Magister dicit sententiam integram esse, quia nulla verba desunt.

Because this sentence uses an indirect statement after dicit.

In Latin, after verbs like dicit (he says), the thing being said is often expressed with:

• an accusative subject
• plus an infinitive

So in sententiam integram esse:

• sententiam = the subject of the infinitive, in the accusative
• esse = to be

A native English speaker often expects that the sentence is complete, but Latin usually does this as sentence complete to be in an accusative-and-infinitive construction.

Because integram agrees with sententiam.

It is a predicate adjective with esse, and in an indirect statement it matches the accusative subject:

• sententiam = accusative feminine singular
• integram = accusative feminine singular

So Latin is not saying two separate things; it is saying:

• sententiam ... esse = the sentence to be ...
• integram = complete, describing sententiam

If the noun were nominative, the adjective would also be nominative:

• sententia integra est = the sentence is complete

But here, because of indirect statement:

• sententiam integram esse = that the sentence is complete

Esse is the present infinitive of sum, meaning to be.

After dicit, Latin normally uses the infinitive in indirect statement. So:

• Magister dicit = The teacher says
• sententiam integram esse = that the sentence is complete

Literally, it looks like:

• The teacher says the sentence to be complete

That sounds unnatural in English, but it is very normal in Latin.

Because Latin often does not use a word equivalent to English that in this kind of sentence.

English says:

• The teacher says that the sentence is complete.

Latin usually says:

• Magister dicit sententiam integram esse.

So instead of a that-clause, Latin uses the accusative + infinitive construction.

This is one of the most important differences between English and Latin syntax.

Magister is nominative singular because it is the subject of dicit.

• magister = the teacher
• dicit = says

So magister is the person doing the action of saying.

Because quia means because and introduces a regular subordinate clause.

So:

• quia nulla verba desunt = because no words are missing

This is not an indirect statement. It is a direct explanatory clause with a normal verb:

• desunt

So the sentence has two different structures:

1. dicit + accusative + infinitive

   • sententiam integram esse

2. quia + finite verb clause

   • quia nulla verba desunt

Verba is nominative plural.

It is the subject of desunt, so it must be nominative.

That may look confusing at first, because verba can be either nominative plural or accusative plural. Here we know it is nominative because:

• desunt is a finite verb
• something must be the subject
• verba is what is missing

So:

• nulla verba = no words
• desunt = are absent / are missing

Nulla is the neuter plural nominative form of nullus, -a, -um, meaning no or not any.

Since verba is:

• neuter
• plural
• nominative

the adjective must match it:

• nulla verba = no words

A learner might expect nulli or nullae, but those would not match verba.

Because its subject, verba, is plural.

• verbum deest = a word is missing
• verba desunt = words are missing

So desunt is the 3rd person plural form.

Also, desunt comes from desum, which literally means something like to be lacking or to be absent.

Here desunt means are missing or are lacking.

The verb is desum, deesse, defui, a compound of sum. In context:

• nulla verba desunt = no words are missing

This is a very natural Latin way to express that nothing is left out.

Latin word order is more flexible than English because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

English depends heavily on word order:

• The teacher says that the sentence is complete because no words are missing.

Latin can arrange words more freely:

• Magister dicit sententiam integram esse, quia nulla verba desunt.

This order is perfectly normal. It keeps:

• Magister near dicit
• the indirect statement together: sententiam integram esse
• the reason clause after quia

So the sentence is not strange; it is simply using Latin word order rather than English word order.

Yes. Integer, integra, integrum can mean whole, intact, complete, or unimpaired.

In this sentence, integram means that the sentence is complete as a whole. The following clause explains that idea:

• quia nulla verba desunt
  = because no words are missing

So integram is not just a dictionary gloss here; it fits the sense of a sentence with nothing omitted.

Yes, that is a very literal way to understand it, and yes, it is normal Latin.

Latin often expresses ideas with lack or absence where English might use a different phrasing. So all of these are close in sense:

• no words are missing
• no words are lacking
• not a single word is absent

The Latin phrase is straightforward and idiomatic.

It would become a direct statement like this:

• Sententia integra est, quia nulla verba desunt.

That means:

• The sentence is complete, because no words are missing.

Compare the two:

• Sententia integra est = direct statement
• Magister dicit sententiam integram esse = indirect statement after dicit

This comparison is a useful way to see why sententia changes to sententiam and integra changes to integram.