Learn Hardcore Latin: Soror tua heri ad scholam venit, quia cum amica sua studere voluit. - Your sister came to the school yesterday, because she wanted to study with her friend.

soror tua is a very common, neutral order (noun + possessive adjective).
tua soror can put a bit more emphasis on tua (“your sister” as opposed to someone else’s), or can be used for metrical or stylistic reasons, especially in poetry.

In everyday prose like this, soror tua is the most natural choice, but the meaning is the same.

How do I know that venit here means “came” and not “comes”?

The form venit can be:

present: “he/she/it comes”
perfect: “he/she/it came”

They are spelled the same, but pronounced with different vowel length in classical Latin (vĕnit vs vēnit). In writing, you usually decide by context:

The adverb heri = “yesterday” clearly points to a past action.
So here venit must be perfect → “(she) came”, not “comes”.

Without heri, you’d need to rely on broader context to decide which tense is meant.

Why is it ad scholam and not just scholam for “to school”?

Latin uses the accusative of place to which without a preposition mainly with:

names of cities and small islands (e.g. Romam venit = “he came to Rome”)
a few special words like domum (“home”), rūs (“the countryside”).

For ordinary nouns like schola (“school”), Latin normally needs a preposition to show direction:

ad scholam = “to school” (literally “towards the school”).

So ad scholam venit = “(she) came to school” is the regular, expected form.

Why is the word heri (“yesterday”) placed in the middle? Could it go somewhere else?

Yes, heri is an adverb and can move around fairly freely in the sentence. All of these are possible:

Heri soror tua ad scholam venit.
Soror tua heri ad scholam venit.
Soror tua ad scholam heri venit.

The basic meaning doesn’t change: “Your sister came to school yesterday.”

Latin word order is flexible; adverbs like heri often appear:

near the verb they modify, or
near the subject for emphasis.

In your sentence, soror tua heri ad scholam venit is a very natural, neutral order.

Why is it quia for “because”? Could I use quod or nam instead?

quia, quod, and nam can all be translated “because”, but they’re used slightly differently:

quia introduces a subordinate clause giving a reason:
- Venit, quia studere voluit.
  “She came because she wanted to study.”
quod can also introduce a reason clause and often overlaps with quia:
- Venit, quod studere voluit.
  Also “She came because she wanted to study.”
nam is not followed by a finite verb in the same way; it’s a sentence connector, like “for” in English:
- Venit; nam studere voluit.
  “She came, for she wanted to study.”

In your sentence, quia is perfectly standard and perhaps the most straightforward choice for a “because”-clause.

Why does amica have cum in front of it and the ablative case? Why not accusative?

The preposition cum (with) always takes the ablative case:

cum amica = “with (her) friend” (ablative singular of amica)

So:

amicam (accusative) would be wrong after cum here.
The form amica tells you it’s ablative, governed by cum.

So cum amica sua literally means “with her (own) friend”, with amica correctly in the ablative after cum.

Why is it amica sua and not amica eius? What does sua add?

Latin distinguishes between reflexive and non‑reflexive possessives:

sua (fem. sg.) is reflexive → it refers back to the subject of the clause.
eius is non‑reflexive → it refers to someone else.

In the clause quia cum amica sua studere voluit the subject is still soror tua (your sister). So:

amica sua = “her own friend” (the friend belonging to your sister).
amica eius would suggest “the friend of some other female person,” not the subject.

So sua makes it clear: she wanted to study with her own friend, not someone else’s.

Could I say cum sua amica instead of cum amica sua?

Yes, both orders are grammatically correct:

cum amica sua
cum sua amica

The meaning is the same (“with her (own) friend”). The order noun + possessive (amica sua) is slightly more common and neutral in prose, but sua amica is also very normal.

Latin allows a lot of flexibility in the placement of adjectives (including possessives); the choice often depends on emphasis or style more than on strict rules.

Why is studere an infinitive here? Why not a finite verb like studet?

The verb volo, velle, volui = “to want” is commonly followed by an infinitive:

studere voluit = “she wanted to study.”

Latin often uses an infinitive after verbs of wishing, wanting, being able, beginning, etc.:

possum studere – “I am able to study.”
incipit studere – “He begins to study.”

If you wrote quia cum amica sua studet (“because she studies with her friend”), that would express a different idea: it would simply describe a present‑tense habit or action, not what she wanted to do at that time.

So voluit naturally takes studere in the infinitive to show what she wanted to do.

What tense is voluit, and why is it used instead of a present like vult?

voluit is the third person singular perfect of volo:

vult = present: “he/she wants”
voluit = perfect: “he/she wanted” or “has wanted”

In your sentence, the main verb is venit in the perfect (“came”), and the time marker heri (“yesterday”) makes everything clearly past:

venit – “(she) came”
voluit – “(she) wanted”

So voluit correctly matches the past time frame: “because she wanted to study with her friend.”

Does Latin require the verb to go at the end? Here the verbs venit and voluit are not both final.

Latin does not require the verb to be at the end, although verb-final position is very common, especially in prose.

In your sentence:

Main clause: Soror tua heri ad scholam venit
- verb venit is indeed at the end.
Subordinate clause: quia cum amica sua studere voluit
- verb voluit is at the end of its clause as well.

The infinitive studere appears before voluit, which is normal because it tightly belongs with voluit (“wanted to study”).

So yes, verbs often go at the end, but Latin word order is flexible, and a verb can appear earlier in the sentence when style or emphasis suggests it. In this example, the clauses are actually quite close to the “typical” Latin pattern.