Mater filiae persuadet ut pallium in sella non relinquat, sed in armario suspendat.

Because persuadere normally takes the person persuaded in the dative.

• Mater = the subject, mother
• filiae = to the daughter
• persuadet = persuades

So Latin literally gives something like The mother persuades to the daughter..., where English would say The mother persuades the daughter...

This is a very common pattern with persuadeo:
aliqui persuadere ut... = to persuade someone to...

After verbs of urging, persuading, ordering, and similar ideas, Latin often uses ut + subjunctive to express what the person is being urged or persuaded to do.

So:

• Mater filiae persuadet = The mother persuades the daughter
• ut pallium... non relinquat... suspendat = to not leave the cloak... but hang it...

This ut clause is not just a simple purpose clause here; it is the content of the persuasion.

They are subjunctive because they are inside the ut clause after persuadet.

In Latin, after a verb like persuadet, the action being urged or persuaded is regularly put in the subjunctive:

• ut... relinquat
• ut... suspendat

So the subjunctive here does not mean doubt. It is simply the normal grammar after a verb of persuading.

Because the main verb is persuadet, which is present tense. With a present-tense main verb, Latin normally uses the present subjunctive in this kind of subordinate clause when the action is happening at the same time as, or after, the main verb.

So:

• persuadet = present
• relinquat / suspendat = present subjunctive

This follows the usual sequence of tenses.

If the main verb were past, you would usually expect the imperfect subjunctive instead:

• Mater filiae persuasit ut... relinqueret... suspenderet

Because the clause is structured as one ut clause with a contrast inside it:

• ut pallium in sella non relinquat
• sed in armario suspendat

Here non negates only the first verb, and sed gives the positive alternative: not leave it on the chair, but hang it in the wardrobe.

A learner often meets ne for negative commands or negative subordinate clauses, and that is useful to know. But in this sentence, ut ... non ..., sed ... is a natural way to express the contrast.

Pallium is accusative singular. It is the direct object.

It is the thing being acted on in both verbs:

• relinquat = leave the cloak
• suspendat = hang the cloak

Latin often states a shared object only once, even when it belongs with two verbs.

Because in + ablative usually expresses location: where something is.

So:

• in sella = on/in the chair/seat
• in armario = in the wardrobe/cupboard

The idea is not motion into a place, but position in a place.

Compare:

• in armario = in the wardrobe
• in armarium = into the wardrobe

That difference between ablative and accusative after in is very important in Latin.

Because Latin and English do not match prepositions exactly.

Latin in with the ablative can correspond to English in or on, depending on the noun and the situation. With something like sella (chair, seat), English naturally says on the chair, even though Latin uses in.

So this is not really strange Latin; it is just a place where English and Latin use prepositions differently.

It is understood from the context: the subject is the daughter.

The mother is persuading the daughter, and the daughter is the one who is supposed to do the actions in the ut clause:

• not leave the cloak on the chair
• but hang it in the wardrobe

Latin often leaves out subject pronouns when the meaning is already clear. English usually needs to say she, but Latin often does not.

Latin often leaves possession unstated when it is obvious from the context.

Here, if the mother is speaking to the daughter about the cloak, it is easy to understand that it is probably her cloak, even though Latin just says pallium.

If Latin wanted to make that explicit, it could say pallium suum. In this sentence, suum would naturally refer to the daughter, because she is the understood subject of the subordinate clause.

Because Latin has no articles.

So:

• pallium can mean a cloak, the cloak, or simply cloak
• sella can mean a chair, the chair
• armario can mean a wardrobe, the wardrobe

English forces you to choose a or the, but Latin usually leaves that to context.

Yes, but not in the same way as in English.

Latin word order is more flexible because the endings show the grammatical roles. That means word order is often used for emphasis and style, not just basic grammar.

In this sentence:

• Mater filiae persuadet gives the main statement first
• pallium comes before both verbs because it is the shared object
• non ... sed ... creates a strong contrast: not leave ... but hang ...

So the order is natural and elegant, even though English would organize the sentence more rigidly.