Matrem quoque pauperis puellae miseret, itaque ei calidum pallium dat.

Miseret is an impersonal verb. That means Latin does not use it like a normal personal verb with a nominative subject such as mater miseret.

Instead, its pattern is:

• the person who feels pity goes in the accusative
• the person or thing felt sorry for goes in the genitive

So in this sentence:

• matrem = the person feeling pity
• pauperis puellae = the person being pitied

This is a very common thing for English speakers to notice, because English says the mother feels sorry for the poor girl, but Latin builds it differently.

Because of the special construction with miseret.

With an ordinary verb, you would expect the mother to be nominative if she is doing the action. But miseret does not work like an ordinary verb. It puts the experiencer in the accusative, so matrem is correct.

That is why the sentence does not say mater quoque ... miseret.

Because miseret takes the person or thing pitied in the genitive.

So:

• puellae is genitive singular
• pauperis is also genitive singular, agreeing with puellae

Together they mean of the poor girl in form, but here the genitive is being used because of miseret, not mainly to show possession.

A learner might wonder that, because the forms could suggest the poor girl's mother. But in this sentence, the normal construction with miseret makes pauperis puellae depend on miseret, not on matrem.

So the sense is that pity is felt for the poor girl, not that matrem means the poor girl's mother.

In other words, the grammar of miseret is the key to the right interpretation.

Because quoque usually comes after the word it emphasizes.

So:

• matrem quoque = the mother too / the mother also

If quoque were meant to emphasize a different word, it would normally follow that word instead.

This is different from English, where also often comes before the word or in a more flexible position.

Ei is the dative singular of is, ea, id, and here it means to her.

That is because dat comes from do, dare, and dare normally takes:

• a direct object in the accusative: the thing given
• an indirect object in the dative: the person receiving it

So here:

• calidum pallium = the thing given
• ei = the person receiving it

It refers to the poor girl.

The mother feels pity for the poor girl, and then gives her a warm cloak. The context makes that reference clear.

Because adjectives in Latin must agree with the nouns they describe in:

• gender
• number
• case

Here:

• pallium is neuter singular accusative
• so calidum must also be neuter singular accusative

That is why Latin uses calidum pallium.

Because the subject of dat is simply understood from the context.

Latin often leaves out subject pronouns when the meaning is clear from the verb ending and the surrounding sentence. So dat means she gives, and the she is understood to be the mother.

Even though the mother appeared in the first clause as matrem because of the special construction with miseret, the reader can still easily understand that she is the person acting in the next clause.

Itaque means and so, therefore, or accordingly.

It shows that the second clause follows as a result of the first:

• she feels pity
• therefore she gives a warm cloak

So itaque marks the logical connection between the two actions.

To an English speaker, yes, it may look unusual, but it is normal Latin.

Latin word order is much freer than English word order because the endings show the grammatical relationships. So the sentence does not need to keep a rigid English-style order.

A very literal view of the structure is something like:

• matrem = the mother
• quoque = also
• pauperis puellae = for the poor girl
• miseret = feels pity
• itaque = and so
• ei = to her
• calidum pallium = a warm cloak
• dat = gives

The endings, more than the position, tell you how the sentence works.