Puer nasum lavat et bracchium suum prope ignem tenet.

Puer is the nominative singular, the case used for the subject of the sentence. It means the boy and is the person doing both actions: lavat and tenet.

It is a second-declension masculine noun, but unlike many others, it keeps the -er in the nominative:

• nominative: puer
• accusative: puerum

So here puer is in the form we expect for the subject.

Because nasum is the direct object of lavat.

The verb lavat means washes, and the thing being washed must go in the accusative case. The dictionary form is nasus (nose), but the accusative singular is nasum.

So:

• nasus = nose as a subject
• nasum = nose as an object

In this sentence, the boy is washing the nose, so Latin uses nasum.

Latin often leaves out possessive words like his, her, or their when the meaning is obvious, especially with body parts.

So nasum lavat naturally means he washes his nose if the subject is clearly the one whose nose is meant. Latin does not need to say suum nasum here unless there is a reason to emphasize possession or avoid confusion.

This is more natural in Latin than in English. English usually prefers his nose, but Latin often just uses the body-part noun by itself.

This is a very natural question, because it looks inconsistent at first.

Latin often omits possessives with body parts when the owner is obvious, so nasum by itself is fine. But Latin can still include suum when the writer wants to make the ownership clearer or more explicit.

So:

• nasum lavat = he washes his nose
• bracchium suum tenet = he holds his arm

The suum is not required in every similar phrase. It may simply make the second object more explicit, or help avoid any possible ambiguity.

Suum means his own, her own, or its own, depending on the subject. Here it refers back to puer, so it means his own.

This is the reflexive possessive adjective in Latin. It points back to the subject of the clause.

In this sentence:

• puer = the subject
• suum = belonging to that same subject

Also, suum agrees with bracchium, not with puer. Since bracchium is neuter accusative singular, the adjective is also neuter accusative singular: suum.

Because adjectives in Latin agree with the noun they describe in gender, number, and case.

Here suum describes bracchium:

• bracchium is neuter
• singular
• accusative

So the correct form is suum.

If it described a masculine nominative singular noun, it would be suus. For example:

• puer suus would be grammatically masculine nominative singular

But here the phrase is bracchium suum, so suum is the right form.

Bracchium is also a direct object, this time of the verb tenet.

Because it is the thing being held, it must be in the accusative singular. For a neuter second-declension noun like bracchium, the nominative singular and accusative singular are the same form:

• nominative: bracchium
• accusative: bracchium

So even though it is an object, its form does not change.

Because prope takes the accusative case.

The noun ignis means fire in its dictionary form, but after prope (near), it becomes ignem, the accusative singular.

So:

• ignis = dictionary form / nominative
• ignem = accusative after prope

This is something learners simply have to remember: prope is followed by the accusative.

Yes, when prope is used as a preposition meaning near, it takes the accusative.

So you get phrases like:

• prope ignem = near the fire
• prope aquam = near the water
• prope viam = near the road

Latin prepositions are learned together with the case they govern, and prope + accusative is a standard pattern.

Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order because the endings show the grammatical roles.

Placing the verb late in the clause is very common in Latin, especially in simple narrative prose. So:

• Puer nasum lavat
• et bracchium suum prope ignem tenet

sounds very natural.

That said, Latin could rearrange the words for emphasis without changing the basic meaning. For example, Puer prope ignem bracchium suum tenet would still mean essentially the same thing.

Because there is only one expressed subject, puer, and the two verbs are joined by et.

So the structure is:

• Puer nasum lavat
• et bracchium suum prope ignem tenet

The same subject, the boy, is understood with both verbs:

• the boy washes
• the boy holds

Latin often states the subject once and lets it carry over to the next verb.

Latin usually does not need an expressed subject pronoun because the verb ending already tells you the person and number.

Both lavat and tenet are third person singular present active:

• lavat = he/she/it washes
• tenet = he/she/it holds

Since puer is already present, adding he would be unnecessary.

They are both in the present tense.

More specifically:

• lavat = he washes / is washing
• tenet = he holds / is holding

In simple Latin sentences, the present tense can often be translated in English either as a simple present or as a progressive present, depending on context.

Because they belong to different conjugations and have different stems.

• lavat comes from lavare = to wash
• tenet comes from tenere = to hold

Both are third person singular present active, but their stems and conjugation patterns are different:

• lava- + t → lavat
• tene- + t → tenet

So the difference is just normal verb conjugation.

Et simply means and. It joins the two actions done by the same subject.

So the sentence has two coordinated parts:

• Puer nasum lavat
• et bracchium suum prope ignem tenet

It works just like English and.

Yes. Latin word order is flexible, so prope ignem could be moved for emphasis or style.

For example:

• Puer nasum lavat et prope ignem bracchium suum tenet
• Puer nasum lavat et bracchium suum tenet prope ignem

These are all understandable Latin arrangements. The version given is natural and clear, but it is not the only possible order.

Most naturally, it goes with the action tenet: he holds his arm near the fire.

In practice, Latin phrases like this often blur the difference a little, because near the fire can be understood as the position of the arm while he is holding it there. But the main idea is that prope ignem belongs with the second action, not the first.

So it does not mean that he washes his nose near the fire. It is attached to bracchium suum ... tenet.

The more common classical spelling is brachium with one c. However, bracchium is also found as a spelling variant in some texts and teaching materials.

For a learner, the important thing in this sentence is the grammar:

• it is a neuter noun
• it is the object of tenet
• suum agrees with it

So even if you later more often meet brachium, the grammar here works the same way.

Yes, that would still be understandable, and Latin often does omit possessives when they are obvious from context.

Adding suum just makes it explicit that it is his own arm. Without suum, many readers would probably still assume that meaning anyway.

So:

• with suum = more explicit
• without suum = still possible, often natural in context

It is singular because the sentence is talking about the fire as one thing: ignem.

But grammatically it could certainly be plural if the meaning required it. For example:

• prope ignes = near the fires

So the singular here is not caused by prope itself; it is just what the meaning of the sentence requires.