Cum gelu durum sit et pruina in via maneat, tamen parca mater tantum parvum ignem accendit.

No. Here cum is a conjunction, not a preposition.

In this sentence, cum introduces a subordinate clause: Cum gelu durum sit et pruina in via maneat.

Because the main clause then has tamen (nevertheless), the sense is concessive: although or even though. So the structure is basically:

cum + subjunctive clause = although ...
tamen in the main clause = nevertheless ...

So here cum does not mean with at all.

They are subjunctive because they are inside a cum clause.

Latin often uses cum + subjunctive for subordinate clauses with meanings like:

• when
• since
• although

Here, because of tamen, the clause is best understood as concessive: although the ice is hard and the frost remains on the road.

So:

• sit = present subjunctive of sum
• maneat = present subjunctive of maneo

A learner should notice that the main verb accendit is indicative, while the verbs in the cum clause are subjunctive.

Tamen means nevertheless, still, or yet.

It works with the concessive cum clause. Latin often likes this pairing:

• cum ... = although
• tamen ... = nevertheless / still

So the logic is:

Although the weather is bad, still the mother lights only a small fire.

In English, we do not always need both parts, but in Latin this pairing is very common and helpful.

Yes. One cum introduces the whole subordinate clause, and the two verbs are joined by et.

So the structure is:

• cum gelu durum sit
• et pruina in via maneat

That means:

• although the ice is hard
• and the frost remains on the road

Latin does not need to repeat cum before the second verb.

Gelu is a neuter noun meaning frost, ice, or cold. In this sentence it is nominative singular, the subject of sit.

Because gelu is neuter singular, the adjective agreeing with it must also be neuter singular:

• gelu = neuter singular
• durum = neuter singular of durus

So gelu durum means hard ice or the ice is hard.

An English speaker may expect something more familiar-looking, but gelu is one of those Latin neuter nouns whose nominative singular ends in -u.

Because in with the ablative usually means in or on in the sense of location.

Here pruina in via maneat means the frost remains on the road. There is no movement into the road; it is simply located there.

So:

• in
  • ablative = location: in/on the road
• in
  • accusative = motion into: into the road

Since the frost is staying there, via is ablative singular.

Pruina is nominative singular feminine, and it is the subject of maneat.

So in pruina in via maneat:

• pruina = the frost
• in via = on the road
• maneat = remains / stays

English speakers sometimes look for a separate word meaning it, but Latin often simply uses the noun itself as the subject.

Mater means mother, and parca is an adjective describing her.

So:

• mater = mother
• parca = sparing, frugal, stingy

Because mater is feminine singular nominative, the adjective must agree with it:

• parca = feminine singular nominative
• mater = feminine singular nominative

So parca mater means the frugal mother or the stingy mother, depending on context.

Here tantum is best taken as an adverb meaning only or merely.

So:

• tantum parvum ignem = only a small fire

It is not being used here as the adjective tantus, tanta, tantum meaning so great or so much. That would not fit the sentence well, especially next to parvum.

A natural way to understand the phrase is:

• parvum ignem = a small fire
• tantum = only

So the mother lights only a small fire.

Because ignem is the direct object of accendit.

The verb accendere means to light, to kindle, or to set alight. The thing being lit is put in the accusative.

So:

• mater = subject
• accendit = lights
• ignem = object, fire

More exactly:

• ignis = nominative singular
• ignem = accusative singular

Because Latin word order is much freer than English word order.

Latin uses case endings to show what each word is doing, so it does not rely as heavily on word order. Very often, especially in more formal or literary Latin, the verb comes at or near the end of the clause.

So this sentence has a very normal Latin shape:

• subordinate clause first
• then the main clause
• main verb at the end

Putting accendit last gives the sentence a neat finish and lets the action land at the end.

To a large extent, yes. Because the endings show the grammar, Latin can move words around more freely than English.

For example, parca mater tantum parvum ignem accendit could be rearranged in several ways and still keep the same basic meaning, as long as the forms stay the same.

However, word order is not meaningless. It often changes emphasis. In the original sentence:

• the bad conditions come first
• tamen highlights the contrast
• parvum ignem draws attention to how small the fire is
• accendit finishes the thought

So the sentence does not just say something; it presents it in a particular rhetorical order.

Look for nominative forms and match them with their verbs.

In the subordinate clause:

• gelu is the subject of sit
• pruina is the subject of maneat

In the main clause:

• mater is the subject of accendit

Then the adjectives agree with those nouns:

• durum with gelu
• parca with mater
• parvum with ignem

And the direct object is:

• ignem, accusative, with accendit

So the sentence has three different noun phrases doing three different jobs, and the endings help you sort them out.