Inopia aquae agricolas terret, sed post pluviam magna copia aquae erit.

Because inopia and copia are nouns that often take the genitive to show of what there is a lack or abundance.

So:

• inopia aquae = lack of water
• copia aquae = supply/abundance of water

This is a very common Latin pattern: a noun followed by a genitive to complete its meaning.

Because agricolas is the direct object of terret.

• terret = frightens
• The thing doing the frightening is inopia aquae
• The people being frightened are agricolas

So the structure is:

• Inopia aquae = the subject
• agricolas = the object
• terret = the verb

Even though English often uses word order to show this, Latin mainly uses case endings.

Because the verb agrees with the subject, not with the object.

Here the subject is inopia:

• inopia = lack/scarcity — singular
• therefore terret = it frightens — singular

The object agricolas is plural, but that does not control the verb.

So the meaning is literally:

The lack of water frightens the farmers.

There are two main clues:

1. inopia is in the nominative singular, the normal case for the subject.
2. agricolas is in the accusative plural, which marks it as the direct object.

So even if the words were rearranged, the endings would still show who is doing what.

Because the preposition post takes the accusative case.

So:

• post pluviam = after the rain

This is just something to learn with the preposition:

• post
  • accusative

Erit is the future tense of sum (to be).

• est = is
• erit = will be

So:

• magna copia aquae erit = there will be a great abundance of water

The future makes sense because the sentence is talking about what will happen after the rain.

Because it agrees with copia.

• copia is feminine singular nominative
• so the adjective modifying it must also be feminine singular nominative:
  • magna copia

This is normal Latin adjective agreement: adjectives agree with their nouns in gender, number, and case.

No. Although the English word copy looks similar, Latin copia usually means something like:

• abundance
• plenty
• supply

So magna copia aquae means a great supply/abundance of water, not anything related to making copies.

Because Latin is saying two different things:

• inopia aquae = lack of water
• magna copia aquae = great abundance of water

In English we might avoid repetition more often, but in Latin repeating the genitive is perfectly normal and clear.

Yes. Latin word order is more flexible than English because the endings show the grammar.

For example, the sentence could be rearranged and still mean the same thing, as long as the forms stay the same. However, the given order is natural and clear:

• first clause: Inopia aquae agricolas terret
• second clause: sed post pluviam magna copia aquae erit

Latin word order often helps with emphasis, but the case endings do most of the grammatical work.

Yes. Pluvia means rain.

In this sentence it appears as pluviam because it is the object of post, which requires the accusative:

• nominative: pluvia
• accusative: pluviam

Because Latin often does not need a separate dummy subject like English there.

English says:

• There will be...

Latin simply says:

• magna copia aquae erit
• literally, a great abundance of water will be

That is normal Latin style.

The main dictionary forms are:

• inopia, inopiae — lack, scarcity
• aqua, aquae — water
• agricola, agricolae — farmer
• terreo, terrere, terrui, territus — frighten
• sed — but
• post — after
• pluvia, pluviae — rain
• magnus, magna, magnum — great, large
• copia, copiae — abundance, supply
• sum, esse, fui, futurus — be

This can help you see where forms like aquae, agricolas, pluviam, and erit come from.