Patruus et amita parva dona afferunt, quae sponsa libenter accipit.

Because patruus et amita is a compound subject: two people joined by et.

• patruus = one person
• amita = one person
• together = they

So the verb must be third person plural:

• affert = he/she brings
• afferunt = they bring

Latin works the same way English does here: the uncle and the aunt bring, not brings.

Dona is accusative plural here, because it is the direct object of afferunt. It is the thing being brought.

• afferunt = they bring
• what do they bring? dona

So dona must be in the accusative.

A useful detail: donum is a neuter noun, and in Latin neuter nouns have the same form in the nominative plural and accusative plural. So dona could be either form by shape alone, but here the sentence function shows that it is accusative.

Because adjectives in Latin must agree with the nouns they describe in:

• gender
• number
• case

Here parva describes dona.

Since dona is:

• neuter
• plural
• accusative

the adjective must also be:

• neuter
• plural
• accusative

So we get parva dona = small gifts.

This is a very common pattern in Latin: adjective and noun matching each other grammatically.

Quae refers back to dona.

So the structure is:

• Patruus et amita parva dona afferunt
• quae sponsa libenter accipit

That means: The uncle and aunt bring small gifts, which the bride gladly receives.

This is a relative pronoun, introducing a relative clause. In English, it is which here.

Because it must match dona, the word it refers to, in gender and number.

• dona is neuter plural
• so the relative pronoun must also be neuter plural
• that gives quae

It is not:

• quos, because that would be masculine plural accusative
• quas, because that would be feminine plural accusative

So quae is the correct form for something referring to dona.

It is accusative plural here, because it is the direct object of accipit.

In the relative clause:

• sponsa = subject
• accipit = verb
• quae = object

So the sense is the bride receives which/those things.

The tricky part is that for the relative pronoun, neuter plural nominative and neuter plural accusative are both spelled quae. So you have to decide from the sentence function, not just the ending.

Because the verb agrees with its subject, not with its object.

In the clause quae sponsa libenter accipit:

• sponsa is the subject
• quae is the object

Since sponsa is singular, the verb is also singular:

• accipit = she receives

If the subject were plural, then the verb would be plural. But here only the things being received are plural, not the receiver.

Because sponsa is in the nominative singular, which is the normal case for the subject.

Also, the meaning of the clause works naturally that way:

• sponsa accipit = the bride receives
• quae = the things received

So the clause means which the bride gladly receives, not which receive the bride.

Latin word order is flexible, so you cannot rely only on position. The case endings tell you the grammar.

Libenter is an adverb meaning gladly, willingly, or with pleasure.

It modifies the verb accipit:

• accipit = receives
• libenter accipit = gladly receives

Adverbs in Latin often have fairly flexible placement, so libenter could appear in different spots without changing the basic meaning very much.

Latin has a much freer word order than English because the endings show the grammatical roles.

English depends heavily on position:

• The bride receives the gifts is different from
• The gifts receive the bride

Latin can move words around more easily because case endings show who is doing what.

So in quae sponsa libenter accipit, Latin does not need to put the subject first and the object last in the same rigid way English does. The endings already make the relationships clear.

Not quite. They are more specific family terms.

• patruus = father’s brother
• amita = father’s sister

Latin often distinguishes relatives more precisely than English does. So these are not just any uncle and aunt, but specifically the paternal uncle and paternal aunt.