Breakdown of Femina timida templum hoc amat, sed illa femina fortis templum altum in urbe intrat.
Questions & Answers about Femina timida templum hoc amat, sed illa femina fortis templum altum in urbe intrat.
You tell the subject and object apart by the case endings:
- femina timida – femina ends in -a, which here is nominative singular, so it is the subject: the shy woman.
- templum hoc – templum is accusative singular neuter, so it is the direct object: this temple.
Second clause:
- illa femina fortis – femina again is nominative singular, so that brave woman is the subject.
- templum altum – templum is accusative singular neuter, so the high/tall temple is the object.
Latin relies on these endings (nominative for the subject, accusative for the direct object), not on word order, to show who does what to whom.
Templum is a neuter noun of the second declension. In Latin:
- Neuter nominative singular = accusative singular (templum in both cases).
So the form by itself does not tell you whether it is subject or object. You decide by:
- Checking if there is another clear nominative (here femina), which will be the subject.
- Remembering that with normal transitive verbs (like amat, intrat) the thing affected is the direct object.
So because femina is clearly nominative, templum must be the object in both clauses.
Latin adjectives are much freer in position than English adjectives. Both of these are normal:
- femina timida – literally woman shy.
- timida femina – literally shy woman.
In classical Latin:
- Putting the adjective after the noun is very common and often feels neutral.
- Moving an adjective before the noun can give emphasis or a particular stylistic effect.
So femina timida and templum altum are perfectly standard Latin word orders; they do not change the basic meaning.
They belong to different adjective types, but both are correctly agreeing with femina.
timida comes from timidus, timida, timidum (a 1st/2nd declension adjective).
- Feminine nominative singular = timida.
fortis comes from fortis, forte (a 3rd-declension adjective).
- Feminine nominative singular = fortis.
So:
- femina timida – shy woman (timida: fem. nom. sg.)
- femina fortis – brave woman (fortis: fem. nom. sg.)
They look different because they follow different declension patterns, but both are grammatically feminine nominative singular, matching femina.
They are both demonstrative adjectives/pronouns, but they point to different things:
hoc (neuter nominative/accusative singular of hic, haec, hoc)
– usually means this, something near the speaker in space, time, or thought.
– templum hoc: this temple.illa (feminine nominative singular of ille, illa, illud)
– usually means that, something farther away or more distant (physically, in time, or in the discourse).
– illa femina: that woman.
In this sentence, hoc and illa help contrast the two women and the temple they relate to: this temple (here) is loved by the shy woman, but that brave woman enters a high temple in the city.
Both word orders are possible in Latin:
- hoc templum
- templum hoc
They mean essentially the same thing: this temple.
Latin demonstratives (hic, ille, etc.) are flexible in position. Often:
- hoc templum feels slightly more like a unit (this-temple).
- templum hoc can add a bit of emphasis to this, mentally something like the temple, this one.
But in many simple sentences, the difference is minimal, and both are correct.
The preposition in can take two different cases with different meanings:
in + ablative: location – in, on, at
- in urbe (abl.) = in the city (where something is).
in + accusative: motion towards – into, onto
- in urbem (acc.) = into the city (where something is going).
In this sentence, in urbe tells us where the temple is (or where the entering happens):
templum altum in urbe intrat – she enters the tall temple in the city.
Because it is about location, not moving into the city, Latin uses the ablative urbe.
No. To mean into the city, Latin requires the accusative:
- in urbem = into the city (motion towards).
Here we have in urbe with the ablative, so it means in the city, indicating location. The movement is into the temple, not into the city:
- She enters the tall temple (which is) in the city.
Latin finite verbs carry person and number in their endings:
- amat: 3rd person singular present active – he/she/it loves.
- intrat: 3rd person singular present active – he/she/it enters.
Because the ending -t already tells you someone (3rd person singular) is doing the action, Latin normally omits the pronoun (ea, she). The noun femina or illa femina identifies who that she is.
So:
- femina timida templum hoc amat = The shy woman loves this temple (not I or they).
- illa femina fortis templum altum in urbe intrat = That brave woman enters the tall temple in the city.
Latin could say simply sed illa fortis templum altum in urbe intrat, and that would be grammatical: but that brave [woman] enters the tall temple in the city.
However, repeating femina:
- Keeps the reference very clear, especially for learners or in more formal style.
- Emphasizes the contrast between the two women:
- femina timida vs illa femina fortis
the shy woman vs that brave woman.
- femina timida vs illa femina fortis
So the repetition is mainly for clarity and emphasis, not because it is strictly required.
Grammatically, in urbe is a prepositional phrase that could be understood with either the verb or the noun, but here it most naturally:
- Modifies the temple: the tall temple in the city.
Reasons:
- It is placed immediately after templum altum, which suggests it describes where that temple is.
- The main action already has a clear object (templum altum), so adding where the temple is is a natural extra piece of information.
So the most straightforward reading is:
- That brave woman enters the tall temple in the city.