Serva panno mundo usura est, quia stillae aquae in mensa manent.

Because the rest of the sentence clearly needs a subject: usura est means is going to use / intends to use, and that must refer to someone.

So here serva is the noun female slave, maidservant, or slave woman, in the nominative singular.

Latin often has forms that can mean different things depending on context. Out of context, serva could be:

• the noun serva = female slave
• the imperative serva! = save! / preserve!

In this sentence, the grammar makes the noun interpretation the correct one.

Usura est is the future active periphrastic:

• usura = future participle, feminine singular
• est = is

Together, they mean something like:

• is going to use
• intends to use
• is about to use

Since serva is feminine singular, the participle is also feminine singular: usura.

This construction can sound a little more intentional or purposeful than a simple future tense.

Latin could absolutely say:

Serva panno mundo utetur.

That would mean The maidservant will use a clean cloth.

But usura est adds a slightly different feel. It often suggests:

• intention
• expectation
• something about to happen
• a more vivid or deliberate future

So:

• utetur = will use
• usura est = is going to use / intends to use

Both are grammatical; the version with usura est is just a bit more expressive.

Because the verb utor (to use) takes the ablative case.

So Latin says:

• panno = with a cloth / using a cloth
• mundo = clean, agreeing with panno

This is one of those verbs whose object is not in the accusative, even though that feels natural to an English speaker.

So:

• panno mundo = a clean cloth in sense
• but grammatically it is ablative, because utor governs the ablative

Yes, in normal classical usage, utor takes the ablative.

For example:

• gladio utitur = he uses a sword
• consilio utitur = he uses a plan / advice
• panno mundo utitur = she uses a clean cloth

This is worth memorizing as a fixed feature of the verb.

Other Latin verbs also do this kind of thing, where the case used after the verb is not what an English speaker would first expect.

Here mundo is from the adjective mundus, -a, -um, meaning clean, neat, or elegant.

It agrees with panno, so both are:

• masculine
• singular
• ablative

So:

• panno mundo = with a clean cloth

It is not the noun mundus meaning world in this sentence. The form just happens to look the same.

Aquae is most naturally genitive singular here.

So:

• stillae = drops
• aquae = of water

Together:

• stillae aquae = drops of water

This is a very common Latin pattern: one noun plus a genitive noun, where the genitive works like English of ....

Because in with the ablative usually means in or on a place where something already is.

So:

• in mensa = on the table / in the table area
• in mensam would suggest motion onto or into the table area

Since the drops are already there and remain there, Latin uses in mensa.

This is the normal distinction:

• in + ablative = location
• in + accusative = motion toward

Yes. Latin in with the ablative can mean in or on, depending on context.

With mensa (table), English naturally says on the table, even though Latin uses in mensa.

So this is a place where you should translate naturally, not too literally.

Because its subject is plural: stillae.

So:

• stilla = drop
• stillae = drops
• manent = remain (plural)

If the sentence had only one drop, it would be:

• stilla aquae in mensa manet = a drop of water remains on the table

Yes, Latin word order is fairly flexible because the case endings show the grammar.

This sentence is perfectly normal, but other orders could also work, for example:

• Quia stillae aquae in mensa manent, serva panno mundo usura est.
• Serva, quia stillae aquae in mensa manent, panno mundo usura est.

The given order is straightforward:

1. main statement
2. reason introduced by quia

A learner should focus more on endings and constructions than on expecting a fixed English-style word order.