Puella quoque caligas induit, ne glacies pedes laedat.

Because puella is the subject of the main verb induit.

• puella = the girl
• nominative is the case typically used for the subject

So in Puella quoque caligas induit, the girl is the one doing the action of putting something on.

In Latin, quoque usually comes after the word it emphasizes.

So:

• Puella quoque = the girl too / the girl also

This means that the girl, in addition to someone else already mentioned, also puts on boots or stockings.

If the writer wanted to emphasize a different word, quoque would usually follow that word instead.

Because caligas is the direct object of induit.

• induit = puts on / puts ... on
• What does she put on? caligas

So the word must be in the accusative case.

It is plural because caligae are something worn as a pair, like boots or shoes.

Basic pattern:

• nominative singular: caliga
• accusative plural: caligas

Here induit means puts on or dresses herself with.

The verb is induere, meaning to put on.

So:

• caligas induit = she puts on boots / stockings / footwear

A helpful thing to notice is that Latin often uses a simple verb where English may use a verb plus a particle, such as put on.

Formally, induit can be ambiguous in isolation.

It can be:

• present: he/she puts on
• perfect: he/she put on / has put on

That happens because the present and perfect 3rd person singular can look the same with this verb.

In this sentence, it is normally understood as present because the sentence describes what she does in order to prevent something:

• The girl also puts on boots, so that the ice may not hurt her feet.

So context helps us choose the present meaning.

Because ne glacies pedes laedat is a subordinate clause, specifically a purpose clause.

The sentence has:

• main clause: Puella quoque caligas induit
• purpose clause: ne glacies pedes laedat

The comma helps show the break between the main statement and the purpose: she puts them on so that the ice does not hurt her feet.

Here ne means so that ... not or lest.

It introduces a negative purpose clause.

So:

• ut
  • subjunctive = so that
• ne
  • subjunctive = so that ... not

Therefore:

• ne glacies pedes laedat = so that the ice may not hurt her feet

This is a very common Latin construction.

Because it is in a purpose clause introduced by ne.

Latin regularly uses the subjunctive in purpose clauses:

• ut
  • subjunctive = positive purpose
• ne
  • subjunctive = negative purpose

So laedat is not showing doubt here; it is showing purpose.

The idea is:

• She puts on the boots
• in order that the ice not hurt her feet

That is why laedat, not an indicative form, is used.

Glacies is nominative singular here because it is the subject of laedat.

In the clause:

• glacies = the thing doing the hurting
• pedes = the thing being hurt

So:

• glacies = subject, nominative
• pedes = direct object, accusative

Even though glacies ends in -es, it is singular here, not plural.

Because glacies belongs to the fifth declension, and some fifth-declension nominative singular forms end in -es.

So even though an English speaker may expect -es to look plural, in Latin that is not always true.

Here:

• glacies = nominative singular, ice
• it is a singular noun acting as the subject of laedat

Latin endings do not always match the patterns English speakers first expect.

Because pedes is the direct object of laedat.

• laedat = may hurt
• What may the ice hurt? pedes = feet

So it must be accusative.

It is plural because she has two feet.

From pes:

• nominative singular: pes = foot
• accusative plural: pedes = feet

Latin often leaves those ideas unstated when they are clear from context.

So:

• puella can mean girl or the girl
• caligas can mean boots or the boots
• pedes can mean feet or her feet, depending on context

English usually needs articles and possessives more often than Latin does. Latin relies more on context and inflected endings.

In this sentence, it is obvious that the feet belong to the girl, so Latin does not need to say her explicitly.

Latin word order is more flexible because the endings show how words function.

English depends heavily on order:

• The ice hurts the feet is different from The feet hurt the ice

Latin can move words around more freely because the cases tell you what each noun is doing.

Here:

• puella is nominative
• caligas and pedes are accusative
• glacies is nominative
• induit and laedat are verbs

So even if the order feels unusual to an English speaker, the endings keep the meaning clear.

Also, Latin often places verbs later in the clause, especially in more literary or careful style.

Yes. That is a very literal and traditional way to translate it.

• ne = lest / so that ... not
• glacies pedes laedat = the ice may hurt the feet

So the whole clause can be rendered as:

• lest the ice hurt her feet
• so that the ice may not hurt her feet

In natural English, the second version is often smoother for beginners, but both reflect the Latin structure.

Yes. Glacies is the subject, and pedes is the object.

You can tell from the cases:

• glacies = nominative singular → subject
• pedes = accusative plural → direct object

So the meaning is:

• the ice may hurt the feet

not:

• the feet may hurt the ice

The endings, not the position alone, show this.