Vilicus servos ad agrum ducit, ut segetem metant.

Vilicus means farm manager, steward, or overseer of an estate. It is a masculine noun in the nominative singular, and here it is the subject of ducit.

So in this sentence, vilicus is the person doing the action.

Servos is the accusative plural of servus (slave or servant). It is in the accusative because it is the direct object of ducit.

• servus = one slave
• servi = slaves (nominative plural)
• servos = slaves (accusative plural)

The sentence is saying that the farm manager leads the slaves, so Latin uses the accusative form servos.

Ad is a preposition meaning to or toward. It commonly takes the accusative case, which is why we get agrum from ager.

So:

• ager = field
• agrum = field (accusative singular)
• ad agrum = to the field

Without ad, agrum by itself would usually not mean to the field. The preposition makes the direction clear.

Yes, and that is perfectly normal. Latin can have:

• a direct object in the accusative: servos
• and also a prepositional phrase with a preposition that takes the accusative: ad agrum

These are doing different jobs:

• servos = whom he leads
• ad agrum = where he leads them

So the sentence has two accusative forms, but for different reasons.

Ut introduces a purpose clause here. It tells us why the farm manager leads the slaves to the field.

So:

• Vilicus servos ad agrum ducit = the farm manager leads the slaves to the field
• ut segetem metant = so that they may harvest the crop

A very common Latin pattern is:

ut + subjunctive = in order that / so that

Because it is in a purpose clause introduced by ut. In Latin, purpose clauses normally use the subjunctive mood.

So metant is the present subjunctive active, third person plural, from meto, metere, meaning to reap or harvest.

It means something like:

• that they may harvest
• so that they can harvest
• in order to harvest

English often does not show this difference very clearly, but Latin does.

Because its subject is the same group as servos: the slaves. The slaves are the ones who are supposed to harvest the crop.

So the verb must be third person plural:

• metat = he/she may harvest
• metant = they may harvest

Since servos refers to more than one person, metant must also be plural.

Latin often leaves the subject understood when it is clear from context or from the verb ending.

Here, metant already tells us the subject is they, and the nearest sensible they is servos. So Latin does not need to repeat the noun.

In smoother English we might say:

• The farm manager leads the slaves to the field so that they may harvest the crop.

Latin can simply rely on the verb ending and context.

Segetem is the accusative singular of seges, a noun meaning standing grain, cornfield, or crop. In this sentence it means the crop that is to be harvested.

It is accusative because it is the direct object of metant:

• the slaves harvest the crop

So:

• seges = crop
• segetem = crop (as object)

Ducit is present indicative active, third person singular, from duco. Latin present tense often corresponds to several natural English translations, depending on context:

• leads
• is leading
• sometimes even does lead

The basic Latin form is simply present tense. English may choose the best wording for the situation.

The word order is flexible, but not random. Latin uses endings more than position to show grammar, so the sentence could be rearranged without changing the core meaning very much.

Still, this order is natural and clear:

• Vilicus first: the topic or subject
• servos ad agrum ducit: the main action
• ut segetem metant: the purpose comes afterward

Also, Latin often places the verb at or near the end of its clause, which is what we see with metant in the purpose clause.

Yes, in natural English that is often the best translation. Literally, the Latin means so that they may harvest the crop, but English usually prefers a simpler wording:

• The farm manager leads the slaves to the field to harvest the crop.

However, grammatically the Latin is not using an infinitive like to harvest. It is using a full purpose clause:

ut + subjunctive

So to harvest the crop is a good English translation, but not a literal word-for-word match.