Remi umidi in navi iacent, sed nauta dicit eos adhuc utiles esse.

Because remi is nominative plural, the case used for the subject of the verb.

• remus = oar
• remi = oars as the subject
• remos would be accusative plural, which would usually mean the oars are the direct object of some verb.

Here the oars are the things doing the action of iacent (are lying / lie), so Latin uses remi.

Umidi is an adjective meaning wet or damp, and it agrees with remi.

In Latin, adjectives agree with the nouns they describe in:

• gender
• number
• case

Since remi is masculine nominative plural, the adjective must also be masculine nominative plural: umidi.

So:

• remi umidi = wet oars

Because in with the meaning in/on a place where something is located takes the ablative.

So here:

• in navi = in the ship

A learner may notice that navi could look like a dative form, but after in meaning location, the sense makes it clear that it is ablative here.

A useful contrast is:

• in navi = in the ship / on the ship (location)
• in navem = into the ship (motion toward)

Iacent is the 3rd person plural present tense of iaceo, meaning lie, are lying, or are lying there.

It is plural because the subject is plural:

• remi = the oars
• therefore iacent = the oars lie / are lying

This verb often describes things resting somewhere physically, so it fits well with oars lying in a ship.

Because in Latin, declension and gender are not the same thing.

Nauta is a first-declension noun in form, but it is masculine in meaning and grammar.

So you can have nouns like:

• nauta = sailor
• poeta = poet
• agricola = farmer

They look like many feminine first-declension nouns, but they are actually masculine.

Because Latin usually does not use a separate word like English that in this kind of sentence.

Instead, after verbs of saying, thinking, knowing, and similar verbs, Latin often uses an indirect statement construction:

• accusative subject
  • infinitive verb

So:

• nauta dicit eos adhuc utiles esse

literally works like:

• the sailor says them still useful to be

More natural English is:

• the sailor says that they are still useful

So the idea of English that is built into the Latin construction itself.

Eos is the accusative plural masculine form of is, ea, id (he, she, it / they / that one).

It refers back to remi (oars).

It appears in the accusative because it is the subject of the infinitive in an indirect statement. In Latin, the subject of an infinitive in this construction goes into the accusative.

So:

• nauta dicit eos utiles esse
• literally: the sailor says them to be useful
• natural English: the sailor says that they are useful

Because after dicit Latin is using an indirect statement, and in that construction the verb is normally an infinitive, not a finite verb.

So instead of:

• eos utiles sunt (not correct here)

Latin uses:

• eos utiles esse

That is why English they are useful becomes Latin eos utiles esse after dicit.

Utiles agrees with eos.

In the indirect statement:

• eos = them, accusative plural masculine
• utiles = useful, accusative plural masculine/feminine

So utiles matches eos in case, number, and gender.

It is not utilia because utilia would be neuter plural, and remi is masculine, not neuter.

Adhuc means still, up to this point, or even now.

Here it adds the idea that, although the oars are wet and lying in the ship, the sailor says they are still useful.

So it gives a sense like:

• despite that, they remain useful

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

This sentence has a very natural and clear arrangement:

• Remi umidi = subject phrase
• in navi = where they are
• iacent = verb
• sed = but
• nauta dicit = new clause
• eos adhuc utiles esse = indirect statement

You could rearrange parts of the sentence and still keep the same basic meaning, as long as the forms remain clear. But the given order is good, straightforward Latin and emphasizes the contrast introduced by sed.