Canis mulae latrat, et mula timet.

Because mulae is dative singular, not nominative.

With latrare, Latin often uses the dative for the animal or person being barked at. So:

• canis = the dog (subject, nominative)
• mulae = to/at the mule (dative)

So Canis mulae latrat literally means something like The dog barks to/at the mule.

In English we normally say barks at the mule, but Latin often expresses that idea with the dative rather than a preposition.

We know from both case and meaning.

• canis is in the nominative singular, which is the usual case for the subject.
• latrat means barks, and a dog is the natural thing doing that action.
• mulae is in the dative singular, so it is not the subject here.

So the structure is:

• canis = the dog does the barking
• mulae = the mule is the one barked at

Because in the second clause mula is the subject.

• et mula timet = and the mule is afraid / and the mule fears

Here mula is nominative singular, so it is the one doing the action of timet.

Compare the two forms:

• mula = nominative singular, the mule as subject
• mulae = dative singular here, to/at the mule

So the mule has different endings because it has different jobs in the two clauses.

Because Latin often uses the verb timere where English might use either:

• to fear
• or to be afraid

So mula timet can be translated naturally as:

• the mule fears
• the mule is afraid

Both are good, depending on what sounds more natural in English. Latin uses a simple active verb here, not a separate phrase like is afraid.

Latrat means barks.

It is:

• 3rd person
• singular
• present tense

The ending -t tells you the verb goes with he/she/it or a singular noun like canis.

So:

• canis latrat = the dog barks

If there were more than one dog, you would expect a plural verb instead.

Et simply means and.

It joins the two clauses:

• Canis mulae latrat
• et mula timet

So the full sentence has two linked statements:

1. The dog barks at the mule
2. and the mule is afraid

Yes, Latin could arrange them differently, because case endings carry much of the grammatical information.

For example, Latin could say things like:

• Mulae canis latrat
• Latrat canis mulae

and the basic meaning would still be understood as long as the forms stay the same.

That said, word order still affects emphasis and style. The given order is straightforward:

• subject first: canis
• then the noun it is barking at: mulae
• then the verb: latrat

The second clause is also simple and clear: et mula timet.

Classical Latin does not have a definite article like English the or an indefinite article like a/an.

So:

• canis can mean dog, a dog, or the dog
• mula can mean mule, a mule, or the mule

You decide which English article to use from the context. In this sentence, the dog and the mule are the most natural translations.

Mulae can have more than one possible form in Latin, depending on context. It could be:

• dative singular
• genitive singular
• or nominative plural

But in this sentence, it is clearly dative singular because of the verb latrat.

So here mulae means to/at the mule, not of the mule and not mules.

This is a very common thing in Latin: one form can have several possible grammatical identities, and the sentence tells you which one is correct.

Because Latin does not always use prepositions where English does.

English says:

• The dog barks at the mule

But Latin can say:

• Canis mulae latrat

using the dative without a preposition.

So when learning Latin, it is important not to expect every English preposition to appear as a separate Latin word. Sometimes the case ending does that job by itself.

Because mula is the nearest nominative noun in that clause, and et starts a new clause.

The sentence divides naturally like this:

• Canis mulae latrat
• et mula timet

In the second clause:

• mula is nominative singular
• timet is 3rd person singular

So they go together: the mule is afraid.

Even though canis is also nominative singular, it belongs to the first clause, not the second.