Pater a textore balteum novum emit, quia vetus fractus est.

It can look neuter, but here it is actually accusative singular masculine.

The noun is balteus = belt or strap. It is a second-declension masculine noun:

• nominative singular: balteus
• accusative singular: balteum

Because balteum is the direct object of emit (buys / bought), it must be in the accusative.

a textore means from the weaver.

The preposition a / ab with the ablative often means from, especially with a person as the source:

• a textore = from the weaver

So the sentence says that the father buys the belt from the weaver.

Before a consonant, Latin often uses the shorter form a. Before a vowel or h, ab is regular.

So:

• a textore is normal
• ab amico is also normal

You may also see ab before consonants sometimes, but a textore is perfectly standard.

Classical Latin does not have articles like English the and a/an.

So pater can mean:

• father
• the father
• a father

The context tells you which is meant.

The same is true for textore, balteum, and so on.

Yes, novum balteum would also be possible.

Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order. Both of these can mean a new belt:

• balteum novum
• novum balteum

The adjective still agrees with the noun in case, number, and gender. Here both are accusative singular masculine.

Without macrons, emit is ambiguous.

It can represent:

• emit = he buys (present)
• ēmit = he bought (perfect)

Many printed Latin texts leave out macrons, so you have to use context or the supplied meaning. If the meaning shown to the learner is past, then the intended form is ēmit.

Because Latin often uses an adjective substantively, meaning the noun is understood rather than stated.

So vetus here means something like:

• the old one
• more fully, the old belt

Latin does this very naturally when the omitted noun is obvious from context.

vetus is nominative singular here.

It is functioning as the subject of fractus est, with the noun balteus understood:

• vetus fractus est = the old one is broken
• literally: the old [belt] is broken

So the hidden full idea is balteus vetus fractus est.

Because the understood noun is balteus, which is masculine.

So the participle must agree with that masculine noun:

• balteus ... fractus est

It is not neuter, so fractum est would be wrong here.

A learner may hesitate because vetus does not visibly show masculine gender in the nominative singular. But vetus has the same nominative singular form for masculine, feminine, and neuter. The masculine is shown clearly by fractus.

It can be understood in more than one way, depending on context.

fractus is the perfect passive participle of frangere (to break), used with est. That combination can express:

• a completed passive idea: has been broken / was broken
• or the resulting state: is broken

Here the reason for buying a new belt is the belt’s present condition, so English naturally says is broken.

Because quia introduces a subordinate clause of reason: because ...

So:

• quia vetus fractus est = because the old one is broken

In straightforward statements like this, quia normally takes a finite verb in the indicative, which is exactly what we see with est.