Puella digitum ostendit et dīcit spīnam parvam in eō fuisse, sed mātrem eam statim tulisse.

Because digitum is the direct object of ostendit: the girl shows her finger.

• digitus = finger
• digitum = finger, as the thing being shown

So Puella digitum ostendit means The girl shows her finger.

After verbs of saying, thinking, knowing, and perceiving, Latin very often uses indirect statement rather than a clause with that.

The pattern is:

• accusative subject + infinitive

So here:

• spīnam parvam = the subject of the indirect statement, put into the accusative
• fuisse = infinitive

Literally, Latin says something like:

• she says a small thorn to have been in it

Natural English is:

• she says that a small thorn had been in it

Because it is the subject of the indirect statement after dīcit.

This feels strange to English speakers, because in English the subject of had been would stay in the normal subject form: a small thorn had been...

But Latin changes the subject of the reported statement into the accusative:

• direct idea: spīna parva in eō fuit = a small thorn was in it
• reported after dīcit: spīnam parvam in eō fuisse = that a small thorn had been in it

Fuisse is the perfect infinitive of sum (to be).

• esse = to be
• fuisse = to have been

In indirect statement, the perfect infinitive usually refers to action earlier than the main verb.

So:

• dīcit ... fuisse = she says that ... had been

Because the thorn was in the finger before the girl speaks.

• dīcit = she says
• fuisse = to have been

So the time relationship is:

1. the thorn was there
2. now she says so

That is why English often translates it as had been.

If Latin had esse, it would suggest the thorn is there at the same time as the speaking.

In eō means in it or in him, depending on context. Here it means in it.

Eō is the ablative singular of is, ea, id, and it refers back to digitum.

So:

• digitus is masculine
• therefore the pronoun referring to it is masculine too: eō

That is why Latin says in eō, not in eā.

Latin could have repeated the noun, but instead it uses a pronoun:

• in digitō = in the finger
• in eō = in it

Using eō avoids repetition and sounds natural. Latin often does this when the reference is clear.

This is another part of the same indirect statement after dīcit.

The full idea is:

• she says that a small thorn had been in it
• but that her mother had removed it at once

So sed joins a second reported statement, still dependent on dīcit.

Grammatically:

• mātrem = the subject of the second indirect statement, in the accusative
• eam = the object, also accusative
• tulisse = perfect infinitive

Because mātrem is the subject of an indirect statement.

This is one of the most important Latin patterns:

• in a normal sentence, the subject is nominative
• in an indirect statement, the subject is accusative

So compare:

• māter eam statim tulit = mother removed it at once
• dīcit mātrem eam statim tulisse = she says that mother removed it at once

Eam refers to spīnam parvam.

It is feminine singular accusative because spīna is feminine singular.

So:

• spīnam parvam = a small thorn
• eam = it, meaning the thorn

Tulisse is the perfect infinitive of ferō.

This verb is irregular:

• present: ferō = I carry, bear
• perfect: tulī = I carried, I bore
• perfect infinitive: tulisse = to have carried

In this sentence, ferō has the sense of carry away or remove, so eam statim tulisse means had taken it away at once or more naturally had removed it at once.

Latin often leaves out possessive words like her, his, or their when the meaning is obvious from context.

So mātrem here naturally means her mother because the sentence is about the girl and her finger.

Latin could say mātrem suam, but it does not have to.

Statim means immediately, at once, or straightaway.

It tells us that the mother removed the thorn without delay.

So:

• eam statim tulisse = had removed it at once

Formally, ostendit can be either:

• he/she shows = present
• he/she showed = perfect

In this sentence, because it is paired with dīcit and the scene feels present and vivid, it is most naturally understood as present:

• The girl shows her finger and says...

Latin often has forms where the present and perfect look the same in the third person singular, so context decides.

Because both actions happened before the act of speaking.

She says:

• the thorn had been in the finger
• the mother had removed it

Both are earlier than dīcit, so Latin uses perfect infinitives for both:

• fuisse
• tulisse

Yes, very literally. But in context that sounds unnatural in English.

Because the object is a thorn in a finger, tulisse is best understood as:

• had taken it away
• had removed it
• had taken it out

So the context determines the most natural English wording.

Yes, it could come before.

Latin adjective position is flexible:

• spīnam parvam
• parvam spīnam

Both mean a small thorn.

Here spīnam parvam is just a normal, natural word order. Latin uses word order more freely than English, because the endings show the grammar.