Learn Hardcore Latin: Sol, qui mane lucet, discipulum laetum facit. - The sun, which shines in the morning, makes the student happy.

to refer back to Sol (the sun) — this is its antecedent
to introduce the relative clause qui mane lucet (who shines in the morning)

So:

Sol, qui mane lucet, …
= The sun, who shines in the morning, …

Grammatically:

qui is nominative (it’s the subject of lucet)
masculine singular, because it agrees with Sol (masculine singular)

Why is it qui and not quod or quem?

Latin relative pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number, and take their case from their role in their own clause.

Gender & number
- Antecedent: Sol → masculine, singular
- So the relative pronoun must also be masculine singular → qui
Case
- In the clause qui mane lucet, the pronoun is the subject of lucet.
- Subjects are nominative, so qui is nominative.

So we get:

qui (nom. masc. sg.) = who (subject)
not quem (accusative: “whom”)
not quod (neuter nominative/accusative: “which”)

What exactly is mane, and why is there no preposition like “in the morning”?

Mane here is an adverb meaning “in the morning” or “early in the day.”

Latin often uses adverbs or bare case forms (especially ablatives) where English uses a preposition:
- mane = in the morning
- vespere = in the evening
- nocte = at night

So Latin does not need something like in mane; mane already carries the “in the morning” idea by itself.

In this sentence:

qui mane lucet = who shines in the morning
(mane modifies lucet just as in the morning modifies shines.)

What does lucet mean, and why doesn’t it take a direct object?

Lucet is from lucēre, an intransitive verb meaning “to shine”, “to be bright”, “to give light.”

Person & number: 3rd person singular
Tense & mood: present indicative
So lucet = “he/she/it shines” or “is shining.”

Because lucēre is intransitive, it does not take a direct object:

Sol lucet = The sun shines
You cannot say “the sun shines something” in Latin either.

In our sentence:

qui mane lucet = who shines in the morning, with qui as the subject, lucet as the verb, and mane as an adverbial modifier.

What case is discipulum, and how do I know it’s the object?

Discipulum is accusative singular masculine of discipulus (student, pupil).

In a simple active sentence:

Nominative = subject (the doer)
Accusative = direct object (the one affected)

Here:

Sol = nominative (subject)
facit = verb
discipulum = accusative (direct object)

So:

Sol … discipulum facit
= The sun … makes the student …

We know discipulum is object because of its -um ending (2nd declension masculine accusative singular) and because Sol is the form with the nominative ending and the correct agreement with facit.

Why is it laetum and not laetus?

Laetus, -a, -um is an adjective meaning “happy,” “glad,” “joyful.”

It must agree with the noun it describes in:

Gender
Number
Case

The noun here is discipulum:

masculine
singular
accusative

So the adjective must also be:

masculine
singular
accusative

That form is laetum.

If it were describing a nominative subject discipulus, you would expect laetus:

Discipulus laetus venit. = The happy student comes.

But here the noun is accusative (discipulum), so we must use laetum.

Is laetum just an adjective “happy,” or is it part of the meaning “make (someone) happy”?

It is both an adjective and part of the predicate of the verb facit.

Structure:

facere + object + predicate adjective
literally: “to make someone (into) happy”

In discipulum laetum facit:

discipulum = object (the student)
laetum = adjective agreeing with the object
facit = makes

So:

Literally: “makes the student happy.”
Grammatically: laetum is a predicate accusative (or object complement), telling you what the object is made to be.

You can think of it parallel to esse:

discipulus laetus est = the student is happy (predicate nominative)
discipulum laetum facit = he makes the student happy (predicate accusative)

Could laetum just mean “the happy student” as an ordinary adjective, not a result (“makes [him] happy”)?

Formally, yes, it could be taken that way:

discipulum laetum facit could be read as “he makes the happy student” (as if he creates or produces a student who is happy).

But in real usage, with facere plus a living person as object and an adjective like laetum, the normal and natural interpretation is:

“to make the student happy” (object + predicate adjective)

So:

Grammatically: “happy student” vs “student [who is made] happy” look the same.
Semantically: the verb facit strongly favors the “makes [him] happy” reading.

Why does Latin put the adjectives after the nouns (discipulum laetum) instead of before like English?

Latin word order is flexible. Adjectives can come:

after the noun: discipulum laetum
before the noun: laetum discipulum

Both would be understood as:

“the happy student” or “the student (who is) happy” (depending on context).

