Log inSign up

Cum puer aegrotus erat, medica cum eo manebat tota hora.

Cum puer aegrotus erat, medica cum eo manebat tota hora.
When the boy was sick, the female doctor stayed with him for a whole hour.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Latin now

Questions & Answers about Cum puer aegrotus erat, medica cum eo manebat tota hora.

Why does cum appear twice, and does it mean the same thing both times?

No, cum has two different grammatical roles here:

  • First cum in cum puer aegrotus erat is a conjunction meaning when. It introduces a time clause: when the boy was ill.
  • Second cum in medica cum eo is a preposition meaning with. It governs the pronoun eo in the ablative: with him.

So:

  • cum
    • verb (with an indicative here) → when
  • cum
    • ablative noun/pronoun → with
Why is puer in the form puer and not something like puerum?

Puer is in the nominative singular because it is the subject of the verb erat (was).

  • puer (nominative singular) = the boy (doing or being something)
  • puerum (accusative singular) = the boy (as an object)

In cum puer aegrotus erat, puer is the one who was ill, so it must be nominative.

What exactly is aegrotus doing in cum puer aegrotus erat?

Aegrotus is a predicate adjective with erat:

  • puer = subject (the boy)
  • erat = was
  • aegrotus = ill

Together: puer aegrotus erat = the boy was ill.

Grammatically:

  • aegrotus is nominative masculine singular, agreeing with puer, and completing the verb erat (like he was ill in English).
Why are both verbs erat and manebat in the imperfect tense?

The imperfect tense in Latin describes ongoing, repeated, or continuous actions in the past.

  • erat = he was (ill) – describing a continuing state in the past.
  • manebat = she was staying / used to stay – another ongoing action in the past.

Using the imperfect for both shows that:

  • While the boy was in the continuing state of being ill,
  • The doctor was likewise continuing to stay with him for the whole hour.

If you said medica cum eo mansit, that would sound more like the doctor stayed (once, as a completed event) rather than focusing on duration.

Why is medica in that form, and what does it tell us?

Medica is:

  • nominative singular
  • first declension
  • feminine

This:

  • Makes medica the subject of manebat (who stayed? the doctor).
  • Indicates that the doctor is female.

Masculine would be medicus (a male doctor). So:

  • medica manebat = the (female) doctor was staying.
  • medicus manebat = the (male) doctor was staying.
Why is the pronoun eo used after cum, and what case is it?

Eo is the ablative singular of the pronoun is, ea, id (he, she, it / that).

The preposition cum always takes the ablative. So:

  • cum eo = with him / with that boy.

Special forms like mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum exist for 1st and 2nd person, but for 3rd person Latin uses normal order:

  • cum eo, cum ea, cum eis, etc.
Why is tota hora in that case and why is there no preposition like per?

Tota hora is in the ablative singular (feminine):

  • hora = ablative singular
  • tota = ablative singular feminine, agreeing with hora

This is an ablative of duration of time, which in classical Latin often does not take a preposition:

  • tres horas manebat = he stayed for three hours
  • tota hora manebat = she stayed for the whole hour

You could use per with an accusative (per totam horam) but the bare ablative tota hora is very natural and common.

Why does tota come before hora, and what does tota add to the meaning?

Tota means whole / entire and is an adjective agreeing with hora:

  • gender: feminine
  • number: singular
  • case: ablative

Tota hora = for the whole hour, not just for an hour.

Latin adjectives can come before or after their noun; tota hora vs hora tota both are possible. Here the order tota hora is very normal and slightly emphasizes the completeness of the hour.

Why is there no word for the in puer, medica, or hora?

Latin has no articles (no the or a/an). Whether you translate puer as the boy or a boy depends on context, not on a separate word.

So:

  • puer can mean the boy or a boy.
  • medica can mean the doctor or a doctor (female).
  • tota hora can be for the whole hour (not for a whole hour in English, but that’s English style).

The context here suggests the boy and the doctor, but Latin itself just says boy, doctor, whole hour.

Is the word order fixed? Could I say cum aegrotus puer erat or medica eum cum manebat?

Latin word order is flexible, but not random. Certain orders are natural or clearer:

  • cum puer aegrotus erat is very natural: subject (puer) followed by predicate adjective (aegrotus) and verb (erat).
  • You could say cum puer erat aegrotus or cum aegrotus puer erat in poetry or for emphasis, but the given order is standard prose.

For medica cum eo manebat:

  • The normal place for cum as a preposition is directly before its noun/pronoun: cum eo.
  • medica cum eo manebat and cum eo medica manebat are both understandable, but separating cum from eo (as in medica eum cum manebat) would be incorrect; cum must govern the ablative eo, not eum.
Why does cum take the indicative here, and not the subjunctive?

Cum as a conjunction can take either indicative or subjunctive, with different meanings:

  • cum
    • indicative (as in cum puer aegrotus erat) usually means when in a straightforward time sense: when the boy was ill.
  • cum
    • subjunctive can mean:
      • when / while in a more background or circumstantial sense,
      • or since / because, or although, depending on context.

Here, erat is indicative, so cum means simple when in past time. It is a plain temporal clause.

How would I negate this sentence, e.g. the doctor did not stay with him the whole hour?

You normally put non before the verb it negates:

  • Cum puer aegrotus erat, medica cum eo non manebat tota hora.
    • non manebat = she was not staying / did not stay.

The rest of the sentence stays the same; non simply negates manebat.

Could I express the idea more like when the boy had become ill, not just was ill?

Yes. To emphasize that the illness started before the doctor’s staying, you could use a pluperfect:

  • Cum puer aegrotus factus esset, medica cum eo manebat tota hora.
    • factus esset = had become (pluperfect passive of facio, used in a passive-meaning sense: become).
    • Or cum puer aegrotare coeperat, ... = when the boy had begun to be ill, ...

The original cum puer aegrotus erat simply states his condition at that time, not the moment of becoming ill.