Mater libum dulce coquere vult, priusquam hospites veniant.

It has two parts:

• Main clause: Mater libum dulce coquere vult

  • mater = the subject, mother
  • vult = the main finite verb, wants
  • coquere = to cook, dependent on vult
  • libum dulce = the thing she wants to cook

• Subordinate clause: priusquam hospites veniant

  • priusquam = before
  • hospites = the guests
  • veniant = arrive / may arrive in the subjunctive form

So the structure is basically:

Mother wants [to cook a sweet cake] before [the guests arrive].

Because after vult (wants), Latin normally uses an infinitive.

• vult coquere = wants to cook
• not wants cooks

So coquere is the present active infinitive of coquō, meaning to cook.

This is very common in Latin:

• vult dormire = he/she wants to sleep
• possunt venire = they are able to come
• debet laborare = he/she ought to work

In other words, coquere is doing the job that to cook does in English.

Because Latin infinitives do not need a separate word like English to.

English:

• to cook

Latin:

• coquere

The idea of to is built into the infinitive form itself. So coquere already means to cook, not just cook.

Libum dulce is in the accusative singular, because it is the object of the infinitive coquere.

She wants to cook what?

• libum dulce

So it must be in the object case.

A helpful way to see it:

• libum = accusative singular of libum, a neuter noun meaning cake / sacrificial cake
• dulce agrees with libum in gender, number, and case

Even though coquere is an infinitive, it can still take its own direct object, just like an English infinitive can:

• to cook a cake
• coquere libum

Because libum is neuter, not masculine.

That matters because adjectives must agree with the nouns they describe in:

• gender
• number
• case

Here:

• libum = neuter singular accusative
• so the adjective must also be neuter singular accusative
• therefore: dulce

If the noun were masculine accusative singular, then dulcem would make sense. But with libum, the correct form is dulce.

A useful detail: in many adjectives of the third declension, the neuter nominative and accusative singular end in -e:

• dulcis (masculine/feminine nominative singular)
• dulce (neuter nominative/accusative singular)

Because after priusquam (before), Latin often uses the subjunctive when the action is still anticipated, expected, or not yet realized from the point of view of the main clause.

Here the mother wants to cook the cake before the guests arrive. Their arrival is still in the future relative to her wish, so Latin uses:

• veniant = present subjunctive

If you used veniunt, that would be the indicative, which presents the action more as a straightforward fact. In this sentence, the subjunctive is the natural choice because the arrival has not happened yet.

This is very normal in Latin time clauses.

Latin often uses the present subjunctive after words like priusquam when the action is future relative to the main verb.

So:

• vult = she wants
• priusquam hospites veniant = before the guests arrive

Even though English may feel future-like, Latin does not need a future tense here. The present subjunctive is enough to show an action that is still ahead and dependent on the main clause.

This is also connected with sequence of tenses:

• main verb vult is a primary tense
• so the subordinate subjunctive is naturally present subjunctive: veniant

Here hospites is nominative plural, the subject of veniant.

We know this because:

• veniant means they may come / arrive
• a verb of coming needs a subject
• hospites is the word supplying that subject: the guests

It is true that hospites can also be accusative plural, because some third-declension forms look the same in nominative and accusative plural. But in this sentence, the meaning and syntax show that it must be nominative:

• the guests arrive, not
• before someone arrives the guests

Not as much as in English.

Latin word order is relatively flexible because the endings show what each word is doing. So you do not rely only on position to tell subject from object.

This sentence uses a very natural order:

• Mater first, for the subject
• libum dulce before coquere, as the object of the infinitive
• vult near the end of the main clause
• then the priusquam clause

But Latin could rearrange parts for emphasis. For example, a different order might highlight dulce or priusquam more strongly, while the basic meaning remained the same.

So the order here is normal and readable, but not rigidly fixed.

Because Latin has no articles equivalent to English the or a/an.

So:

• mater can mean mother, the mother, or sometimes a mother
• libum can mean a cake or the cake
• hospites can mean guests or the guests

Context tells you which is most natural.

In this sentence, English usually supplies articles when translating, but Latin itself does not need them.

No. Priusquam can be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive, depending on how the action is viewed.

Very roughly:

• subjunctive: the action is anticipated, intended, or still in the future from the speaker’s point of view
• indicative: the action is presented more simply as a fact

In this sentence, the guests have not arrived yet, and the mother wants to finish cooking before that happens. That makes the subjunctive especially appropriate:

• priusquam hospites veniant

So the choice is not random; it reflects the speaker’s viewpoint.

Because Latin verb forms already show person and number.

• vult already means he/she/it wants
• veniant already means they may come

So Latin often leaves out subject pronouns unless they are needed for emphasis or contrast.

In this sentence, the nouns themselves are stated:

• mater tells you who wants
• hospites tells you who are coming

So extra pronouns would be unnecessary.

Priusquam is a conjunction meaning before.

It is historically built from:

• prius = earlier
• quam = than

But as a unit, you should treat it simply as the conjunction before.

So:

• priusquam hospites veniant = before the guests arrive

It introduces a subordinate clause that sets the time of the main action.