Pater olim laboriosus agricola erat et tota die in agris laborabat.

Father once was a hardworking farmer and all day long he used to work in the fields.

Breakdown of Pater olim laboriosus agricola erat et tota die in agris laborabat.

• esse: to be
• laborare: to work
• in: in
• et: and
• pater: the father
• agricola: the farmer
• ager: the field
• dies: the day
• olim: once
• totus: whole
• laboriosus: hardworking

Questions & Answers about Pater olim laboriosus agricola erat et tota die in agris laborabat.

Why is pater at the beginning of the sentence, and what role does it play?

Pater is the subject of the sentence: pater ... erat = “father was…”.
Latin usually, but not always, puts the subject early in the sentence, so starting with pater is very natural.
There is no article in Latin, so pater can mean “the father”, “a father”, or (in context) “my father”.

What exactly does olim mean, and where can it go in the sentence?

Olim means “once, once upon a time, formerly, long ago.”
It’s an adverb of time, so it modifies erat (“was”).
Its position is fairly flexible: Pater olim laboriosus agricola erat (as here) is normal, but Olim pater laboriosus agricola erat is also OK and a bit more emphatic on “once/long ago.”

Why is laboriosus agricola in that order, and how do the words agree?

Laboriosus is an adjective meaning “hard‑working, industrious.”
Agricola (“farmer”) is a noun of the first declension but is grammatically masculine.
They agree in case, number, and gender: both are nominative singular masculine, so laboriosus agricola = “a hardworking farmer.”
Adjective–noun order is flexible in Latin; agricola laboriosus would also be possible, with a slightly different emphasis.

Why is agricola masculine even though it ends in -a?

Agricola belongs to a small group of first‑declension masculine nouns (like poeta “poet”, nauta “sailor”).
They take the usual -a, -ae endings of the first declension but their grammatical gender is masculine, so adjectives and pronouns referring to them must also be masculine (here: laboriosus, not laboriosa).

What is the function of erat in this sentence, and why is it in the imperfect tense?

Erat is the imperfect of sum (“to be”) and here means “was.”
The imperfect indicates an ongoing or continuous state in the past: “Father used to be / was (for some time) a hardworking farmer.”
A perfect form like fuit would suggest more of a completed fact (“he was at some point”), rather than a continuous background description.

Why is laborabat also in the imperfect tense?

Laborabat is the imperfect of laboro (“to work”) and means “was working” or “used to work.”
The imperfect is used for repeated or habitual actions in the past and for ongoing background actions.
So tota die in agris laborabat naturally means “he would work / was working in the fields all day (as a regular thing).”

How are erat and laborabat connected by et? Do we need to repeat “he”?

Et simply joins two verbs with the same subject: pater ... erat et ... laborabat.
Latin does not normally repeat subject pronouns (he), because the verb endings already show the person and number (-bat = 3rd person singular).
So we understand “Father was … and (he) worked …” even though “he” is not expressed.

What case is tota die, and what does that construction mean?

Die is ablative singular of dies (“day”), and tota is ablative singular feminine agreeing with it.
This is an ablative of time within which / during which: tota die = “during the whole day, all day long.”
Latin more often uses accusative for duration (totam diem), but the ablative tota die is also used, especially with the sense “throughout the whole day.”

What case is in agris, and how is it different from in agros?

Agris is ablative plural of ager (“field”), and in + ablative expresses location: in agris = “in the fields.”
If you said in agros (in + accusative), that would usually mean motion towards: “into the fields.”
So here the father is working in the fields (already there), not going into them.

Why is there no word for “the” or “a” before pater, agricola, or agris?

Classical Latin has no articles (“the”, “a/an”).
Whether we translate with “a” or “the” depends on context and natural English.
So pater can be “father / my father,” agricola = “a (or the) farmer,” in agris = “in the fields,” and the right article is chosen only when we translate.

Could the order of tota die in agris be changed, and would that change the meaning?

Yes, Latin word order is flexible: tota die in agris laborabat and in agris tota die laborabat both mean “he worked in the fields all day.”
Changing the order can slightly affect emphasis (e.g. ending with laborabat focuses more on the action), but the basic meaning remains the same.

Is there any reason pater doesn’t have meus (“my”) with it?

Latin often omits possessive adjectives like meus when the possessor is obvious from context.
In stories, pater alone frequently means “my father” from the speaker’s point of view.
You could say pater meus olim laboriosus agricola erat... to make “my” explicit, but it isn’t required.

How would you break down the grammar of each word in the sentence?

• Pater – nominative singular, masculine, “father”; subject.
• olim – adverb (“once, long ago”).
• laboriosus – nominative singular masculine adjective, agreeing with agricola.
• agricola – nominative singular masculine noun, predicate nominative after erat.
• erat – 3rd person singular imperfect active indicative of sum (“he was”).
• et – coordinating conjunction (“and”).
• tota – ablative singular feminine adjective, agreeing with die.
• die – ablative singular of dies, ablative of time (“during the whole day”).
• in – preposition taking the ablative here (“in”).
• agris – ablative plural of ager, object of in (“in the fields”).
• laborabat – 3rd person singular imperfect active indicative of laboro (“he was working/used to work”).