Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire, quia mulus aquam petit.

Because after dicit (he says), Latin often uses an indirect statement construction instead of a clause with that.

In that construction:

• the subject of the reported statement goes into the accusative
• the verb of the reported statement goes into the infinitive

So in:

Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire

the mare is the one doing the neighing, but because this is reported speech after dicit, equa becomes equam.

If it were a direct statement, it would be:

Equa iterum hinnit = The mare neighs again

After dicit, that becomes:

dicit equam iterum hinnire = he says that the mare is neighing again

For the same reason: Latin is using indirect statement.

English usually says:

• He says that the mare neighs again

Latin usually says:

• Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire

So hinnire is not the main verb of the whole sentence. It is the verb inside the reported statement, and in Latin that verb is normally an infinitive after verbs like:

• dicit = says
• putat = thinks
• audit = hears
• videt = sees

This pattern is often called the accusative-and-infinitive construction.

Because Latin usually does not need one here.

English commonly says:

• He says that...

Latin often expresses the same idea simply by using the accusative + infinitive construction, without a separate word meaning that.

So:

• Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire
• literally: Father says the mare to neigh again
• naturally: Father says that the mare is neighing again

Latin can sometimes use conjunctions in other kinds of clauses, but after verbs of saying, thinking, perceiving, and so on, the accusative-and-infinitive pattern is extremely common.

Look at the cases and verb forms.

• Pater is nominative, so he is the subject of dicit
• equam is accusative, so in the indirect statement she is the subject of hinnire
• mulus is nominative, so he is the subject of petit
• aquam is accusative, so it is the object of petit

So the actions are divided like this:

• Pater dicit = the father says
• equam ... hinnire = the mare is neighing
• mulus aquam petit = the mule seeks/asks for water

A very common beginner mistake is to assume that equam must be the object of dicit, but here it is actually the subject of the infinitive hinnire inside the indirect statement.

It gives the reason:

• quia = because

So this clause explains why the mare is neighing again.

Unlike the part after dicit, this is a normal subordinate clause with:

• a conjunction: quia
• a finite verb: petit

So the structure is:

• Pater dicit = main clause
• equam iterum hinnire = indirect statement
• quia mulus aquam petit = causal clause

Because they belong to two different constructions.

hinnire is inside an indirect statement after dicit, so it becomes an infinitive.

petit is inside a because-clause introduced by quia, so it stays a normal finite verb.

Compare:

• dicit equam hinnire = he says that the mare is neighing
• quia mulus aquam petit = because the mule seeks water

So the grammar changes depending on the kind of clause, not just on whether the verb is inside a longer sentence.

Peto, petere has a broad range of meanings, including:

• seek
• aim at
• head for
• ask for
• request

In a sentence like mulus aquam petit, the most natural sense is usually something like:

• the mule seeks water
• the mule wants water
• the mule asks for water

The exact English wording depends on context. Latin often allows a slightly wider range of meaning than a single English gloss suggests.

Because it is the direct object of petit.

The mule is performing the action of seeking/requesting, and water is what he is seeking/requesting.

So:

• mulus = subject, nominative
• aquam = direct object, accusative

This is a straightforward use of the accusative, unlike equam, which is accusative because it is the subject of an infinitive in indirect statement.

Yes. Latin word order is more flexible than English word order.

Here iterum means again, and in:

equam iterum hinnire

it most naturally modifies hinnire: to neigh again.

You may also see adverbs like this in other positions, depending on emphasis or style. For example, Latin often moves words around for focus, rhythm, or contrast. But in a beginner sentence, placing iterum near the word it affects is a helpful default.

It would be:

Equa iterum hinnit = The mare neighs again

Then after dicit, Latin changes it into indirect statement:

• Equa → equam
• hinnit → hinnire

So:

• direct: Equa iterum hinnit
• indirect: Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire

This is a useful transformation to practice, because it shows exactly how Latin handles reported speech.

Because equa specifically means a mare, a female horse.

Related forms are:

• equus = horse, often specifically a male horse
• equa = mare

So equam is the accusative singular of equa.

This may matter because Latin often uses more precise animal vocabulary than a basic English translation does.

No.

Pater is only the subject of dicit.

The one doing hinnire is equam—or, more exactly, the mare referred to by equam. Even though equam is accusative in form, it is still the logical subject of the infinitive hinnire.

That is one of the most important things to get used to in Latin indirect statement:

• accusative in form
• subject in meaning

The sentence is:

Pater dicit equam iterum hinnire, quia mulus aquam petit.

A rough structural breakdown is:

• Pater dicit = Father says
• equam iterum hinnire = that the mare neighs again
• quia mulus aquam petit = because the mule seeks water

Yes, Latin could rearrange many of these words and still keep the same basic meaning, because the endings show the grammar. For example, case endings tell you who is subject and object more clearly than position does.

Still, the given order is perfectly normal and readable:

• main verb early: dicit
• indirect statement after it
• reason clause after that

For a learner, it is often best first to identify the construction, not to rely too much on English-style word order.