Mater rogat quis sacculum aperuerit et quis nummos ex eo tulerit; nemo respondet.

Quis is the interrogative pronoun meaning who? It introduces each indirect question:

• quis sacculum aperuerit = who opened the bag
• quis nummos ex eo tulerit = who took the coins from it

Here quis is nominative singular, because it is the subject of aperuerit and tulerit.

A learner may expect qui, but qui is usually the relative pronoun meaning who/which/that in a relative clause. In a question, Latin normally uses quis.

They are subjunctive because they are in indirect questions after rogat.

Latin regularly uses the subjunctive in indirect questions:

• Mater rogat ... = Mother asks ...
• then the content of the question follows in the subjunctive:
  • quis aperuerit
  • quis tulerit

So this is a standard pattern:

• direct question: quis sacculum aperuit?
• indirect question: Mater rogat quis sacculum aperuerit.

They are perfect subjunctive because the actions are understood as already completed before the asking:

• someone opened the bag
• someone took the coins
• now the mother is asking who did it

In indirect questions, Latin often uses:

• present subjunctive for action happening at the same time as the main verb
• perfect subjunctive for action completed before the main verb

Since rogat is present, and the opening and taking happened earlier, aperuerit and tulerit make good sense.

In form, yes: aperuerit can be either perfect subjunctive or future perfect indicative, and tulerit can also have that ambiguity in isolation.

But here they are not future perfect, because the sentence has clear indirect questions after rogat. In indirect questions, Latin expects the subjunctive, so the forms are understood as perfect subjunctive.

So here:

• quis sacculum aperuerit = who opened the bag
• not who will have opened the bag

Tulerit is the perfect subjunctive of fero, ferre, tuli, latus.

This verb is irregular:

• present stem: fer-
• perfect stem: tul-
• supine stem: lat-

So:

• fert = he/she carries
• tulit = he/she carried / took
• tulerit = he/she may have carried / in this sentence, has taken in an indirect question

This is a very common irregular verb, so it is worth memorizing early.

Because it is the direct object of aperuerit.

• aperire means to open
• you open something
• that something goes into the accusative in Latin

So:

• quis sacculum aperuerit = who opened the bag

The nominative is sacculus if masculine, but here the form is sacculum, which is a neuter accusative singular form. In this sentence, it is simply the object of the verb.

For the same reason: nummos is the direct object of tulerit.

• ferre can mean carry or take
• the thing taken is in the accusative

So:

• quis nummos ex eo tulerit = who took the coins from it

Nummos is accusative plural of nummus.

Ex eo means out of it or from it.

• ex takes the ablative
• eo is ablative singular

Here eo refers back to sacculum, the bag/purse.

So the sense is:

• nummos ex eo tulerit = took the coins out of it, that is, out of the bag

Because sacculum is neuter singular, eo is the correct ablative singular form for referring back to it.

Latin repeats quis because there are really two linked indirect questions:

• who opened the bag
• and who took the coins from it

Repeating quis keeps each question clear and balanced.

It also leaves open the possibility that the answer to the two questions could be:

• the same person, or
• two different people

English often does the same thing: Mother asks who opened the bag and who took the coins from it.

Et simply joins the two indirect questions:

• quis sacculum aperuerit
• quis nummos ex eo tulerit

So it means and.

It does not join two main clauses here; it joins two subordinate question clauses depending on rogat.

Because nemo is grammatically singular in Latin.

So Latin says:

• nemo respondet = no one answers

not a plural verb.

This is similar to English no one answers, not no one answer.

Respondet is present because it describes what is happening now, in the scene:

• the mother asks ...
• no one answers

The sentence presents the situation vividly in the present tense. This is very natural Latin narrative style.

Meanwhile, the opening of the bag and taking of the coins are earlier actions, so those are expressed as prior actions inside the indirect questions.

The basic relationships are shown mostly by endings, not by strict word order, so Latin word order is flexible.

Still, the chosen order is very natural:

• Mater rogat first gives the main action
• then come the two indirect questions
• nemo respondet comes last as the result

The order is good for emphasis and clarity:

1. Mother asks
2. what she asks
3. nobody answers

So while the grammar does not depend mainly on the order, the order helps the sentence flow naturally.

The semicolon separates the long first part from the short concluding statement:

• first: the mother’s question
• then: the reaction, or rather lack of reaction

It is mainly a punctuation choice in the English-style printing of Latin. A comma or full stop might also be possible depending on editorial preference, but the semicolon nicely marks a strong pause without fully disconnecting the two parts.

It would become something like:

• Quis sacculum aperuit?
• Quis nummos ex eo tulit?

Then you could add:

• Mater rogat.
• Nemo respondet.

The important change is that in direct questions Latin would normally use the indicative:

• aperuit
• tulit

But in the actual sentence, because the questions are reported after rogat, Latin changes them to the subjunctive:

• aperuerit
• tulerit