Maritus dicit se a fratre paucos nummos mutuari velle, sed ab argentario mutuari non vult.

Because after dicit, Latin normally uses an indirect statement construction. In that construction, the subject of the reported statement goes into the accusative.

So:

• Maritus dicit = The husband says
• se ... velle = that he wants ...

Here se is the accusative reflexive pronoun, referring back to the subject of the main verb, maritus.

So Maritus dicit se ... velle literally means:

• The husband says himself to want ...

but in natural English:

• The husband says that he wants ...

If Latin used eum instead, that would normally mean that another man/he wants, not the husband himself.

It is an accusative-and-infinitive construction, often called an indirect statement.

The pattern is:

• a verb of saying, thinking, knowing, perceiving, etc.
• then an accusative subject
• then an infinitive

In this sentence:

• dicit = says
• se = accusative subject of the indirect statement
• velle = infinitive
• mutuari depends on velle

So the core structure is:

• Maritus dicit se ... velle
  = The husband says that he wants ...

This is one of the most important Latin sentence patterns.

Because velle means to want, and what he wants is mutuari.

So:

• velle = to want
• mutuari = to borrow

Together:

• mutuari velle = to want to borrow

Inside the indirect statement, Latin keeps both verbs as infinitives:

• se ... mutuari velle
  = that he wants to borrow ...

This is very normal Latin syntax.

Because mutuari is a deponent verb.

A deponent verb:

• has passive forms
• but an active meaning

So although mutuari looks passive in form, it means:

• to borrow

not

• to be borrowed

This is a common feature of Latin. Other deponent verbs behave the same way.

Also, with mutuari, context tells you whether the idea is borrow rather than something else. Here the phrases a fratre and ab argentario make it clear that he wants to borrow from someone.

Because Latin uses a/ab + ablative here to show the person from whom something is borrowed.

So:

• a fratre = from his brother / from a brother
• ab argentario = from the banker

Both fratre and argentario are in the ablative singular.

As for the difference between a and ab:

• a is often used before a consonant
• ab is often used before a vowel or sometimes for clarity/emphasis

So:

• a fratre
• ab argentario

This is completely normal.

Because it is the direct object of mutuari.

He wants to borrow a few coins, so paucos nummos is the thing being borrowed.

• paucos = a few
• nummos = coins

Both are masculine plural accusative, and they agree with each other.

So:

• paucos nummos mutuari = to borrow a few coins

Literally it means a few coins.

• nummus often means a coin or a piece of money
• paucos means few or a small number of

So the husband is not asking for a large sum. Latin is expressing that he wants only a small amount.

Because the sentence changes from the indirect statement after dicit to a new main clause:

• Maritus dicit se ... velle = The husband says that he wants ...
• sed ... non vult = but he does not want ...

So vult is a finite verb in the main clause, not part of the indirect statement.

This is like English:

• The husband says that he wants to borrow a few coins from his brother, but he does not want to borrow from the banker.

The second clause is coordinated with sed (but), so it stands on its own.

Because Latin often leaves the subject unstated when it is clear from context.

After Maritus dicit..., the next clause is:

• sed ab argentario mutuari non vult

Latin does not need to repeat maritus or add a pronoun, because the subject is naturally understood to be the same person.

So:

• non vult = he does not want

and here he clearly means the husband.

Because se belongs specifically to the indirect statement after dicit.

In the second clause, we are no longer inside that indirect statement. We are back in a normal main clause with the finite verb vult.

So Latin does not say:

• sed se ... non vult

because that would not fit the syntax here.

Instead it simply says:

• sed ... non vult
  = but he does not want ...

They are forms of the same verb, volo, velle, volui = to want.

• velle = present active infinitive = to want
• vult = 3rd person singular present = he/she wants

So in this sentence:

• se ... velle = that he wants
• non vult = he does not want

Same verb, different forms, different syntax.

Because non is negating the finite verb of that clause:

• non vult = does not want

So the meaning is:

• but he does not want to borrow from the banker

Latin often places non directly before the word it most naturally negates, and here that is vult.

In practice, it means:

• but he does not want to borrow from the banker

That is the natural interpretation.

Latin word order is flexible, but here non vult is best taken together as does not want. The negation is on the wanting, not on mutuari by itself.

So the contrast is:

• he wants to borrow from his brother
• but he does not want to borrow from the banker

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

For example, in:

• se a fratre paucos nummos mutuari velle

Latin can place words for emphasis or style without causing much confusion:

• se is accusative subject
• a fratre shows source
• paucos nummos is the object
• mutuari is the action wanted
• velle completes the indirect statement

English relies more heavily on word order, but Latin relies more on endings.

Both are ablative singular.

• fratre comes from frater
• argentario comes from argentarius

They are ablative because they follow a/ab, which here means from.

So:

• a fratre = ablative after a
• ab argentario = ablative after ab

Argentarius usually means a banker, money-dealer, or financier.

So ab argentario mutuari means:

• to borrow from the banker

It is a useful cultural word in Latin, since Roman financial life often appears in texts.

Yes. Sed means but, and it marks a clear contrast:

• he wants to borrow from his brother
• but he does not want to borrow from the banker

So sed signals opposition between the two ideas.

Because maritus is the subject of the main verb dicit.

• Maritus dicit = The husband says

The subject of a finite verb is normally in the nominative in Latin.

That contrasts with se, which is in the accusative because it is the subject of the indirect statement, not of the main verb.