Meridie sudor in pectore servi manet, quia in horto multum laborat.

They are not there, because Latin does not have articles like English the and a/an.

So:

• servi can mean of the slave or of a slave
• in horto can mean in the garden or in a garden

You decide from context which English article sounds natural.

Meridie is the ablative singular of meridies, meaning midday or noon.

Here it is being used for time when, so meridie means at midday / at noon.

Latin often uses the ablative for time expressions without a preposition:

• meridie = at noon
• nocte = at night
• prima luce = at first light

Sudor is nominative singular, because it is the subject of manet.

So in the main clause:

• sudor = the thing doing the action
• manet = remains / stays

That is why it is not sudorem. Sudorem would be accusative, which would usually mark a direct object, not the subject.

Because in takes the ablative when it means in or on in the sense of location.

So:

• in pectore = in the chest
• in horto = in the garden

Compare this with in + accusative, which usually shows motion into:

• in hortum = into the garden

Here there is no movement into the chest. It is simply the place where the sweat remains, so the ablative is used.

Because servi is genitive singular, meaning of the slave.

It depends on pectore:

• in pectore servi = in the chest of the slave

This is how Latin commonly shows possession or association. English often uses 's, but Latin usually uses the genitive:

• servi pectus = the slave's chest
• dominus servi = the master of the slave

Grammatically, it most naturally goes with pectore:

• in pectore servi = in the slave's chest

Of course, the sweat also belongs to the slave in sense, but the phrase structure is built around pectore. The word order helps you read it as one unit:

• in pectore servi

Latin often places a genitive after the noun it modifies, though other orders are also possible.

Because its subject, sudor, is singular.

• sudor manet = the sweat remains

If the subject were plural, the verb would also be plural:

• sudores manent = the sweats remain

Latin verbs agree with their subjects in person and number.

Quia introduces a clause of reason. It means because.

So the structure is:

• main clause: Meridie sudor in pectore servi manet
• reason clause: quia in horto multum laborat

In other words, the second clause explains why the sweat remains.

Because Latin often leaves the subject unstated when it is clear from context.

Laborat means he/she/it works. The ending -at tells you it is 3rd person singular.

Here the understood subject is the slave. English usually needs to say he works, but Latin can simply say laborat if the reader already knows who is meant.

If Latin wanted to be more explicit, it could say:

• quia servus in horto multum laborat

But that is not necessary.

For the same reason as in pectore: in with the ablative shows place where.

• in horto = in the garden

It describes where the working happens, not motion toward the garden.

So:

• in horto laborat = he works in the garden
• in hortum ambulat = he walks into the garden

Here multum is being used adverbially, meaning much or a lot.

So:

• multum laborat = he works a lot

Even though multum looks like the neuter accusative form of multus, Latin very often uses this form as an adverb.

This is a very common pattern:

• multum = much, a lot
• paulum = a little

So you should read multum here as modifying the verb laborat, not as describing a noun.

Latin word order is fairly flexible because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

This sentence puts Meridie first, which gives early emphasis to the time:

• At midday, the sweat remains...

It also places the verbs at or near the ends of their clauses:

• manet
• laborat

That is a very common Latin style, but it is not the only possible one.

For example, Latin could also say:

• Sudor in pectore servi meridie manet, quia in horto multum laborat.

The basic meaning would stay the same, but the emphasis would shift a little.

Because the subject of laborat is not expressed at all; it is simply understood from the context.

The earlier phrase has already introduced the slave as the relevant person:

• in pectore servi = in the slave's chest

Then the next clause says:

• quia ... laborat = because ... he works

So Latin expects you to understand he as the slave. The omitted subject does not have to appear earlier in the nominative case. Context is enough.

If a writer wanted to remove all doubt, they could repeat servus, but Latin often prefers not to repeat words unnecessarily.