Mater ad pistrinum venit et panem recentem emit.

Mater is in the nominative singular. It is the subject of the sentence, the person doing the actions venit and emit.

In Latin, the subject of a finite verb is normally put in the nominative case. So mater means mother as the subject, not mother as an object.

Latin uses ad with the accusative case to show motion toward a place. So ad pistrinum means to the bakery or toward the bakery.

That is why you do not see pistrino here. Pistrino would be a different case, and with ad Latin expects the accusative: pistrinum.

Here pistrinum is accusative singular, because it follows ad. It is a second-declension neuter noun, so its nominative and accusative singular are both pistrinum.

So the -um ending is not random; it is the normal form for this noun in that declension and number.

Panem is accusative singular. It is the direct object of emit, meaning it is the thing being bought.

The dictionary form is panis. In the accusative singular, that noun becomes panem.

Recentem is an adjective describing panem, so it has to agree with panem in gender, number, and case.

• panem = masculine, singular, accusative
• recentem = masculine, singular, accusative

That is why both words have accusative singular endings. Agreement is a basic rule in Latin adjectives.

Recens is the dictionary form of the adjective, usually the nominative singular. But in this sentence the adjective must match panem, which is accusative singular masculine.

So:

• nominative: recens
• accusative masculine/feminine singular: recentem

That is why the sentence uses recentem, not recens.

Classical Latin usually has no articles. It does not normally use separate words for the or a/an the way English does.

So mater can mean mother, the mother, or sometimes even a mother, depending on context. The same is true for panem recentem and pistrinum.

Latin often leaves out subject pronouns when they are not needed. The verb ending already tells you the person and number, and here the noun mater is stated explicitly anyway.

So Latin does not need to say ea for she. Mater already tells you who is doing the actions.

Without macrons, these forms can be ambiguous in writing.

• venit can be present he/she comes or perfect he/she came, depending on vowel length: venit vs vēnit
• emit can be present he/she buys or perfect he/she bought, depending on vowel length: emit vs ēmit

In beginner texts, the intended tense is usually made clear by the translation, by macrons, or by context. So if the meaning shown to you is present, read them as present; if it is past, read them as perfect.

No, Latin word order is much freer than English word order because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

This sentence uses a very natural order, but Latin could rearrange parts of it for emphasis or style. For example, panem recentem could become recentem panem without changing the basic meaning.

Even so, word order is not meaningless. Writers use it to emphasize certain words or to make the sentence flow in a particular way.

Yes. Both are grammatically correct.

Because recentem agrees with panem, the listener can tell they belong together even if the order changes. Latin often places adjectives either before or after the noun, depending on style, emphasis, or habit.

Pistrinum can refer to a bakery, bakehouse, or sometimes a mill/bakery establishment, depending on context.

In a sentence about coming there and buying bread, bakery is the natural meaning. So even if the word can have a slightly broader sense, the context makes the intended meaning clear.