Venter puellae dolet, quia nimium cibi sumpsit.

Because puellae here is genitive singular, meaning of the girl.

So:

• puella = the girl (nominative, the subject form)
• puellae = of the girl or sometimes to/for the girl, depending on context

In Venter puellae dolet, the meaning is the girl’s stomach hurts, so Latin uses the genitive of possession:

• venter = stomach
• puellae = of the girl

Literally: The stomach of the girl hurts.

A learner may notice that puellae could also be dative singular, but here genitive makes sense because it shows possession.

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

The verb dolet is singular, so we look for a singular nominative noun to match it. That noun is venter.

So the structure is:

• venter = the subject, stomach
• dolet = hurts

Latin often expresses something like the stomach hurts with the body part itself as the subject.

Dolet comes from dolere, meaning to hurt, to feel pain, or to be painful.

In this sentence, venter dolet means:

• the stomach hurts
• or more literally, the stomach is in pain

This is a very common Latin verb for pain. Depending on context, dolere can also be used of a person feeling emotional pain or grief, but here it is physical pain.

Because Latin usually shows possession with the genitive case, not with a separate possessive word like her.

English often says:

• the girl’s stomach
• her stomach

Latin here chooses the first kind of structure:

• venter puellae = the stomach of the girl = the girl’s stomach

So Latin does not need a separate word for her.

Because sumpsit comes from sumere, whose basic meaning is to take, to take up, or to consume. But with food, it can naturally mean to eat or to consume.

So:

• nimium cibi sumpsit literally = she took/consumed too much food
• natural English = she ate too much food

This is a good example of a Latin verb being translated idiomatically rather than word-for-word.

The subject is understood, not stated explicitly.

sumpsit means he/she/it took/consumed. Since the earlier part of the sentence mentions puella, we understand that the girl is the one who ate.

So:

• sumpsit = she ate / she consumed

Latin often leaves out subject pronouns when the verb ending already tells you the person and number.

Because the ending of the verb already tells us the subject is third person singular:

• sumpsit = he/she/it took

Latin does not need to say ea sumpsit unless it wants to add emphasis or contrast.

So in this sentence, she is simply understood from the context.

Nimium cibi means too much food, and its structure is important:

• nimium = too much
• cibi = of food

Here cibi is genitive singular, often called a partitive genitive. Latin regularly uses this construction after words meaning enough, more, much, too much, a little, and so on.

So literally:

• nimium cibi = too much of food

Natural English:

• too much food

Because after a quantity word like nimium, Latin often uses the genitive to show the whole of which a part or amount is being referred to.

This is called the partitive genitive.

Examples of the same pattern would be like:

• multum aquae = much water
• satis pecuniae = enough money
• parum temporis = too little time

So:

• nimium cibi = too much food

The genitive cibi answers the question too much of what? → of food

A learner could reasonably wonder about that, because nimium often appears as an adverb meaning too much. But in nimium cibi, it functions like a substantive neuter expression of quantity: too much (of) food.

So it is best understood here as a quantity word followed by a partitive genitive.

That is why the phrase works as a noun phrase:

• nimium cibi = too much food

If nimium were just a plain adverb modifying the verb, the structure would be different.

Because quia usually introduces a factual because clause, and factual subordinate clauses normally take the indicative.

So:

• quia nimium cibi sumpsit = because she ate too much food

This is a straightforward statement of cause, not a purpose clause or a doubtful idea, so the indicative is exactly what you would expect.

Because the sentence refers to a completed action in the past:

• she ate too much food

The perfect tense in Latin often corresponds to the English simple past:

• sumit = she takes / she is taking
• sumpsit = she took / she has taken

Here the meaning is that the eating happened first, and now the stomach hurts as a result.

The comma is just punctuation to separate the main clause from the because clause:

• Venter puellae dolet = main clause
• quia nimium cibi sumpsit = subordinate clause of cause

In Latin manuscripts and older texts, punctuation was much less standardized than in modern editions. So the comma helps modern readers, but it is not a grammatical feature of the Latin itself.

Yes. Latin word order is more flexible than English word order because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

This sentence could be rearranged in various ways without changing the basic meaning, for example:

• Puellae venter dolet, quia nimium cibi sumpsit.
• Quia nimium cibi sumpsit, venter puellae dolet.

However, the original order is natural and clear. Latin word order often helps with emphasis, rhythm, or style rather than being the only way to show subject and object.

Yes. Venter, ventris is a masculine third-declension noun meaning belly or stomach.

That may feel a little arbitrary to an English speaker, but grammatical gender in Latin does not always match any natural gender idea. Body-part nouns often just have a fixed grammatical gender that must be learned with the noun.

No, not in this form.

If Latin wanted to say the stomach hurts the girl in the sense of causes pain to the girl, the construction would normally be different, often with the person in the dative or with a different expression.

Here the most natural reading is:

• venter = subject
• puellae = of the girl

So the meaning is the girl’s stomach hurts, not the stomach hurts the girl.