Olim infans saepe aegrota erat, et medica ad villam veniebat.

Once the baby was often sick, and a female doctor used to come to the villa.

Breakdown of Olim infans saepe aegrota erat, et medica ad villam veniebat.

• esse: to be
• et: and
• villa: the villa
• ad: to
• saepe: often
• venire: to come
• olim: once
• infans: the baby
• aegrotus: sick
• medica: the female doctor

Questions & Answers about Olim infans saepe aegrota erat, et medica ad villam veniebat.

How do we know whether infans is masculine or feminine here?

The noun infans, infantis is common gender in Latin: by itself it can mean either a male or a female baby/young child.

In this sentence, the adjective aegrota (feminine nominative singular) tells us the baby is female:

• infans – nominative singular (subject), gender not specified
• aegrota – feminine nominative singular, agreeing with infans

Because adjectives must agree with their nouns in gender, number, and case, aegrota shows that this particular infans is a girl.

Why is it aegrota erat instead of a single verb meaning “was sick”?

Latin can express “to be sick/ill” in two ways:

1. Adjective + esse (to be)

   • aegrotus, -a, -um = sick/ill
   • aegrota erat = “she was sick / she was ill”

2. Verb aegroto, aegrotare

   • aegrotabat = “she was (being) sick / she kept being ill”

Here, the sentence uses pattern (1):
infans saepe aegrota erat = “the baby was often ill.”

So:

• aegrota is a predicate adjective.
• erat is the imperfect of esse (“was”).

Both together make “was sick/ill.”

What does olim mean exactly, and why is it used with the imperfect?

Olim is an adverb of time. Its main meanings:

• “once (upon a time)”
• “at some time in the past”
• “formerly”

It does not force a specific tense; it can go with several past tenses, depending on context. With the imperfect here (erat, veniebat), the idea is:

• a time in the past, without a sharp boundary
• describing an ongoing or repeated situation at that time

So:
Olim infans saepe aegrota erat = “Once / long ago, the baby was often ill.”
The imperfect fits well because it paints a background, “used to be” type of situation.

What kind of word is saepe, and what does it modify?

Saepe is an adverb meaning “often.”

It modifies the verb phrase (here, the whole idea “was ill”):

• infans saepe aegrota erat
  – literally, “the baby often sick was”
  – more naturally: “the baby was often ill.”

Saepe is not an adjective, so it does not agree in gender/number/case with any noun; it just tells you how frequently something happened.

Why is the word order infans saepe aegrota erat and not closer to English “the baby was often sick”?

Latin word order is much more flexible than English. The basic structure is:

• infans – subject (nominative)
• aegrota – predicate adjective describing the subject
• erat – linking verb “was”
• saepe – adverb “often,” attached to the verbal idea

Latin commonly puts:

• the verb at or near the end of the clause
• adverbs like saepe near the verb or between subject and predicate

Other acceptable orders include:

• Infans aegrota saepe erat
• Infans aegrota erat saepe
• Saepe infans aegrota erat

They all mean essentially the same thing; word order can emphasize different parts slightly, but the endings carry the grammar.

How do we know that medica is the subject of veniebat?

Look at form and position:

• medica – nominative singular feminine of medica (“female doctor”)
• veniebat – 3rd person singular imperfect of venio (“came/was coming/used to come”)

In Latin, the nominative is used for the subject. Nothing else in that clause is nominative, so:

• medica = subject
• ad villam = prepositional phrase (destination)
• veniebat = verb

So: medica ad villam veniebat = “the (female) doctor used to come to the house.”

Why is it medica, not medicus?

Latin distinguishes grammatical gender in many professions:

• medicus = male doctor
• medica = female doctor

Here we have medica (feminine nominative singular), which tells us the doctor is female.

So in this sentence:

• the baby is female (aegrota),
• the doctor is also female (medica).

What is the function of et in this sentence?

Et is the coordinating conjunction “and.” It is linking two clauses:

1. Olim infans saepe aegrota erat
   – “Once, the baby was often ill,”

2. (et) medica ad villam veniebat
   – “and the doctor used to come to the house.”

So et is joining:

• one state in the past (the baby’s frequent illness)
• with a repeated action in the past (the doctor’s visits)

Why is it ad villam and not something like villae or in villa?

Ad with the accusative shows motion towards a place:

• ad villam = “to the house / towards the house”

Compare:

• in villa (with ablative) = “in the house” (location, no movement)
• in villam (with accusative) = “into the house” (movement into)
• ad villam = “to the house / up to the house” (motion to/near)

Because veniebat is a verb of motion (“was coming”), Latin naturally uses ad + accusative (villam) to express the destination.

What tense is veniebat, and why not venit?

Veniebat is the imperfect tense, 3rd person singular, from venio, venire (“to come”).

Imperfect tense uses:

• an action in the past that was ongoing, repeated, or habitual:
  • “she was coming”
  • “she used to come”
  • “she kept coming”

Using veniebat here suggests the doctor came repeatedly over a period of time.

Venit (perfect) would normally be “she came” (a completed, one-time or bounded event). That would change the feel of the sentence to a single or more definite action rather than a habitual pattern.

Why are both erat and veniebat in the imperfect tense?

Both verbs describe:

• a general, ongoing, or repeated situation in the past:
  • the baby was often ill (a repeated or continuing state),
  • and the doctor used to come (repeated visits).

The imperfect is ideal for this “background” or habitual description:

• aegrota erat = “she was (regularly) ill”
• veniebat = “she used to come”

So the two clauses match nicely in time and aspect.

Why isn’t there any word for “the” or “a” (like “the baby,” “a doctor”)?

Latin has no articles (no separate words for “the” or “a/an”).

The bare noun can be translated variously in English, depending on context:

• infans = “the baby” / “a baby”
• medica = “the doctor” / “a doctor”
• villa = “a house” / “the house”

Which English article you choose is decided by:

• what makes sense in the context,
• whether the person is already known to the reader/listener, etc.

Latin itself simply uses the noun without any article.

Why is villam in the accusative case?

Because it is the object of the preposition ad:

• ad (“to/towards”) always takes the accusative.
• villa (1st declension):
  • nominative singular: villa
  • accusative singular: villam

So ad villam is grammatically correct and required:
“to the house.”

Could the subject be omitted in “medica ad villam veniebat”? Latin often drops subjects, right?

Latin often drops pronoun subjects (like “she,” “he,” “they”) because the verb ending already shows the person and number.

Here, however, medica is not a pronoun; it is a noun giving us important information (that the subject is a doctor, and specifically a female doctor).

You could in theory write just:

• Ad villam veniebat. = “She was coming to the house.”

…but then:

• you wouldn’t know who “she” is unless it’s crystal clear from a previous sentence.
• you would lose the information that this “she” is a doctor.

So including medica is normal and clear, especially in an isolated sentence like this one.