Learn Hardcore Latin: Mater respondet: "Nonne avia in horto cantabit, ubi luna et stellae lucent? Nunc fenestram aperio, ita lucerna clara erit." - Mother answers: "Won’t grandmother sing in the garden, where the moon and stars shine? Now I am opening the window, so the lamp will be bright."

Nonne avia in horto cantabit? = Won’t grandmother sing in the garden? (implying: “She will, right?”)
Plain -ne (attached to a word, e.g. cantabitne?) would ask a neutral question, with no expectation of yes or no.
Num would suggest you expect “no.”

So nonne adds the speaker’s expectation: Mother assumes the answer will be affirmative.

Why is cantabit in the future tense instead of the present?

Cantabit is the future of canto, cantare (to sing), so it means “will sing.”

Latin uses the future tense much like English:

cantat = she sings / she is singing
cantabit = she will sing

Here Mother is talking about something that will happen (grandmother singing in the garden), so the future is natural. The present tense cantat would mean she is singing right now.

Why is ubi luna et stellae lucent using the present tense lucent when English might say “where the moon and stars shine / are shining”?

Latin present lucent covers both English “shine” and “are shining.” Latin does not distinguish simple present and present progressive the way English does.

So:

ubi luna et stellae lucent = where the moon and stars shine / are shining

The clause is a general description of the place: it’s a garden where, whenever it’s night and clear, the moon and stars shine. The present tense is very natural for that in Latin.

In ubi luna et stellae lucent, why is lucent plural even though luna is singular?

The subject is actually luna et stellae together:

luna = moon (singular)
stellae = stars (plural)

Joined by et, they form a compound plural subject (the moon and the stars). The verb lucent is 3rd person plural and agrees with the whole subject:

luna et stellae lucent = the moon and the stars shine.

Why is it in horto instead of just horto? What does in add?

In with the ablative (in horto) usually means “in / inside / within.”

in horto = in the garden (location)

Without in, plain ablative horto on its own would not normally mean “in the garden” in Classical Latin. You generally need in for simple location. So in horto is the standard way to say “in the garden.”

What is the function of ubi here? Is it a relative pronoun or a conjunction?

Ubi here is a relative adverb of place, introducing a relative clause:

ubi luna et stellae lucent = where the moon and stars shine

It works much like English “where”:

main clause: Nonne avia in horto cantabit
relative/adverbial clause: ubi luna et stellae lucent

So ubi is not a pronoun but an adverb that connects the clause and gives a location.

Why is it fenestram aperio and not fenestra aperio?

Fenestram is the accusative singular, the usual case for a direct object.

fenestra = nominative (subject form)
fenestram = accusative (object form)

Since aperio (I open) is a transitive verb, it takes a direct object in the accusative:

fenestram aperio = I open the window
fenestra aperitur = the window is opened (here fenestra is subject; the verb is passive)

Could the word order aperio fenestram also be used? Does fenestram aperio mean something different?

Yes, aperio fenestram is also correct Latin. Word order in Latin is flexible because endings show the grammatical roles.

fenestram aperio and aperio fenestram both mean I open the window.

Sometimes putting the object first (fenestram aperio) can add a slight emphasis to fenestram (“It’s the window that I’m opening”), but in simple sentences like this, the difference is small.

What does nunc add to the sentence Nunc fenestram aperio?

Nunc means “now / at this moment.”

fenestram aperio = I open the window / I am opening the window
nunc fenestram aperio = Now I open the window / I am opening the window now

It makes the timing explicit and contrasts with the future action cantabit (“will sing”). Mother is opening the window now, so that later the lamp will be bright.

What does ita mean in ita lucerna clara erit? Is it “so,” “thus,” or “therefore”?

Ita is an adverb meaning “so / thus / in this way.” Here it links the previous action to the result:

Nunc fenestram aperio, ita lucerna clara erit.
= Now I open the window, so (in this way) the lamp will be bright.

You can feel both ideas:

thus / in this way: by opening the window like this,
so / therefore: as a consequence, the lamp will be bright.

In many contexts, ita can work almost like English “so” introducing a result.

Why is clara in lucerna clara erit feminine singular, and what is its function?

Lucerna (lamp) is feminine singular nominative, so the adjective must agree:

lucerna (fem. sg. nom.)
clara (fem. sg. nom.)

Clara is a predicate adjective with erit:

lucerna clara erit = the lamp will be bright

So clara is not just describing the lamp (a bright lamp), but stating something that will be true about it: it will be bright.

Why is it erit instead of est? What nuance does the future tense have in lucerna clara erit?

Erit is the future of est:

est = is
erit = will be

In ita lucerna clara erit, Mother is talking about a future result of what she is doing now (opening the window). The idea is:

I am opening the window now, so the lamp *will be bright (after this).*

Using est would describe a present state: the lamp is bright. That’s not what she wants; she is explaining the expected result.

Why does the main verb respondet stay in the present when the question inside the quotation has a future verb?

There are two separate time-frames:

Mater respondet – narrative present: Mother answers / is answering.
Inside her speech: Nonne avia in horto cantabit…? – future: Will grandmother sing…?

Direct speech in Latin works like in English: the tense inside the quoted speech is independent and reflects what the speaker actually says from her own viewpoint.

So respondet = the storyteller’s present; cantabit = the mother’s future within her question.

How is the colon after Mater respondet used in Latin? Is this normal punctuation for introducing direct speech?

Classical Latin manuscripts did not use modern punctuation, but in modern printed Latin it is completely normal to use a colon (or sometimes a comma) to introduce direct speech:

Mater respondet: Nonne avia in horto cantabit…?

This mirrors modern European practice and helps readers see where the quoted words begin. Grammatically, it simply means: Mother answers (saying): …