Cum nummularius nummos numerare coepisset, mulier iuxta eum stans frustra exspectabat.

Here cum introduces a circumstantial/narrative cum clause, which very often takes the subjunctive in Latin.

So cum nummularius nummos numerare coepisset means something like:

• when the money-changer had begun to count the coins
• or once the money-changer had begun to count the coins

This is not the same as every use of cum. Latin cum can mean different things:

• with (as a preposition): cum amico = with a friend
• when/since/although (as a conjunction): as in this sentence

In this sentence, it is the conjunction.

The subjunctive here does not necessarily make the clause “less real.” It is simply the normal mood for this kind of past background clause in Latin narrative.

Coepisset is:

• 3rd person singular
• pluperfect subjunctive active
• from coepi, coepisse, coeptus

So it means he/she/it had begun.

Here it refers to nummularius, so:

• coepisset = the money-changer had begun

The pluperfect shows that this action happened before the action of the main verb:

• first: he had begun counting
• then: the woman was waiting

Because coepi means I begin, and verbs like begin, want, can, must are often followed by an infinitive in Latin, just as in English.

So:

• coepisset numerare = had begun to count

This is called a complementary infinitive, because the infinitive completes the meaning of coepisset.

Without numerare, coepisset would feel incomplete:

• had begun ... begun what?

The infinitive answers that.

Because numerare is a transitive verb: you count something.

So:

• numerare = to count
• nummos = coins as the direct object

That is why nummos is in the accusative plural.

Structure:

• nummularius = subject
• nummos = direct object
• numerare = infinitive depending on coepisset

So literally:

• the money-changer had begun to count the coins

The imperfect often describes an action that was ongoing, in progress, or provides background in past time.

So exspectabat suggests:

• she was waiting
• she kept waiting
• she waited in the sense of an ongoing situation

This fits the scene well: the money-changer had started counting, and meanwhile the woman was standing there waiting.

If Latin had used a perfect instead, it would more likely present the waiting as a completed event rather than an ongoing one.

So the tense contrast is important:

• coepisset = action already begun before the main action
• exspectabat = action in progress in the past

Stans is the present active participle of sto, stare (to stand).

It agrees with mulier:

• mulier = feminine singular nominative
• stans = nominative singular participle, agreeing with mulier

So mulier ... stans means:

• the woman standing ...
• or the woman, standing ...

More naturally in English:

• the woman standing next to him

This is a very common Latin way of compressing what English might express with a relative clause:

• mulier iuxta eum stans = the woman who was standing next to him

Yes, that is the natural way to understand it.

• iuxta = next to / beside
• eum = him
• stans = standing

So:

• mulier iuxta eum stans = the woman standing beside him

The phrase iuxta eum tells you where she was standing.

Also note that iuxta takes the accusative, so eum is accusative because of iuxta, not because it is a direct object.

Because iuxta is a preposition, and here it takes the accusative.

So:

• iuxta eum = beside him

A learner might expect some idea of location to use the ablative, but with Latin prepositions you have to learn the case each one governs. Iuxta takes the accusative.

So eum is not accidental; it is required by iuxta.

Frustra means:

• in vain
• to no purpose
• unsuccessfully

It tells us how she was waiting. She was not just waiting; she was waiting without getting the result she wanted.

So:

• exspectabat = was waiting
• frustra exspectabat = was waiting in vain

It is an adverb modifying the verb.

Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order because Latin uses endings to show grammatical relationships.

In this sentence:

• nummularius is clearly the subject because it is nominative
• nummos is clearly the object because it is accusative
• coepisset is the verb of the cum clause
• mulier is the subject of the main clause
• stans agrees with mulier
• exspectabat is the main verb

Latin often places the verb at the end of a clause, and it may place descriptive words near the words they describe, even if that feels unusual in English.

So the order is not random; it is stylistic and normal for Latin.

Possibly, depending on context, but when/once is probably the most straightforward choice here.

Latin cum with the subjunctive can sometimes suggest:

• when
• since
• although

The exact shade of meaning depends on context.

In this sentence, the most likely sense is temporal:

• when the money-changer had begun counting the coins, the woman standing beside him was waiting in vain

If the wider context emphasized cause, since might be possible, but without more context, when/once is safer.

Yes. Latin could have used something like:

• mulier, quae iuxta eum stabat, frustra exspectabat

That would mean essentially the same thing:

• the woman, who was standing beside him, was waiting in vain

But Latin often prefers a participle where English might prefer:

• a relative clause
• or a separate finite verb

So stans is a compact, natural Latin way to express the same idea.

Yes: the sentence uses tense very carefully.

Latin is showing two past actions with different timing:

1. coepisset — had begun

   • this happened first

2. exspectabat — was waiting

   • this is the main ongoing action in the scene

So the sentence paints a sequence like this:

• the money-changer had already started counting
• during that situation, the woman was standing next to him and waiting in vain

That tense contrast is one of the most important grammatical features of the sentence.