Post cenam servus in culina manet et cum coquo de die longo loquitur.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Latin now

Questions & Answers about Post cenam servus in culina manet et cum coquo de die longo loquitur.

What does post cenam literally mean, and why is cenam in that form?

Post is a preposition that means after (in time) or behind (in space).

In Latin, post takes the accusative case, so the noun that follows it must be in the accusative.

  • cena = dinner (nominative singular)
  • cenam = dinner (accusative singular)

So:

  • post cenam = after dinner

The accusative here is required by the preposition post, not because cenam is a direct object of a verb.

Why is it servus and not servum or servo?

Servus is in the nominative singular, which is the case used for the subject of the verb.

  • servus (nom. sg.) = the slave / servant (subject)
  • servum (acc. sg.) = the slave (object)
  • servo (dat. or abl. sg.) = to/for the slave, or by/with/from the slave

In the sentence:

  • servus … manet … loquitur
    servus is the one who stays and talks, so it must be nominative.
What is happening grammatically in in culina, and why is culina in that case?

In can take either the accusative or the ablative, with a change of meaning:

  • in
    • accusative = into, onto (motion towards a place)
  • in
    • ablative = in, on (location in a place)

Here we have:

  • in culina: culina is ablative singular (from culina, culinae, f. = kitchen)
  • So in culina means in the kitchen (location).

The servant is remaining in the kitchen, not going into it, so the ablative is correct.

What does manet mean exactly: “remains,” “stays,” or “waits”?

Manet is 3rd person singular present active indicative of maneo, manēre.

Basic meanings:

  • to remain, stay in a place
  • by extension, sometimes to wait, to stay behind

In context:

  • servus in culina manet
    can be translated as “the slave stays/remains in the kitchen”, or quite naturally in English as “the slave stays in the kitchen” or “the slave remains in the kitchen”.

“Waits” would usually be exspectat, but manet can shade into “stays behind” in some contexts.

Why is the verb loquitur at the end, and why is there no second “servus” or “he” before it?

Latin word order is far more flexible than English. A very common neutral pattern is:

  • Subject – Other elements – Verb (SOV)

So:

  • servus in culina manet et … loquitur
    literally: the slave in the kitchen stays and … speaks

About the missing subject:

  • Latin is a “pro-drop” language: if the subject is clear from context and the verb ending, it can be left out.
  • The subject servus is already given in the first clause.
  • loquitur has the -tur ending, which here means he/she/it talks (3rd person singular).
  • So the understood subject of loquitur is still servus.

That’s why Latin doesn’t repeat servus or add a separate word for “he.”

What’s going on with cum coquo? Why is it coquo and not coquus?

Cum is a preposition that means with, and it takes the ablative case.

The noun is:

  • coquus, coqui (m.) = cook

Its ablative singular is:

  • coquo = with/by/from the cook

So:

  • cum coquo = with the cook

You see coquo because cum requires the ablative, and coquus (nominative) would be a subject form, which it isn’t here.

Why does the sentence use both cum and de with loquitur? Do they mean different things?

Yes, they do different jobs:

  • cum

    • ablative: indicates with whom someone speaks.

    • cum coquo = with the cook
  • de

    • ablative: indicates about what someone speaks, thinks, writes, etc.

    • de die longo = about the long day

So the pattern is:

  • loquitur cum coquo de die longo
    = he talks with the cook about the long day.
What does de die longo mean, and why are die and longo in those forms?

De is a preposition meaning:

  • down from, from (literal)
  • more commonly here: about, concerning

It takes the ablative case.

The noun:

  • dies, diei (usually m.) = day

Ablative singular of dies is die:

  • die = (from/about) the day

The adjective:

  • longus, -a, -um = long

It must agree with the noun in gender, number, and case, so it becomes:

  • longo (ablative singular masculine) to match die.

So:

  • de die longo = about the long day

Word-for-word: about [the] day long.

Why is dies (day) behaving differently from more familiar first/second-declension nouns?

Dies belongs to the fifth declension, which is less common in beginners’ Latin than the first and second.

Its main forms (singular) are:

  • nominative: dies (day – subject)
  • genitive: diei (of the day)
  • dative: diei (to/for the day)
  • accusative: diem (day – object)
  • ablative: die (by/with/from the day)

In de die longo we use die (ablative) because de requires the ablative.

The adjective longus is regular (2nd decl. masculine), but it must match the fifth-declension noun dies in gender/number/case, so it appears as longo.

What kind of verb is loquitur, and why does it end in -tur if it means “he talks”?

Loquitur is from a deponent verb: loquor, loqui, locutus sum = to speak, talk.

Deponent verbs:

  • look passive in form
  • but are active in meaning

For loquor:

  • loquor = I speak
  • loqueris = you speak
  • loquitur = he/she/it speaks
  • loquimur = we speak
  • loquimini = you (pl.) speak
  • loquuntur = they speak

So loquitur (3rd person singular present) = he/she talks/speaks.

It ends in -tur (a passive ending) but is translated actively because loquor is deponent.

Why doesn’t loquitur take a direct object in the accusative, like “loquitur diem longum”?

Many deponent verbs, including loquor, do not usually take a direct object in the accusative. Instead, they use prepositional phrases.

For loquor:

  • loquor cum + abl. = I speak with someone
  • loquor de + abl. = I speak about something

So:

  • cum coquo = with the cook (person spoken with)
  • de die longo = about the long day (topic spoken about)

Using loquitur diem longum would be unidiomatic; Latin expects those prepositions instead.

How would the sentence change if the subject were plural, e.g. “the slaves stay in the kitchen and talk with the cook about the long day”?

You’d make the subject plural and change the verbs to plural 3rd person forms:

  • Post cenam servi in culina manent et cum coquo de die longo loquuntur.

Changes:

  • servusservi (nominative plural) = slaves
  • manetmanent (they stay)
  • loquiturloquuntur (they talk; 3rd person plural of loquor)

Everything else (post cenam, in culina, cum coquo, de die longo) stays the same.

Can I move the words around, for example: Servus post cenam in culina manet et loquitur cum coquo de die longo? Is that still correct?

Yes, that is still correct Latin.

Latin word order is relatively free; the grammatical roles are mostly shown by the endings, not by position. Your version:

  • Servus post cenam in culina manet et loquitur cum coquo de die longo

is perfectly fine and quite clear.

Some alternative (still correct) orders:

  • Post cenam servus in culina manet et loquitur cum coquo de die longo.
  • Servus in culina post cenam manet et cum coquo de die longo loquitur.

The original order slightly emphasizes post cenam by putting it first, but the meaning is essentially the same in all versions.