Olim pater pecuniam lente numerabat, nam numeri magni erant.

Once father was slowly counting the money, for the numbers were large.

Breakdown of Olim pater pecuniam lente numerabat, nam numeri magni erant.

• esse: to be
• magnus: large
• pater: the father
• nam: for
• lente: slowly
• pecunia: the money
• numerare: to count
• olim: once
• numerus: the number

Questions & Answers about Olim pater pecuniam lente numerabat, nam numeri magni erant.

What does olim mean exactly, and does it have any special nuance?

Olim is an adverb meaning once, once upon a time, formerly, or at some time in the past.

Here, it sets the scene in the past, a bit like a story opener: “Once, the father was counting money…”

It does not specify when exactly—just that it was at some indefinite time in the past. Context tells you whether it feels more like “once upon a time” (story-like) or simply “once / at one time” in a more factual description.

Why is it pater and not patrem?

Pater is in the nominative singular case, which is typically used for the subject of the sentence: the person or thing doing the action.

• pater = father (subject form, “the father”)
• patrem would be accusative singular, used for a direct object, something receiving the action.

In this sentence, pater is the one doing the action numerabat (“was counting”), so he must be in the nominative: pater.

Why does pecuniam end in -m? What case is it, and why?

Pecuniam is accusative singular of pecunia (money).

• Dictionary form: pecunia (nominative singular) – money
• Accusative singular: pecuniam

Latin uses the accusative case for the direct object of a verb—the thing directly affected by the action.

Here:

• pater (subject, nominative) numerabat (was counting) pecuniam (direct object, accusative).

So pecuniam = “money” as the thing being counted.

Why is there no word for “the” in pecuniam? How do I know if it’s “money” or “the money”?

Latin has no separate words for “the” or “a/an”. You decide whether to translate with “the” or “a” (or no article) from context.

So pecuniam by itself can mean:

• money
• the money
• some money

Here, English might naturally say:

• “Once the father was slowly counting the money…”
  or
• “…slowly counting money…”

Both are valid; Latin leaves the article implicit, and you choose what sounds right in English.

What kind of word is lente, and how is it formed?

Lente is an adverb meaning slowly.

It comes from the adjective lentus, -a, -um (“slow”). A common way to form adverbs from 1st/2nd declension adjectives is to add -e:

• lentus (slow) → lente (slowly)
• clarus (clear, bright) → clare (clearly, brightly)

So in pecuniam lente numerabat, lente tells us how he was counting:
“He was counting the money slowly.”

Does word order matter for lente? Could it be written somewhere else?

Latin word order is quite flexible, especially for adverbs.

All of these are possible and grammatical:

• pater pecuniam lente numerabat
• pater lente pecuniam numerabat
• lente pater pecuniam numerabat

They all basically mean “the father was slowly counting the money.”
The choice affects emphasis and style, not basic grammar.

The version you have, pecuniam lente numerabat, places the adverb right before the verb, which is very common: adverb + verb.

What tense and person is numerabat, and how should I translate it?

Numerabat is:

• from the verb numero, numerare – to count
• 3rd person singular – he / she / it was counting
• imperfect tense – ongoing or repeated action in the past
• active voice, indicative mood

So numerabat usually translates as:

• “he was counting”
• or sometimes “he used to count / he kept counting” (depending on context)

In this sentence:
“Once, the father was slowly counting the money…”

Why is it numerabat (imperfect) and not numeravit (perfect)? What’s the difference?

Latin makes a clear distinction:

• Imperfect (e.g. numerabat) = ongoing, repeated, or background action in the past
  
  • he was counting, he kept counting, he used to count
• Perfect (e.g. numeravit) = completed, single action in the past
  
  • he counted, he has counted, he did count

Here, numerabat suggests we’re looking at the action as in progress at that time:
“Once, the father was (in the middle of) slowly counting the money…”

Using numeravit would sound more like a simple completed event:
“Once, the father slowly counted the money.”
That feels less like a scene and more like a bare fact.

What does nam mean, and how is it different from quia or quod?

Nam is a coordinating conjunction meaning for, because, or you see. It introduces a reason or explanation for the previous statement.

• Olim pater pecuniam lente numerabat, nam numeri magni erant.
  = “Once the father was slowly counting the money, for the numbers were large.”

Differences:

• nam: explains or justifies the previous sentence; often more “for / you see” in feel.
• quia / quod: also mean because, but they usually introduce a subordinate clause inside the same sentence.

You might say:

• pater pecuniam lente numerabat, quia numeri magni erant.
  = “The father was slowly counting the money because the numbers were large.”

Your sentence with nam splits it more into two main clauses:
statement + reason/explanation.

Why is numeri plural? Why not just singular?

Numeri is nominative plural of numerus:

• numerus = number (singular)
• numeri = numbers (plural, nominative)

In numeri magni erant, numeri is the subject of the verb erant (were). So the meaning is:

• “The numbers were large.”

Plural is used because we are talking about multiple numbers (e.g., several sums, many figures, many amounts), not just one.

Why is it magni and not magnus, and what is it agreeing with?

Magni is from the adjective magnus, -a, -um (great, large).

• numeri is nominative plural masculine
• so the adjective must match in gender, number, and case:
  • masculine → magnus-type forms
  • nominative plural → magni

So:

• numeri magni = “large numbers” or “great numbers”

The ending -i in magni matches the -i in numeri: they go together as noun + agreeing adjective.

Why is it erant and not sunt or fuerunt?

Erant is:

• 3rd person plural of esse (to be)
• imperfect tense: “they were” (ongoing or background)

Options:

• sunt = they are (present tense)
• fuerunt = they were / have been (perfect, completed in past)
• erant = they were (imperfect, describing the situation in the past)

Because the whole story is set in the past (with olim and numerabat), erant matches that ongoing past background:
“for the numbers were large.”

Can you break down the grammar of every word in the sentence?

Yes:

• Olim – adverb

  • meaning: once, once upon a time, formerly

• pater – noun

  • from pater, patris (m.) – father
  • nominative singular → subject of numerabat

• pecuniam – noun

  • from pecunia, pecuniae (f.) – money
  • accusative singular → direct object of numerabat

• lente – adverb

  • from adjective lentus, -a, -um – slow
  • adverbial form “slowly”, modifying numerabat

• numerabat – verb

  • from numero, numerare, numeravi, numeratus – to count
  • 3rd person singular, imperfect, active, indicative
  • he/she/it was counting

• nam – conjunction

  • for, because, introducing a reason

• numeri – noun

  • from numerus, numeri (m.) – number
  • nominative plural → subject of erant

• magni – adjective

  • from magnus, -a, -um – great, large
  • nominative plural masculine, agreeing with numeri

• erant – verb

  • from sum, esse, fui – to be
  • 3rd person plural, imperfect, active, indicative
  • they were (here: the numbers were)

Why is there no word for “he” before numerabat?

Latin usually omits subject pronouns (like ego, tu, is) because the verb ending itself shows the subject.

• numerabat = “he/she/it was counting”
  The -bat ending tells us 3rd person singular.

We know from context that the subject is pater, so “he” is already understood:

• pater pecuniam lente numerabat
  literally: “the father the money slowly was-counting”,
  naturally in English: “the father was slowly counting the money.”

Adding an explicit pronoun (is numerabat) would usually sound emphatic or unnecessary here.