Mater dicit holera cruda esse, sed gallinam iam in culina parari.

Because after dicit Latin is using indirect statement.

In English, we often say:

• Mother says that the vegetables are raw.
• Mother says that the chicken is being prepared in the kitchen.

Latin commonly does this with:

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

So:

• holera cruda esse = the vegetables to be raw
• gallinam ... parari = the chicken to be prepared / to be being prepared

That whole structure is the standard Latin way to express that ... after dicit.

It is an accusative-and-infinitive construction, often abbreviated ACI.

Breakdown:

• holera = accusative subject of the indirect statement
• cruda = adjective agreeing with holera
• esse = infinitive

So literally it is something like:

• Mother says the vegetables to be raw

Natural English turns that into:

• Mother says that the vegetables are raw

In a normal main clause, yes, the subject would be nominative.

For example:

• Holera cruda sunt = The vegetables are raw.

But in indirect statement, Latin changes the subject into the accusative and uses an infinitive instead of a finite verb.

So:

• direct statement: holera cruda sunt
• indirect after dicit: mater dicit holera cruda esse

That is why holera is not nominative here.

Because it agrees with holera.

Holera is:

• neuter
• plural
• accusative

So the adjective must match it in:

• gender
• number
• case

Therefore:

• cruda = neuter plural accusative

If the noun were masculine plural, the adjective would look different. If it were feminine singular, it would also look different. Here cruda matches holera exactly.

Holera means vegetables, greens, or garden produce. It is naturally plural in this sentence.

It comes from holus or olus, a neuter noun referring to vegetables/greens. In actual usage, forms from this word can be a little irregular and are often encountered in the plural.

So holera cruda means:

• raw vegetables
• or the vegetables are raw

A learner may expect one singular word meaning vegetable, but Latin often expresses this kind of idea with a plural or collective noun.

For the same reason as holera: it is the subject of an indirect statement, so it appears in the accusative.

Compare:

• direct statement: gallina in culina paratur = the chicken is being prepared in the kitchen
• indirect statement after dicit: gallinam in culina parari

So gallinam is accusative because it is the understood subject of the infinitive parari.

Parari is the present passive infinitive of parare, meaning to prepare.

So:

• parare = to prepare
• parari = to be prepared

In this sentence, it means:

• the chicken is being prepared
• or more literally in indirect-statement form, the chicken to be prepared / to be being prepared

Because it is present infinitive, it usually shows action happening at the same time as dicit:

• Mother says that the chicken is being prepared now.

Because the meanings are different.

• cruda esse means to be raw
• parari means to be prepared

The first idea is just a state: the vegetables are raw. The second idea is passive: someone is preparing the chicken, so the chicken is being prepared.

So Latin uses:

• esse for the state of being raw
• parari for the passive action of being prepared

Yes.

The sentence is:

• Mater dicit holera cruda esse, sed gallinam iam in culina parari.

The verb dicit applies to both indirect statements:

1. holera cruda esse
2. gallinam iam in culina parari

Latin often does this instead of repeating the verb:

• Mother says [the vegetables are raw], but [the chicken is already being prepared in the kitchen].

So the second half does not need another dicit.

Iam means now, already, or sometimes by now, depending on context.

Here it means already:

• gallinam iam in culina parari = that the chicken is already being prepared in the kitchen

Its position is fairly flexible in Latin. Here it sits near the phrase it modifies. Latin word order is freer than English word order, so iam does not have to stand in exactly one fixed place.

Because in with the ablative usually means in or inside a place.

So:

• in culina = in the kitchen

If in took the accusative, it would usually suggest motion into a place:

• in culinam = into the kitchen

But here there is no movement into the kitchen; the preparing is happening there. So the ablative is correct.

The basic order is:

• Mater = Mother
• dicit = says
• holera cruda esse = that the vegetables are raw
• sed = but
• gallinam iam in culina parari = that the chicken is already being prepared in the kitchen

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

So other arrangements would still be possible, for example:

• Mater holera cruda esse dicit
• Mater dicit gallinam in culina iam parari

The exact order often reflects emphasis or style more than strict grammatical necessity.

Because in classical Latin, after verbs like say, think, know, hear, and see, the normal pattern is often accusative + infinitive instead of a separate word meaning that.

So instead of something directly equivalent to:

• Mother says that the vegetables are raw

Latin prefers:

• Mater dicit holera cruda esse

A learner coming from English often expects a that-clause, but Latin very often replaces it with this indirect-statement construction.