Heri coquus piscem lente coquebat, quia fessus erat.

Yesterday the cook was slowly cooking the fish, because he was tired.

Breakdown of Heri coquus piscem lente coquebat, quia fessus erat.

• esse: to be
• quia: because
• heri: yesterday
• lente: slowly
• fessus: tired
• coquus: the cook
• coquere: to cook
• piscis: the fish

Questions & Answers about Heri coquus piscem lente coquebat, quia fessus erat.

What tense is coquebat, and why is that tense used here instead of coxit or coquit?

Coquebat is the imperfect tense (3rd person singular: he/she was cooking or used to cook).

Latin uses the imperfect to show:

• an action in progress in the past
  → he was cooking the fish (not just “he cooked”)
• a background or ongoing action, sometimes interrupted by something else

If you used:

• coxit (perfect): he cooked the fish — a completed action in the past
• coquit (present): he cooks / is cooking the fish — now, not yesterday

Because of heri (yesterday) and the idea of a slow, ongoing action, coquebat (was cooking) is the best choice.

Why does piscem end in -em instead of the dictionary form piscis?

The dictionary form piscis is nominative singular (the subject form).
In this sentence, piscem is accusative singular, used for the direct object.

• coquus = subject (who is doing the action) → nominative
• piscem = object (what is being cooked) → accusative

So:

• piscis = a fish (as subject)
• piscem = a fish (as object)

Coquus piscem coquebat = The cook was cooking the fish.

What case is coquus, and how do we know it is the subject?

Coquus is nominative singular.

In a typical Latin sentence:

• the nominative case marks the subject
• the accusative case marks the direct object

Here we have:

• coquus (nominative) → the one doing the action
• piscem (accusative) → the thing receiving the action

Even though Latin word order is flexible, the case endings tell us:

• coquus = subject = the cook
• piscem = object = the fish

Why is there no word for he in the Latin sentence?

Latin is a pro-drop language: it normally leaves out subject pronouns (like he, she, they) because the verb ending already shows the person and number.

• coquebat ends in -bat, which tells us:
  • 3rd person
  • singular
  • imperfect tense
    → he/she/it was cooking

Since the subject coquus is already there, Latin does not need an extra is (he). English needs he; Latin usually does not:

• Latin: coquus piscem coquebat
• English: the cook was cooking the fish (we must add he if we drop “the cook”)

What kind of words are heri and lente, and where do they usually go in the sentence?

Both heri and lente are adverbs.

• heri = yesterday (time adverb)
• lente = slowly (manner adverb), from the adjective lentus (slow)

Placement:

• Adverbs in Latin are quite flexible.
• Common positions:
  • near the verb (lente coquebat)
  • at the beginning to set the scene (Heri coquus…)

So you could also see:

• Coquus heri piscem lente coquebat.
• Heri coquus lente piscem coquebat.

The meaning stays the same; only emphasis can slightly change.

Why is the order fessus erat and not erat fessus? Does the order matter?

Both fessus erat and erat fessus are grammatically correct and mean he was tired.

Latin word order is flexible, especially with linking verbs like esse (to be). Changing the order can affect rhythm or emphasis, but not basic grammar.

• fessus erat puts a bit more focus on the state tired (tired he was).
• erat fessus feels slightly more neutral.

In normal prose, both are very natural. In this sentence there’s no important change of meaning between the two orders.

Is fessus erat a passive form, like he had been tired or he was made tired?

No. Fessus here is an adjective, not a passive participle in a passive tense.

• fessus, -a, -um = tired, weary (adjective)
• erat = imperfect of esse (to be) → was

So fessus erat simply means he was tired (describing his state).

A genuine perfect passive form with erat would use a perfect passive participle, e.g. laesus erat (he had been injured).
Here, fessus is just like saying laetus erat (he was happy).

Why is the adjective fessus masculine and not fessa or fessum?

Adjectives in Latin must agree with the noun they describe in:

• gender
• number
• case

Here the understood noun is coquus (cook):

• coquus is masculine, singular, nominative.
• So the adjective must also be masculine singular nominative → fessus.

Other forms would match other nouns, for example:

• fessa ancilla erat = the maidservant was tired (feminine)
• fessum animal erat = the animal was tired (neuter)

What does quia do in this sentence, and could we use quod instead?

Quia is a subordinating conjunction meaning because.

It introduces a reason clause:

• quia fessus erat = because he was tired

In Classical Latin, both quia and quod can mean because, though quia is often felt to be a bit clearer for cause. In this sentence:

• quia fessus erat and quod fessus erat are both understandable as because he was tired.

So yes, quod could be used, but quia is a very standard way to express simple cause.

Why is erat also in the imperfect tense and not est?

Erat is the imperfect of esse (to be), so it means was.

The whole sentence is describing a past situation:

• heri → yesterday
• coquebat → was cooking (imperfect, past)

To keep the time frame consistent, the reason clause also uses the imperfect:

• quia fessus erat → because he was tired (at that same time)

If we wrote quia fessus est, it would mean because he is tired (present), which would not match heri and coquebat.

Could we change the word order of the main clause, like coquus heri piscem lente coquebat? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, we can change the order. Latin relies more on endings than on word order to show grammar, so:

• Heri coquus piscem lente coquebat
• Coquus heri piscem lente coquebat
• Piscem coquus heri lente coquebat

all mean the same basic thing: Yesterday the cook was slowly cooking the fish.

Differences:

• Putting heri first emphasizes the time.
• Putting coquus first emphasizes the cook.
• Putting piscem first can emphasize the fish.

But the core meaning is unchanged because coquus is nominative (subject) and piscem is accusative (object).

Why is there a comma before quia? Is that required in Latin?

The comma is a modern punctuation convention used by editors and teachers to make Latin easier to read. Ancient texts had little or no punctuation.

Functionally:

• The comma simply marks the boundary between the main clause and the subordinate clause:
  • Heri coquus piscem lente coquebat,
  • quia fessus erat.

It is not required by the grammar itself; the conjunction quia already shows the start of the subordinate clause. You might also see the sentence printed without the comma.

Why is lente an adverb instead of using an adjective like lentus?

English uses adverbs to modify verbs (slowly, quickly). Latin does the same:

• lente (adverb) modifies the verb coquebat → was cooking slowly
• lentus (adjective) would modify a noun → a slow cook, a slow fish, etc.

Examples:

• coquus lente coquebat = the cook was cooking slowly
• coquus lentus erat = the cook was slow (literally: the cook was slow, as a description of him)

So lente is the correct form because it describes how he was cooking, not what he was like.