Log inSign up

In via clamor mercatorum magnus est, sed in culina solum coquus et servus quiete loquuntur.

In via clamor mercatorum magnus est, sed in culina solum coquus et servus quiete loquuntur.
In the street the merchants’ noise is loud, but in the kitchen only the cook and the servant speak quietly.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Latin now

Questions & Answers about In via clamor mercatorum magnus est, sed in culina solum coquus et servus quiete loquuntur.

Why is via in the form via and not viam in in via?

The preposition in can take either:

  • the ablative case = place where → in, on, at
  • the accusative case = motion towards → into, onto

Here we have in via:

  • via is ablative singular → in the street
  • It describes where something is, not movement.

If it were into the street, you would see in viam (accusative).

What is the grammatical role of clamor mercatorum?

Clamor mercatorum is a noun phrase:

  • clamor = shouting, noise (nominative singular, subject of est)
  • mercatorum = of the merchants (genitive plural)

So:

  • clamor is the subject: the shouting
  • mercatorum is a genitive depending on clamor: the shouting of the merchants

Together: clamor mercatorum magnus est = the shouting of the merchants is loud/great.

Why is mercatorum in the genitive and not mercatores?

Mercatores (nominative plural) would mean the merchants as a subject or complement.

But here, Latin wants "the noise of the merchants", so it uses the genitive:

  • mercatorum = of the merchants

This is called a possessive or subjective genitive: the noise belonging to or made by the merchants.

Why is magnus used, and why does it end in -us?

Magnus is an adjective meaning great, loud, big, and it must agree in:

  • gender
  • number
  • case

with the noun it describes.

The noun is:

  • clamor = masculine, singular, nominative

Therefore the adjective must be:

  • magnus (masculine nominative singular)

So magnus est means is great/loud, referring back to clamor.

Could the word order be In via magnus est clamor mercatorum? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, Latin allows very flexible word order. All of these are possible and mean essentially the same thing:

  • In via clamor mercatorum magnus est.
  • In via magnus est clamor mercatorum.
  • Clamor mercatorum in via magnus est.

Because clamor (nominative) is clearly the subject, magnus agrees with it, and in via is clearly a prepositional phrase of place, the grammar doesn’t change. Only emphasis and style shift slightly (for example, putting magnus earlier could emphasize how loud it is).

What does in culina show, and why is culina in that form?

In culina is parallel to in via:

  • culina = kitchen (ablative singular here)
  • in culina = in the kitchen

Again, in + ablative = location (where something is), not movement. So in culina = in the kitchen, not into the kitchen.

What exactly is solum here? Is it an adjective like solus?

Here solum is used as an adverb, meaning only.

  • As an adjective, solus, -a, -um = alone, only and would agree with a noun:

    • solus coquus = the only cook / the cook alone.

  • As an adverb, solum = only and does not change its form.

In the sentence:

  • in culina solum coquus et servus quiete loquuntur
  • Best taken as: only the cook and the slave are speaking.

So solum here limits the subject coquus et servus: only the cook and the slave…

Why are coquus and servus singular, but the verb loquuntur is plural?

Latin treats "X and Y" as a plural subject, just like English.

  • coquus = cook (nominative singular)
  • servus = slave (nominative singular)

Together: coquus et servus = the cook and the slave → grammatically plural.

Therefore the verb must be 3rd person plural:

  • loquuntur = they speak / they are speaking

So the agreement is:

  • coquus et servus → loquuntur (they speak).
Why does loquuntur look passive but translate as they speak (active)?

Loquuntur comes from the verb loquor, loqui, locutus sum = to speak, to talk.

This is a deponent verb:

  • It looks passive (endings like -tur, -ntur),
  • but it has an active meaning.

Form here:

  • loqu-untur = 3rd person plural, present, indicative, deponent
  • Meaning: they speak / they are speaking.

So even though loquuntur has a passive ending, you must translate it actively because loquor is deponent.

What form is quiete, and how does it mean quietly?

Quiete here is:

  • ablative singular of quies, quietis (f.) = rest, quiet, calm.

Latin often uses an ablative of manner (or an ablative used adverbially) instead of a separate adverb:

  • literally: they speak *with quiet / in quietness*
  • idiomatically: they speak quietly.

So quiete loquuntur = they speak quietly.

Why is there no separate word for “there is” in In via clamor mercatorum magnus est?

Latin often expresses “there is …” simply as:

  • [place] + [noun in nominative] + est.

So:

  • In via clamor mercatorum magnus est
    literally: In the street the noise of the merchants is great.
    natural English: In the street there is loud shouting by the merchants.

Latin normally doesn’t need a separate word for “there” in this kind of sentence; the place phrase (in via) plus est does the job.

What tense and mood are est and loquuntur?

Both verbs are:

  • present tense
  • indicative mood
  • 3rd person

Details:

  • est: 3rd person singular, present indicative of sum (to be): is.
  • loquuntur: 3rd person plural, present indicative of loquor (to speak): they speak / they are speaking.

So the whole sentence describes an action/state happening now or in a general present sense.