Unus homo in via solus ambulat; pluvia frigida cadit, igitur domum currit.

One person walks alone in the street; cold rain is falling, therefore he runs home.

Breakdown of Unus homo in via solus ambulat; pluvia frigida cadit, igitur domum currit.

• in: on
• ambulare: to walk
• via: the street
• domus: the home
• currere: to run
• frigidus: cold
• solus: alone
• pluvia: the rain
• cadere: to fall
• unus: one
• homo: the person
• igitur: therefore

Questions & Answers about Unus homo in via solus ambulat; pluvia frigida cadit, igitur domum currit.

Why do we have unus homo instead of just homo? What extra meaning does unus add?

Unus homo means “one man” or “a single man”.

If you wrote only homo, it would just mean “a man” (or “the man”, depending on context). Adding unus emphasizes that there is exactly one person, often with a nuance like:

• one single man, as opposed to several men
• only one man was there

So unus is both the numeral “one” and can carry an emphatic idea of “single, only” in context.

What exactly does solus mean here? Is it “alone” or “only”? And why is it at the end of in via solus ambulat?

Solus basically means “alone” or “by himself”. In this sentence it describes the man: “one man walks alone in the road.”

• unus stresses numerically that there is one man
• solus stresses his state: he is by himself, with no companions

Latin word order is relatively flexible. Putting solus after via and before ambulat still makes it agree with homo (same case, number, gender: nominative masculine singular), so it is understood as “the man is alone”, not “the road is alone.”

You could also say unus homo solus in via ambulat or solus unus homo in via ambulat; the meaning is similar, the nuances in emphasis just shift slightly.

Why is it in via and not in viam? What case is via, and what does that tell us?

Via here is in the ablative singular (same form as nominative for 1st declension), because in + ablative expresses place where:

• in via = “on the road / in the road” (location)
• in viam (accusative) would mean “into the road” (motion toward)

Since the man is walking along / on the road rather than entering it, the ablative with in is used.

How do we know which words go together, like unus with homo and frigida with pluvia?

In Latin, adjectives must agree with the nouns they describe in:

• case
• number
• gender

In the sentence:

• unus (nom. sg. masc.) matches homo (nom. sg. masc.) → unus homo
• frigida (nom. sg. fem.) matches pluvia (nom. sg. fem.) → pluvia frigida

Even though solus is a bit separated, it is also nom. sg. masc., so it still matches homo, not via (which is feminine).

What tense are ambulat, cadit, and currit, and how should I understand them in English?

All three verbs are in the present indicative active, 3rd person singular:

• ambulat – “he walks” / “he is walking”
• cadit – “it falls” / “it is falling”
• currit – “he runs” / “he is running”

Latin present tense can usually be translated into English either as a simple present (“he walks”) or a progressive (“he is walking”). Context or style decides which English form sounds more natural.

Why isn’t there any word for “a” or “the” in the Latin sentence?

Latin does not have articles like English “a/an” or “the”. Nouns can be translated with either definite or indefinite articles depending on context:

• homo can be “a man” or “the man”
• via can be “a road” or “the road”

So Latin leaves that unspecified; the reader or translator chooses the most natural English article from the situation.

Why does it say pluvia frigida cadit instead of just using a verb like pluit?

Latin has both:

• pluvia cadit – “rain falls”
• pluit – “it is raining” / “it rains” (an impersonal verb)

Using pluvia frigida cadit does a few things:

1. It makes pluvia (“rain”) an explicit subject.
2. It lets you add an adjective: frigida (“cold”).
3. Stylistically, it’s a bit fuller and more descriptive than simply pluit.

So this form emphasizes “cold rain is falling” rather than the bare idea “it is raining.”

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

Igitur means “therefore, so, consequently.”

It often appears in second position in a clause, after the first word or phrase. In your sentence:

• pluvia frigida cadit, igitur domum currit.
  = “Cold rain is falling, so he runs home.”

Other possible and common placements:

• Pluvia frigida cadit; igitur domum currit.
• Pluvia frigida cadit; domum igitur currit.

Putting igitur first (Igitur domum currit) is possible but more marked; classical Latin tends to prefer it after the first element of the clause.

What case is domum, and why is there no preposition meaning “to”?

Domum is the accusative singular of domus (“house, home”). With verbs of motion, Latin often uses a bare accusative (without a preposition) to express “to” when the noun is a place, especially:

• domum – “home(wards), to the house”
• Romam – “to Rome”
• Athenas – “to Athens”

So domum currit literally is “he runs home(wards)”, even though there is no separate word for “to.”

Could we say ad domum currit instead of domum currit? Is there any difference?

You can say ad domum currit, and it is grammatically correct: “he runs to the house.”

However:

• domum currit is the most idiomatic way to say “he runs home” in Classical Latin.
• ad domum currit can sound more like “to the building/house” as a location, rather than “home” in the sense of one’s own dwelling or “homeward.”

So for the natural phrase “he runs home,” domum currit is strongly preferred.

What are the dictionary forms and declensions of the main nouns: homo, via, pluvia, domum?

Here are the main nouns:

• homo, hominis (m.) – 3rd declension, “man, human being”
• via, viae (f.) – 1st declension, “road, way, street”
• pluvia, pluviae (f.) – 1st declension, “rain”
• domum is from domus, domūs (f.) – 4th declension, “house, home”

In the sentence:

• homo is nominative singular (subject)
• via is ablative singular after in (place where)
• pluvia is nominative singular (subject)
• domum is accusative singular, used as a goal of motion (“homeward”)

Why is there a semicolon between ambulat and pluvia frigida cadit? Does classical Latin really use punctuation like that?

Classical Latin authors did not use punctuation in the modern way; they mostly relied on spacing, layout, and readers’ understanding.

Modern editors add punctuation marks (commas, semicolons, periods) to make Latin texts easier to read. In your sentence, the semicolon separates two closely connected main clauses:

• Unus homo in via solus ambulat;
• pluvia frigida cadit, igitur domum currit.

So the semicolon is a modern editorial convention to show structure, not something that belonged to ancient Roman orthography.

Can the word order be changed, for example to solus in via unus homo ambulat? Would that change the meaning?

Latin word order is quite flexible; the relationships are mostly marked by endings, not position. You could say:

• Unus homo solus in via ambulat.
• Solus unus homo in via ambulat.
• In via unus homo solus ambulat.

All still mean essentially “one man walks alone on the road.” Changing the order:

• can shift emphasis (e.g. putting solus early highlights his being alone)
• can change style or rhythm, but usually not the core meaning

As long as agreement (case, number, gender) is clear, Latin tolerates many orders.

Is unus grammatically special as a numeral? How does it behave as an adjective?

Yes. Unus is one of the so‑called “pronominal” adjectives (like solus, totus, ullus), which have slightly irregular endings:

• Genitive singular is unius (not unī)
• Dative singular is uni (all genders)

Basic forms:

• Masculine: unus, unius, uni, unum, uno
• Feminine: una, unius, uni, unam, una
• Neuter: unum, unius, uni, unum, uno

In your sentence, unus is nominative masculine singular, agreeing with homo.