Multi iuvenes volunt a rhetore Romano laudari, si bene responderint.

Multi means many, and it agrees with iuvenes.

• iuvenes = masculine plural
• so multi must also be masculine plural nominative

That is why Latin has multi iuvenes, not multae iuvenes or multa iuvenes.

Because multi iuvenes is the subject of volunt, both words are in the nominative.

Iuvenes is nominative plural of iuvenis, meaning young man or young person.

In this sentence it is the subject of volunt:

• Multi iuvenes volunt = Many young men want

A learner may notice that iuvenis is a 3rd-declension noun, so its plural nominative is iuvenes.

Latin often uses volo + infinitive to express want to ...

So:

• volunt laudari = they want to be praised

This works much like English want + infinitive, except Latin can use either an active or passive infinitive depending on the meaning:

• laudare = to praise
• laudari = to be praised

Since the young men want praise for themselves, the passive infinitive is the one needed.

Because the meaning is to be praised, not to praise.

Compare:

• laudare = to praise
• laudari = to be praised

The young men are the ones receiving the action, not doing it. So Latin uses the present passive infinitive laudari.

The subject of laudari is understood to be the same people as the subject of volunt: multi iuvenes.

So the sense is:

• Many young men want [themselves] to be praised

Latin does not need to repeat the subject here. English also often leaves it unspoken:

• They want to be praised

You do not need a separate word for themselves in this sentence.

Because laudari is passive, Latin uses a/ab + ablative to show the personal agent, the person who performs the action.

So:

• a rhetore Romano = by a Roman rhetor

This is the standard passive-agent construction in Latin.

Compare:

• active: rhetor Romanus iuvenes laudat = the Roman rhetor praises the young men
• passive: iuvenes a rhetore Romano laudantur = the young men are praised by the Roman rhetor

Because after a meaning by with a passive verb, the noun must be in the ablative.

So:

• dictionary form: rhetor Romanus
• after a: a rhetore Romano

Both the noun and its adjective change case together:

• rhetor → rhetore
• Romanus → Romano

This agreement is exactly what you would expect in Latin.

Rhetor is a Greek-derived Latin noun meaning rhetorician, teacher of rhetoric, or sometimes simply an expert/public teacher of speaking.

In a Roman educational context, a rhetor would often be a teacher who trains students in formal speaking and argument.

Its forms belong to the 3rd declension, which is why the ablative singular is rhetore.

Romano is an adjective meaning Roman, and it modifies rhetore.

Because rhetore is:

• masculine
• singular
• ablative

the adjective must match it:

• Romano

So a rhetore Romano is one unit: by a Roman rhetor.

Because bene is an adverb, and it modifies the verb responderint.

• bene = well
• bonus, -a, -um = good

In English too, we say:

• they answered well not
• they answered good in standard grammar

So Latin uses the adverb bene to describe how they answer.

Responderint is 3rd person plural, from respondere.

In this sentence, after si, it is most naturally understood as a future perfect indicative form:

• si bene responderint = if they answer / if they have answered well

A useful point for learners: in Latin, an if-clause referring to the future often uses the future perfect where English simply uses the present:

• Latin: si responderint
• English: if they answer

So the Latin form may look more complicated than the English translation suggests.

Latin often prefers the future-perfect form in a future-looking si clause when one action is understood as completed before another.

Here the idea is roughly:

• first, they answer well
• then, they are praised

So si bene responderint suggests if they have answered well / if they answer well.

English usually does not make this distinction so explicitly in the if clause, but Latin often does.

A learner may wonder about that because responderint can look like a subjunctive form. But in this sentence, after si, the normal reading is future perfect indicative, not subjunctive.

So it is part of an ordinary condition, not a purpose clause or fear clause or anything like that.

In other words, this is basically:

• if they answer well

not a special subjunctive use.

Latin word order is much freer than English word order because Latin shows grammatical relationships through endings, not mainly through position.

So this sentence can place words for emphasis or style:

• Multi iuvenes first: introduces the people being talked about
• volunt early: gives the main action
• laudari later: completes what they want
• si bene responderint at the end: adds the condition

English depends more heavily on word order, but Latin can move parts around while keeping the meaning clear through case endings and verb forms.

Yes, within limits.

For example, Latin could rearrange parts such as:

• Multi iuvenes, si bene responderint, a rhetore Romano laudari volunt.

That would still mean essentially the same thing.

However, the original order is perfectly natural. Latin authors often place an infinitive like laudari toward the end of its clause, and the conditional clause can come after it.

Because with volo + infinitive, if the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb, Latin usually leaves it understood.

So:

• Multi iuvenes volunt laudari = Many young men want to be praised

If the subject of the infinitive were different, Latin would often make that explicit. But here the same people both want and are to be praised, so no separate accusative subject is needed.

In sense, it modifies the whole idea, but most directly it gives the condition under which the praise would happen.

So the logic is:

• many young men want to be praised
• and that praise is expected if they answer well

In practice, you can understand it as qualifying the desired praise: they want to be praised if they answer well.

That is a very natural way for Latin to express the condition here.