (and is now over as) quiet.

If the context were more descriptive or background-like, you might find nox quieta erat, focusing on the ongoing state rather than a completed event. In many contexts both can translate as was, but the Latin nuance is different.

What exactly does heri mean, and what kind of word is it?

Heri means yesterday.

It is an adverb of time, not a noun.
It does not decline (you will not see heri, heris, etc.).

So Heri nox quieta fuit = Yesterday the night was quiet.

What does quoque mean, and why is it placed after nox?

Quoque means also / too.

In classical Latin, quoque usually attaches to the word immediately before it. That is the word it emphasizes.

nox quoque quieta fuit = the night also was quiet / the night too was quiet
(i.e., in addition to something else being quiet or peaceful)

If you moved quoque:

heri quoque nox quieta fuit would more naturally mean yesterday also the night was quiet (emphasis on yesterday also).

So its position signals what is being included: here, the night also.

What does nam mean, and how is it different from enim or quod?

Nam is a coordinating conjunction meaning for, because, or you see. It introduces an explanation or reason.

Heri nox quoque quieta fuit, nam ignem in via numquam vidimus.
= Yesterday the night was also quiet, for we never saw a fire in the street.

Compared with related words:

enim: also for, often placed second in its clause (postpositive).
- ignem enim in via numquam vidimus
quod: a subordinating conjunction meaning because (literally introducing a subordinate clause).
- nox quieta fuit, quod ignem in via numquam vidimus.

So nam starts a new main clause giving a reason, and it normally comes first in that clause.

What case is ignem, and why is that case used?

Ignem is accusative singular of ignis, ignis (fire).

It is in the accusative because it is the direct object of vidimus (we saw):

vidimus ignem = we saw (a/the) fire.

So in nam ignem in via numquam vidimus, ignem is what was (not) seen.

Why is it in via and not in viam?

Latin in takes two different cases with different meanings:

in + ablative = in / on / at (static location)
in + accusative = into / onto / towards (motion)

Here we have in via:

via, viae (road, way, street), ablative singular via
So in via = in the road / on the street (location, no movement).

In viam would mean into the road / into the street, which would suggest movement towards the street, not simply being located there.

What does numquam mean, and can it go in other positions?

Numquam means never.

It is an adverb and does not change its form. Word order in Latin is flexible, so you may see:

ignem in via numquam vidimus
ignem numquam in via vidimus
numquam ignem in via vidimus

All still mean essentially we never saw a fire in the street. Putting numquam before or nearer vidimus can emphasize the negation of the action. The given sentence is a very natural word order.

How do we know vidimus means we saw and not something else?

Vidimus is a form of video, videre, vidi, visum (to see).

Stem: vid-
Ending: -imus, which in the perfect tense is 1st person plural.

In the perfect:

vidi = I saw
vidisti = you (sg.) saw
vidit = he/she/it saw
vidimus = we saw
vidistis = you (pl.) saw
viderunt = they saw

So vidimus unambiguously means we saw / we have seen.

Why are both fuit and vidimus in the perfect tense? Could one of them be imperfect?

Using fuit and vidimus in the perfect tense presents both facts as completed events in the past:

nox quieta fuit = the night was (and is now over as) quiet
ignem … numquam vidimus = we never saw a fire

They match nicely as simple, completed past statements.

You could, in theory, say:

nox quieta erat (the night was quiet – background description)
ignem … numquam videbamus (we never used to see a fire / we never were seeing a fire)

But that would shift the nuance to a more ongoing, habitual, or descriptive past, rather than the simple, self‑contained report the perfect gives here.

Why is there no word for the in nox or ignem? How do we know it is “the night” and not “a night”?

Latin has no articles (the, a, an) at all.

nox can be a night or the night
ignem can be a fire or the fire

English must choose an article, but Latin leaves it to context. Here:

Heri nox quoque quieta fuit: in natural English, we say Yesterday the night was quiet, not yesterday a night was quiet.
ignem in via numquam vidimus: contextually, it is often a fire in the street unless a specific known fire is meant.

So the translator decides a/the based on what sounds natural and what fits the context. Latin itself does not specify it.