In villa coquus cenam magnam coquit.

In the villa the cook is cooking a large dinner.

Breakdown of In villa coquus cenam magnam coquit.

• in: in
• magnus: large
• villa: the villa
• coquus: the cook
• cena: the dinner
• coquere: to cook

Questions & Answers about In villa coquus cenam magnam coquit.

How do I know that coquus is the subject and cenam is the object, since the word order is different from English?

In Latin, endings (case) show who does what, not word order.

• coquus ends in -us → this is the nominative singular ending for many masculine nouns → typical subject form.
• cenam ends in -am → this is the accusative singular ending for many feminine nouns → typical direct object form.

So:

• coquus = the cook (subject)
• cenam = the dinner (object)

Even if you changed the word order to cenam magnam in villa coquus coquit, it would still mean The cook cooks a big dinner in the house, because the endings, not the positions, show the roles.

Why is the verb coquit at the end of the sentence? Is that required?

Latin is much freer with word order than English. A common pattern is Subject – Object – Verb (SOV), so:

• coquus (subject)
• cenam magnam (object + adjective)
• coquit (verb)

But that pattern is not required. You can also say:

• Coquus in villa cenam magnam coquit.
• In villa cenam magnam coquus coquit.

All still mean essentially the same thing. Word order in Latin is often used for emphasis or style, not for basic grammar. The sentence you have is a very typical textbook word order.

Why is it in villa and not something like in villam?

The preposition in can take two different cases with two different meanings:

• in + ablative → location (where?): in villa = in the house / in the villa
• in + accusative → motion (into where?): in villam = into the house / into the villa

In your sentence there is no movement, just location:

• In villa = in the house (ablative, villa)

So villa here is ablative singular, not nominative.

Why is cenam followed by magnam, but the meaning is still “big dinner” and not “dinner big”?

Again, endings matter more than word order.

• cena = dinner (feminine)
• cenam = dinner (accusative singular)
• magnus, magna, magnum = big/great
• magnam = big (feminine, accusative singular)

cenam magnam:

• both words are feminine, singular, accusative
• therefore they agree and go together: a big dinner

In Latin, adjectives can come before or after the noun:

• cena magna or magna cena (nominative)
• cenam magnam or magnam cenam (accusative)

The meaning “big dinner” doesn’t change; the change in order can slightly affect emphasis or style, but not the basic sense.

Why is it cenam magnam and not cena magna if it means “a big dinner”?

Because cena is functioning as the object of the verb coquit, it must be in the accusative case.

Declension of cena (1st declension, feminine):

• Nominative singular: cena → used for subjects (The dinner is big.)
• Accusative singular: cenam → used for direct objects (He cooks the dinner.)

The adjective magnus, -a, -um must agree with cena in:

• gender (feminine),
• number (singular),
• case (accusative).

So:

• Subject: cena magna est. = The dinner is big.
• Object: coquus cenam magnam coquit. = The cook cooks a big dinner.

That is why we need -am on both cenam and magnam.

What exactly does coquit tell me about person and tense?

coquit is a verb form from coquere (to cook).

• coqu- → verb stem
• -it → 3rd person singular present ending

So coquit means:

• he/she/it cooks
  or, in a natural English sentence,
• he/she/it is cooking

In your sentence:

• coquus … coquit = The cook cooks / The cook is cooking.

Why is there no word for “the” or “a” in this Latin sentence?

Classical Latin simply does not have articles like “the” or “a/an”.

So:

• coquus can mean the cook or a cook,
• cena can mean the dinner or a dinner.

Context decides which English article is best. For learning simple sentences, teachers often choose:

• “the cook” and “a big dinner”
  or
• “the cook” and “the big dinner”

But nothing in the Latin endings themselves distinguishes “the” from “a”. Latin leaves that to context.

What is the difference between coquus and coquit, since they look similar?

They are related but belong to different parts of speech:

• coquus (noun)

  • means cook (a person)
  • nominative singular, masculine
  • subject of the verb

• coquit (verb)

  • means (he/she/it) cooks / is cooking
  • 3rd person singular present

So the sentence is literally:

• In villa coquus cenam magnam coquit.
  → In the house the cook a big dinner cooks.

Where:

• coquus = the cook (subject)
• coquit = cooks (verb)

Can I change the order of the words and still have the same meaning?

Yes. Because the endings show the roles, you can rearrange the sentence quite freely. All of these are grammatically fine and mean roughly the same:

• Coquus in villa cenam magnam coquit.
• In villa coquus cenam magnam coquit. (your version)
• Cenam magnam coquus in villa coquit.
• Cenam magnam in villa coquus coquit.

They all mean:

• The cook cooks/is cooking a big dinner in the house.

Word order can slightly change which element is emphasized, but the basic meaning remains thanks to the endings.

How would I say “The cook cooked a big dinner in the house” instead of “is cooking / cooks”?

To express past tense (he cooked), you need the perfect tense of coquere.

The perfect stem is cox-, so:

• coxit = he/she/it cooked / has cooked

So you can say:

• In villa coquus cenam magnam coxit.
  = In the house the cook cooked a big dinner.

Structure is the same; only the verb changes from coquit (present) to coxit (perfect / past).