Pater, quamquam fessus est, non ignavus sed strenuus manet et mulam in stabulo curat.

Because the sentence contains both a subordinate clause and a main clause.

• quamquam fessus est = although he is tired
• non ignavus sed strenuus manet = he remains not lazy but energetic

So est belongs to the quamquam clause, and manet is the main verb of the main statement.

Quamquam means although.

It introduces a concessive clause: a clause that admits one fact but contrasts it with another.

So here:

• quamquam fessus est = although he is tired

The idea is: even though the father is tired, he still remains energetic and keeps caring for the mule.

In Latin, quamquam commonly takes the indicative, which is why you see est rather than a subjunctive form.

Because fessus is a predicate adjective describing pater.

• pater is nominative singular masculine
• fessus must agree with it in case, number, and gender
• est links the subject and the adjective

So:

• pater ... fessus est = the father is tired

You use the nominative after linking verbs like est.

For the same reason as fessus: they describe the subject pater through a linking-style idea with manet.

• ignavus = lazy
• strenuus = energetic, active, vigorous

In this sentence:

• non ignavus sed strenuus manet = he remains not lazy but energetic

Since they describe pater, they are nominative singular masculine.

Literally, manet means remains, stays, or continues.

Here it does not mean merely physical staying in a place. It means he continues to be energetic.

So:

• non ignavus sed strenuus manet = he remains not lazy but energetic

This is a very natural use of maneo in Latin.

Because curat is a transitive verb and takes a direct object.

• curat = he cares for, looks after
• the thing or creature being cared for is the direct object
• therefore it goes into the accusative

So:

• mulam = the mule as the object of curat

If the noun were the subject, you would expect mula, not mulam.

Because in can take either the ablative or the accusative, depending on meaning.

• in + ablative = in / on a place, showing location
• in + accusative = into / onto a place, showing motion toward

Here the meaning is location:

• in stabulo = in the stable

There is no movement into the stable being emphasized, so the ablative is correct.

Latin often leaves out subject pronouns when the verb ending already shows the subject.

For example:

• manet = he/she/it remains
• curat = he/she/it cares for

Since the subject pater has already been named, Latin does not need to repeat is or another pronoun for he.

This is very normal in Latin.

Latin has no articles.

That means it has no exact equivalents of the or a/an. Whether a noun is understood as the father, a father, the mule, or a mule depends on context.

So:

• pater can mean father or the father
• mulam can mean a mule or the mule
• stabulo can mean a stable or the stable

In translation, English requires an article, but Latin does not.

Latin word order is much freer than English word order because Latin endings show the grammatical relationships.

In this sentence:

• Pater is clearly the subject
• mulam is clearly the object
• stabulo is clearly ablative after in

Because those endings already show each word’s role, Latin can arrange words for emphasis and style.

This sentence places:

• quamquam fessus est early to set up the contrast
• non ignavus sed strenuus together for emphasis
• in stabulo close to curat to show where the action happens

So the order is not random; it is stylistic and meaningful.

Non ... sed ... means not ... but ....

It is a very common Latin contrast pattern.

Here:

• non ignavus sed strenuus = not lazy but energetic

This construction sharply contrasts two qualities. It tells you that the father should not be characterized by the first adjective, but by the second one.

No. Latin curat is broader than English cure.

Curo can mean:

• care for
• look after
• attend to
• take care of

So mulam in stabulo curat means he is looking after the mule in the stable, not necessarily healing it.

This is a good example of why English words derived from Latin do not always match the full Latin meaning exactly.