Huic gallinae quattuor pulli sunt, et mater dicit eos semper famem habere.

Latin often expresses possession with the dative of possession:

• Huic gallinae = to this hen
• quattuor pulli sunt = there are four chicks

So the whole phrase is literally To this hen there are four chicks, which means This hen has four chicks.

Latin can use habet in some contexts, but this dative + sum pattern is very common, especially for simple possession.

Gallinae is dative singular.

You can tell because it goes with huic, which is also dative singular:

• huic = to this
• gallinae = hen

So huic gallinae means to this hen.

A beginner may notice that gallinae could also be genitive singular or nominative plural in other contexts, but here huic makes the dative function clear.

Huic is a form of the demonstrative hic, haec, hoc, meaning this.

Here it is:

• dative singular
• agreeing with gallinae
• meaning to this

So:

• haec gallina = this hen
• huic gallinae = to this hen

That change happens because the Latin grammar requires the dative for possession in this sentence.

Because quattuor is one of the Latin numbers that is generally indeclinable. That means it does not change form for case, gender, or number.

So quattuor stays quattuor whether it is with:

• nominative nouns
• accusative nouns
• masculine, feminine, or neuter nouns

Here it simply means four and modifies pulli.

Pulli is nominative plural.

It is the subject of sunt:

• quattuor pulli sunt = four chicks are

In the possession construction, the thing possessed is usually in the nominative, while the possessor is in the dative:

• huic gallinae = possessor
• quattuor pulli = things possessed

Yes. Pullus can mean a young animal, and with birds it can mean a chick or young bird.

So quattuor pulli here is naturally understood as four chicks.

Because Latin often varies vocabulary naturally instead of repeating the same noun.

So:

• gallina = hen
• mater = mother

In this sentence, mater clearly refers to the hen as the mother of the chicks. It is a natural way to continue the idea.

Grammatically, mater is the subject of dicit.

Eos is the accusative masculine plural form of is, ea, id and means them.

It refers back to pulli.

Why masculine plural?

Because pulli is masculine plural, so the pronoun referring to it must also be masculine plural:

• pulli = nominative masculine plural
• eos = accusative masculine plural

It is accusative because it is the subject of the infinitive in an indirect statement.

This is a classic Latin indirect statement construction.

After verbs like dicit (says), Latin often uses:

• accusative subject
• infinitive verb

So here:

• mater dicit = the mother says
• eos = them (accusative subject of the infinitive)
• habere = to have
• famem = hunger
• semper = always

Literally: the mother says them always to have hunger

Natural English: the mother says that they are always hungry or the mother says that they are always hungry / always hungry

Because in Latin indirect statement, the subject of the infinitive is put in the accusative, not the nominative.

So even though eos is logically the subject of habere, Latin grammar makes it accusative after dicit.

Compare:

• direct statement: ei famem habent = they are hungry
• indirect statement: mater dicit eos famem habere = the mother says that they are hungry

This is one of the most important Latin constructions to learn.

Latin can express hunger with the idiom famem habere, literally to have hunger.

So:

• famem habere = to be hungry

Latin also has verbs related to hunger, but famem habere is a very common and straightforward expression.

Since the sentence is in indirect statement, the infinitive habere fits the construction perfectly:

• dicit eos famem habere = she says that they are hungry

Famem is accusative singular.

It is the direct object of habere:

• habere famem = to have hunger

So in the indirect statement:

• eos = accusative subject of habere
• famem = accusative object of habere

Those are two different accusatives doing two different jobs.

Because Latin word order is much freer than English word order.

Semper is an adverb meaning always, and it can be placed in different positions for style or emphasis. Here it naturally goes with the whole idea to always be hungry / always have hunger.

So:

• eos semper famem habere
• literally: them always to have hunger

The meaning is the same regardless of the slightly flexible placement.

For English speakers, it may feel unusual, but it is normal Latin.

Latin uses word order more flexibly because endings show grammatical roles. So the sentence can put words where they sound natural or where the writer wants emphasis.

Here the order is quite understandable:

• Huic gallinae comes first to set up the possessor
• quattuor pulli sunt gives the possessed things
• et mater dicit moves to the next clause
• eos semper famem habere gives the content of what she says

So the order is not random; it is just more flexible than English.

Yes, absolutely. That is the best natural English translation.

A more literal translation would be:

• the mother says that they always have hunger

But in normal English we usually say:

• the mother says they are always hungry

Both represent the same Latin structure and meaning.