So:

Latin uses endings to show relationships (case, number, gender), not fixed word order.
discipulum laetum and laetum discipulum mean the same thing grammatically; the difference is one of emphasis or style, not of basic meaning.

In this sentence, discipulum laetum facit is a very typical and natural ordering.

What exactly does facit mean here? Is it just “does,” or does it specifically mean “makes [someone] happy”?

Facit is 3rd person singular present of facere, which has a broad range of meanings:

to make, to do, to cause, to bring about, etc.

In the pattern:

facere + object + predicate (adjective/noun)

it means:

“to make (someone/something) [be] X”

So:

Sol … discipulum laetum facit.
= literally “The sun makes the student happy.”

Compare:

me laetum facis = you make me happy
deos iratos fecit = he made the gods angry

So in this kind of structure, facit is a causative verb: it causes the state described by the adjective.

Why are there commas around qui mane lucet? Are they required in Latin?

The commas are mostly a matter of modern punctuation conventions, influenced by printing and by modern languages.

In Classical Latin manuscripts:

Punctuation was minimal or inconsistent.
Relative clauses like qui mane lucet might be separated by spacing or dots, or not at all.

In modern edited Latin:

Commas are often used to clarify structure, especially for non‑restrictive (or parenthetical) relative clauses.

Here:

Sol, qui mane lucet, …
is non‑restrictive: it’s giving extra information about the sun, not distinguishing this sun from some other sun.
Hence, editors put commas, just as English does:
“The sun, which shines in the morning, …”

The grammar does not depend on the commas; they just help the reader.

How do we know qui refers to Sol and not to discipulum?

We know from agreement and position:

Agreement:
- Sol = masculine singular
- discipulum = masculine singular (in form), so they could both match qui in gender/number.
- So agreement alone doesn’t decide it.
Position and sense:
- Relative pronouns almost always refer to the nearest suitable antecedent before the clause, unless something in the sense prevents it.
- But qui mane lucet = who shines in the morning clearly fits Sol (the sun), not the student.

So:

The grammar allows Sol or discipulum as possible antecedents.
Meaning rules in favor of Sol, because it’s the sun that shines in the morning, not the student.

Why is there no word for “the” or “a” (as in “the sun,” “a student”)?

Classical Latin has no separate words for definite or indefinite articles like English “the” and “a/an.”

The ideas of definiteness and indefiniteness are usually:

left to context, or
expressed in other ways (e.g. with hic, ille, iste, etc., when needed).

So:

Sol can mean “the sun” or just “sun”, depending on context.
discipulum can mean “the student” or “a student.”

In this sentence, natural English renders it:

“The sun, which shines in the morning, makes the student happy.”

But the “the” and “a” are interpretations we add in translation; Latin simply does not mark them with separate words.

How would the sentence change if there were several students, or a female student?

You would change the forms of discipulus and laetus to agree in gender and number.

Several (male or mixed) students:
- Noun: discipulos (accusative plural)
- Adjective: laetos (masculine accusative plural)
- Verb: still facit (subject Sol is still singular)
Result:
- Sol, qui mane lucet, discipulos laetos facit.
  = The sun, which shines in the morning, makes the students happy.
One female student:
- Noun: discipulam (accusative feminine singular)
- Adjective: laetam (feminine accusative singular)
Result:
- Sol, qui mane lucet, discipulam laetam facit.
  = The sun, which shines in the morning, makes the (female) student happy.
Several female students:
- discipulas laetas facit (acc. fem. plural for both)

Could I change the word order to Sol discipulum laetum facit, qui mane lucet? Would the meaning stay the same?

If you write:

Sol discipulum laetum facit, qui mane lucet,

you create a possible ambiguity:

By default, qui tends to refer to the nearest appropriate antecedent, which would now be discipulum laetum.
That would suggest: “The sun makes the happy student, who shines in the morning.”
(as if the student shines in the morning!)

Context would usually still make clear that Sol is the one that shines, but the sentence is much less clear.

By keeping:

Sol, qui mane lucet, discipulum laetum facit,

you make it very obvious that qui refers to Sol, since the relative clause immediately follows its antecedent and the meaning fits naturally.

So:

Latin word order is flexible, but when moving phrases creates ambiguity, it’s better to keep the clearer, more standard order.