Magister cum discipulis in schola manet, ne pueri soli per viam domum currant; nam pueri ibi tuti sunt.

The teacher stays in the school with the students, so that the boys do not run home alone through the street; for there the boys are safe.

Breakdown of Magister cum discipulis in schola manet, ne pueri soli per viam domum currant; nam pueri ibi tuti sunt.

• esse: to be
• in: in
• puer: the boy
• discipulus: the student
• magister: the teacher
• cum: with
• ibi: there
• per: through
• manere: to stay
• nam: for
• schola: the school
• via: the street
• domus: the home
• currere: to run
• solus: alone
• ne: so that not
• tutus: safe

Questions & Answers about Magister cum discipulis in schola manet, ne pueri soli per viam domum currant; nam pueri ibi tuti sunt.

What is cum discipulis doing here, and why is discipulis in the ablative?

Cum is a preposition meaning “with” and it takes the ablative case.
So discipulis is ablative plural, agreeing with cum, and the phrase cum discipulis means “with (his) students.”

Functionally, cum discipulis is an adverbial phrase modifying manet:

• Magister cum discipulis in schola manet = The teacher stays in school with the students.

Why is manet in the indicative, but currant is in the subjunctive?

Manet is in the present indicative because it states a simple fact:

• Magister … manet = The teacher stays (he actually does this).

Currant is in the present subjunctive because it is in a purpose clause introduced by ne:

• ne pueri soli per viam domum currant = so that the boys do not run home alone along the road.

Latin uses ut/ne + subjunctive to show purpose or intended result, not an actual fact yet. So:

• indicative manet = factual statement
• subjunctive currant = intended/prevented action (what he is trying to stop)

What exactly does ne mean here, and how is it different from non?

Ne here introduces a negative purpose clause. The pattern is:

• ut
  • subjunctive = so that / in order that (positive purpose)
• ne
  • subjunctive = so that not / in order that … not (negative purpose)

So ne pueri … currant = so that the boys may not run / so that the boys do not run.

Non simply negates a verb (e.g. non currunt = they are not running). It does not introduce a clause of purpose. That role belongs to ut and ne.

How should I understand the construction ne pueri soli per viam domum currant as a whole?

This is a purpose clause depending on manet:

• Magister … manet, ne pueri soli per viam domum currant
  = The teacher stays … so that the boys do not run home alone along the road.

Structure:

• ne = so that not
• pueri (nom. pl.) = subject
• soli (nom. pl. masc.) = agreeing adjective, alone / by themselves
• per viam (acc.) = through / along the road
• domum (acc. of motion) = home, homewards
• currant (pres. subj.) = may run

So literally: “that the boys, alone, may not run home along the road.”

What case is soli, and what does it agree with?

Soli is nominative plural masculine of solus, -a, -um (alone).

It agrees with pueri (nominative plural masculine), the subject of currant. So:

• pueri soli currant = the boys, alone, might run / the boys might run alone.

It does not go with via or anything in the dative; its job is to describe the boys themselves.

Why is per viam used, and what is the nuance of per here?

Per with the accusative (viam) often means “through” or “along.”

• via = road, way (acc. sing. viam)
• per viam = along the road or by way of the road

So per viam domum currant means they run home along the road (the route they are taking).

Why is domum used without a preposition, and what case is it?

Domum is the accusative of motion towards, used with domus (home/house). Latin often expresses “to” a place by putting the noun in the accusative with no preposition for certain words (especially domus, rus, humus):

• domum = (to) home, homewards
• domo = from home (ablative of separation)

So per viam domum currant = they may run along the road home (literally, may run home along the road), and per governs viam, not domum.

Why is it in schola manet and not something like ad scholam manet?

In with the ablative expresses location (in, on, at), while ad with the accusative expresses motion toward (to, towards).

• in schola (abl.) = in the school (where he is staying)
• ad scholam (acc.) = to the school (where he is going)

Since the teacher is already there and stays there, we use in schola manet, not a motion-toward construction.

What does nam do here, and how is it different from quia?

Nam is a coordinating conjunction meaning “for, because”, introducing an explanation or reason for the previous statement:

• … manet, ne pueri … currant; nam pueri ibi tuti sunt.
  = … he stays so that the boys don’t run home alone; for the boys are safe there.

Quia is a subordinating conjunction introducing a subordinate clause (because), e.g.
manet, quia pueri ibi tuti sunt = he stays because the boys are safe there.

So:

• nam: links a new sentence or clause giving a reason; more like “for”.
• quia: introduces a dependent because-clause.

Why is tuti used with sunt, and what is its form?

Tuti is the nominative plural masculine of tutus, -a, -um (safe).

With sunt (they are), it forms a predicate adjective describing pueri:

• pueri tuti sunt = the boys are safe.

Grammar:

• pueri (nom. pl.) = subject
• sunt = linking verb
• tuti (nom. pl. masc.) = adjective agreeing with pueri, telling their state.

Why is pueri repeated in the second clause (nam pueri ibi tuti sunt) instead of using a pronoun?

Latin can repeat a noun for clarity or emphasis, especially at the start of a new clause or sentence. Here, pueri is repeated to clearly state who is safe and to tie the explanation directly back to them:

• ne pueri soli … currant; nam pueri ibi tuti sunt.

You could theoretically use a pronoun (nam illi ibi tuti sunt), but repeating pueri is very normal and keeps the focus firmly on “the boys” as the reason for the teacher’s action.