Nemo est qui tonitrum et fulgur non timeat.

Because nemo means no one / nobody, and Latin treats it as grammatically singular.

So:

• nemo est = there is no one
• not nemo sunt

Even though it refers to all people in a general sense, the grammar is singular, just like English no one is, not no one are.

This is a very common Latin pattern:

• nemo est qui... = there is no one who...

Latin often uses est plus a relative clause to make a general statement about a type of person.

So this sentence is built as:

• nemo est = there is no one
• qui ... timeat = who would / who does fear

Together: There is no one who does not fear thunder and lightning, i.e. everyone fears thunder and lightning.

Qui is the relative pronoun, meaning who here.

It refers back to nemo:

• nemo = no one
• qui = who

It is nominative singular masculine, because it is the subject of timeat.

For an indefinite person like nemo, Latin normally uses the masculine form as the default, much like English can use he in older general statements.

Because this is a relative clause of characteristic.

After expressions like:

• nemo est qui...
• quis est qui...
• sunt qui...

Latin often uses the subjunctive to describe the kind of person being referred to.

So qui ... non timeat means something like:

• who would not fear
• who is the sort of person not to fear

It is not simply describing one specific person; it is making a general statement about what kind of person exists — or in this case, does not exist.

That is why timeat is more natural here than timet.

Yes, and this is an important point.

Literally, the sentence says:

• There is no one who does not fear thunder and lightning.

In English, that produces an overall positive meaning:

• Everyone fears thunder and lightning.

Latin often uses this pattern:

• nemo est qui non + subjunctive

That does not mean the sentence is confused or ungrammatical. It is a standard way of saying that everyone does something.

So the logic is:

• no person exists
• who does not fear
• therefore everyone fears

They are both accusative singular, the direct objects of timeat.

You fear something, so the thing feared is in the accusative:

• timeat tonitrum et fulgur = fears thunder and lightning

Both words are neuter, and in neuter nouns the nominative and accusative singular often look the same, which is why they may not obviously look accusative to a beginner.

Latin can use the singular to refer to a phenomenon in a general way.

So:

• tonitrum = thunder
• fulgur = lightning

The singular here does not mean just one clap of thunder and one flash of lightning. It means the phenomena in general.

English does something similar with words like rain, snow, or fire, where the singular can have a broad meaning.

Yes, but it is not strange once you know how Latin works.

The order is:

• Nemo est — the main idea first: There is no one
• qui ... non timeat — then the relative clause explaining what sort of person is meant
• tonitrum et fulgur come before the verb timeat, which is very normal in Latin

Latin word order is much freer than English word order, because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

So the sentence could not be translated word-for-word into natural English order, but its Latin order is perfectly normal and clear.

Yes. That is often the best natural English translation.

The Latin wording is more literally:

• There is no one who does not fear thunder and lightning.

But in smoother English, that becomes:

• Everyone fears thunder and lightning.

Both represent the same idea. The more literal version helps you understand the grammar; the smoother version gives the natural meaning.

The main verb is est.

The core statement is:

• Nemo est = There is no one

Then qui tonitrum et fulgur non timeat is a subordinate relative clause describing that no one.

So:

• main clause: Nemo est
• subordinate clause: qui ... non timeat

This is useful to notice, because beginners sometimes focus on timeat and think it is the main verb. It is not; it belongs to the qui clause.