Learn Hardcore Latin: Frater tuus cras ad scholam venire non vult, sed mater eum mittet. - Your brother does not want to come to school tomorrow, but mother will send him.

In Latin, possessive adjectives like tuus usually come after the noun they modify, so frater tuus (“your brother”) is the most neutral word order.

You can say tuus frater, but putting tuus before the noun tends to give it a bit more emphasis, something like “your brother (as opposed to someone else’s brother)” or “your brother in particular.”

So both are grammatically correct, but:

frater tuus = normal, unmarked
tuus frater = slightly more emphatic or contrastive

What exactly does cras mean, and where can it go in the sentence?

cras is an adverb meaning “tomorrow.”

Word order in Latin is flexible, so cras can appear in several places:

Frater tuus cras ad scholam venire non vult…
Frater tuus ad scholam cras venire non vult…
Cras frater tuus ad scholam venire non vult…

All of these still mean “Your brother does not want to come to school tomorrow.”

The position can slightly affect emphasis (for example, Cras frater tuus… emphasizes “tomorrow”), but the basic meaning stays the same.

Why is it ad scholam and not just scholam or scholae?

Latin typically uses ad + accusative to show motion towards a place.

ad scholam = “to (towards) school”

Some key patterns:

ad
- accusative: going to a place
- ad urbem – to the city
- ad scholam – to school
Locative / in + ablative shows being in or at a place
- in schola – in/at school

So you wouldn’t normally say venire scholam for “to come to school.” You need the preposition: venire ad scholam (or sometimes another construction like in scholam venire).

Why is scholam in the accusative case?

Because ad takes the accusative.

schola (school) is a first-declension noun:

nominative singular: schola
accusative singular: scholam

After ad, you must put the noun in the accusative:

ad scholam – to school
ad urbem – to the city
ad villam – to the country house

Here, “school” is not a direct object of the verb venire (“to come”) in the way English might think of it. The structure is “to come to school,” and Latin expresses “to” with ad + accusative.

What form is venire, and why is it used with vult?

venire is the present active infinitive of venio (“I come”). It literally means “to come.”

Latin often uses an infinitive after verbs of wanting, being able, beginning, etc. volo, velle, vult (“to want”) is one of these verbs. So:

vult venire = “he/she wants to come”
non vult venire = “he/she does not want to come”

In the sentence:

Frater tuus … venire non vult
“Your brother does not want to come…”

So vult is the finite verb (“wants”) and venire is the infinitive (“to come”) that depends on it.

Why is it non vult venire (or venire non vult) instead of using a special verb like nolit?

Latin does have nolo, nolle, non vult (“to be unwilling, not to want”), but in practice you most often see non vult in simple beginner sentences.

non vult venire = “he does not want to come / he is not willing to come”
nolit venire is subjunctive, used in more specific contexts (e.g., wishes, indirect speech), and is more advanced.

So for straightforward “doesn’t want to come,” non vult venire (or venire non vult) is completely standard and appropriate.

Why is non placed before vult and not before venire? Does venire non vult mean something different from non vult venire?

Both non vult venire and venire non vult are natural Latin and in most contexts mean the same thing: “(he) does not want to come.”

non vult venire – “does not want to come”
venire non vult – same basic meaning; places a bit more rhythmic/structural emphasis on “to come” first, then negates the wanting

If you put non directly before venire (vult non venire), you would be putting the negation more closely on the act of coming, i.e., “he wants not to come.” Even then, in everyday usage that still usually amounts to the same idea in English.

The sentence as given, … venire non vult, is a perfectly normal, idiomatic order.

What does sed do in this sentence?

sed is a coordinating conjunction meaning “but.”

It connects two clauses and introduces a contrast:

Frater tuus … venire non vult
“Your brother does not want to come…”
sed mater eum mittet
“but your mother will send him.”

So sed works just like English “but” to show that the second statement goes against or limits the first.

Why is it mater and not something like ea or nothing at all in the second part?

mater (“mother”) is the subject of the second clause: mater eum mittet – “mother will send him.”

Latin can omit subjects when they are obvious from the verb ending (and when it’s the same subject as before). Here, however:

The first subject is frater tuus (“your brother”).
The second subject is a different person, mater (“mother”).

If you dropped mater, eum mittet would just mean “she will send him” and the listener would have to guess who “she” is. Putting mater makes it clear that the subject has changed.

You could omit mater only if it was already very clear from the wider context who “she” is, but in isolation the sentence is much clearer with mater included.

What does eum refer to, and why is it in this form?

eum is the third-person singular masculine accusative pronoun: “him.”

Nominative (subject): is – he
Accusative (object): eum – him

In mater eum mittet:

mater = subject (“mother”)
mittet = “will send”
eum = direct object (“him”)

eum refers back to frater tuus (“your brother”), so the sense is: “but mother will send him (that brother).”

It has to be accusative because it is the direct object of mittet.

How do we know mittet means “will send” and not “sends” or “is sending”?

mittet is the future tense, 3rd person singular of mitto, mittere (“to send”).

For mitto:

present: mittit – he/she sends, is sending
future: mittet – he/she will send

You can see the future ending -et here (for 3rd conjugation verbs, the future is formed with endings like -am, -es, -et, -emus, -etis, -ent on the stem).

Latin usually expresses the future with verb endings, not with a separate word like “will.” So mittet on its own means “(he/she) will send.”

Why does the first verb (vult) use the present tense while mittet uses the future?

The tenses show the time relationship:

non vult – “does not want” (present)
This describes how your brother feels now (or generally).
mittet – “will send” (future)
This describes what your mother will do (at or before tomorrow).

So the idea is:

Right now, your brother does not want to come to school tomorrow.
But your mother (at some later point) will send him anyway.

Using the future for mittet clearly marks her action as future, corresponding nicely with cras (“tomorrow”).

Could the word order be changed, for example to Frater tuus cras ad scholam non vult venire, sed mater mittet eum? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can change the word order quite a bit in Latin, and the meaning will stay essentially the same.

For example:

Frater tuus cras ad scholam venire non vult, sed mater eum mittet.
Frater tuus cras ad scholam non vult venire, sed mater eum mittet.
Cras frater tuus ad scholam venire non vult, sed mater eum mittet.
Frater tuus cras ad scholam venire non vult, sed mater mittet eum.

All of these still mean: “Your brother does not want to come to school tomorrow, but your mother will send him.”

Changes in order can slightly affect emphasis (putting eum before mittet can give a bit more focus to “him,” for instance), but the basic meaning and grammar remain the same. Latin relies more on endings than on word order to show who is doing what.