Mater dicit se odorem fumi sentire et dubitat num coquus iam ignem paraverit.

Se is the reflexive pronoun, and here it refers back to the subject of the main verb, mater.

So:

• Mater dicit se ... sentire = Mother says that she smells ...

Latin uses se when the person in the subordinate statement is the same as the subject of the main clause.

If Latin had used eam, that would normally mean her in the sense of some other woman, not mother herself.

Because after dicit, Latin often uses an indirect statement construction, not a clause with that plus a finite verb.

The pattern is:

• verb of saying/thinking/perceiving
• • accusative subject
• • infinitive

So:

• Mater dicit se odorem fumi sentire
• literally: Mother says herself to smell the smell of smoke
• natural English: Mother says that she smells smoke

This construction is extremely common in Latin.

Because Latin usually does not use a word equivalent to English that in this kind of sentence.

English says:

• Mother says that she smells smoke

Latin more often says:

• Mother says herself to smell smoke

That is, Latin prefers the accusative + infinitive construction instead of a that-clause.

So the idea of that is built into se ... sentire.

Because the two subordinate parts of the sentence are built differently.

1. After dicit

Latin uses an indirect statement:

• se ... sentire

In an indirect statement, the subject of the infinitive is put in the accusative, so we get se.

2. After dubitat num

Latin uses an indirect question:

• num coquus iam ignem paraverit

In an indirect question, the verb is finite and the subject stays in its normal case, the nominative. So we get coquus, not coquum.

That contrast is very important:

• dicit se sentire = indirect statement
• dubitat num coquus paraverit = indirect question

Fumi is genitive singular of fumus, and it depends on odorem.

• odor = smell
• odorem fumi = the smell of smoke

This is a very common use of the genitive in Latin: a noun can be followed by another noun in the genitive to show what it is of.

So odorem fumi means:

• the smell of smoke
• not the smoke itself, but the smell belonging to or coming from the smoke

Latin wants to express specifically the smell of smoke, not simply smoke as an object.

So:

• fumum sentire would suggest perceiving smoke directly
• odorem fumi sentire emphasizes smelling the odor of it

It is a more precise expression. English often shortens this to she smells smoke, but Latin here spells it out more explicitly.

Here num introduces an indirect question.

So:

• dubitat num coquus iam ignem paraverit
• = she doubts whether the cook has already prepared the fire

In direct questions, num often suggests an answer like surely not? or expects no. But in indirect questions after verbs like dubitat, it often simply means whether.

So in this sentence, the easiest way to understand it is:

• num = whether

Because num coquus iam ignem paraverit is an indirect question, and indirect questions in Latin regularly take the subjunctive.

The direct question would be something like:

• Num coquus iam ignem paravit?
• Has the cook already prepared the fire?

When this becomes dependent on dubitat, Latin changes the verb to the subjunctive:

• dubitat num coquus iam ignem paraverit

So the subjunctive here is not mainly about unreality; it is required by the grammar of the indirect question.

Because once the question becomes indirect after dubitat, Latin changes from an indicative form like paravit to a subjunctive form like paraverit.

So:

• direct question: paravit or another indicative form
• indirect question: paraverit in the subjunctive

Also, the perfect tense makes sense because the preparation would happen before the moment of doubting:

• whether the cook has already prepared the fire

The word iam strengthens that idea of prior completion: already.

Ignem is accusative singular, the direct object of paraverit.

• ignis = fire
• ignem parare = to prepare the fire

So:

• coquus iam ignem paraverit
• = the cook has already prepared the fire

The cook is the subject, so coquus is nominative; the thing being prepared is the object, so ignem is accusative.

Yes. The subject mater carries over.

Latin often does not repeat the subject when it stays the same:

• Mater dicit ... et dubitat ...
• = Mother says ... and she doubts ...

So both dicit and dubitat have the same subject, mater.

If Latin wanted to make a different subject explicit, it would normally name that subject.

Iam means already or by now.

It shows that the speaker is wondering whether the action has been completed at this point:

• num coquus iam ignem paraverit
• = whether the cook has already prepared the fire

Without iam, the sentence would still make sense, but iam adds a clearer sense of timing and expectation.

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

So this sentence could be rearranged in various ways without changing the basic meaning, as long as the forms stay the same.

Still, the given order is natural:

• Mater first introduces the subject
• dicit begins the first statement
• et dubitat then adds the second action
• iam is placed near paraverit to emphasize already

So the order is meaningful in terms of flow and emphasis, but the endings are what mainly tell you who is doing what.

A useful way is to spot the two main verbs first:

• dicit
• dubitat

Then divide the sentence like this:

• Mater dicit se odorem fumi sentire
• et dubitat num coquus iam ignem paraverit

So there are two coordinated main ideas:

1. Mother says that she smells smoke
2. and she doubts whether the cook has already prepared the fire

Within those two parts:

• se ... sentire belongs with dicit
• num ... paraverit belongs with dubitat

Recognizing those two patterns makes the whole sentence much easier to read.