Mater filiam monet ne stamen implicet, dum subtemen ducit.

Because mater is in the nominative case, which is the case typically used for the subject of a Latin sentence.

• mater = mother (nominative singular)
• So mater is the one doing the action of monet.

Even though Latin word order is flexible, the case ending tells you the grammatical role more reliably than position does.

Because moneō often takes a direct object: the person being warned, advised, or reminded.

So here:

• mater = the mother
• filiam = the daughter
• monet = warns/advises

That gives: The mother warns/advises her daughter...

filiam is accusative singular of filia.

Monet is from moneō, monēre, which can mean:

• warn
• advise
• remind

In this sentence, warns or advises fits best, because it is followed by ne + subjunctive, a common way to express a warning or negative command.

So mater filiam monet ne... means something like:

• The mother warns her daughter not to...
• The mother advises her daughter not to...

Because ne + subjunctive is a standard Latin way to express a negative command, warning, or purpose clause, depending on context.

After verbs like moneō (warn/advice), Latin commonly uses:

• ut
  • subjunctive for a positive instruction
• ne
  • subjunctive for a negative instruction

So:

• ne implicet = that she not entangle / not to entangle

This is not the same as non implicat, which would simply mean she does not entangle as a statement of fact.

Because it depends on monet and is introduced by ne.

This is a subordinate clause expressing what the daughter is being warned not to do. In Latin, that kind of clause normally takes the subjunctive.

So:

• monet ne implicet = warns her not to entangle

The subjunctive here does not mean doubt. It is just the normal mood Latin uses in this construction.

The implied subject of implicet is filiam in sense, even though filiam is accusative because it is the object of monet.

In English we might say:

• The mother warns her daughter not to entangle the warp.

The daughter is the one who would do the entangling, so she is the understood subject of implicet.

Latin does this often: the person warned is the object of the main verb, but the logical subject of the subordinate clause.

It is a temporal clause introduced by dum, meaning while.

So it tells you when the warning applies:

• dum subtemen ducit = while she is drawing/pulling/leading the weft

This clause gives the context for the action.

Because the two clauses do different jobs.

• implicet is in a clause depending on monet ne..., so it uses the subjunctive
• ducit is in a dum clause meaning while, and with that meaning Latin normally uses the indicative

So:

• ne implicet = a warning about what should not happen
• dum subtemen ducit = a straightforward statement of what is happening at the time

No. Dum can mean several things depending on context, especially:

• while
• as long as
• sometimes until

Here while is the natural meaning, because the clause describes an action happening at the same time as the warning’s relevance.

So in this sentence, dum is best understood as a simple temporal while.

These are weaving terms.

• stamen = warp
• subtemen = weft or woof

In weaving:

• the warp is the set of threads stretched on the loom
• the weft is the thread drawn across them

So the sentence describes a mother warning her daughter not to tangle the warp while drawing the weft.

They are simply nouns that belong to the neuter gender in Latin.

Both are third-declension neuters, and in the forms here:

• stamen = nominative or accusative singular
• subtemen = nominative or accusative singular

In this sentence they are both accusative singular because they are direct objects:

• implicet stamen = entangle the warp
• ducit subtemen = draw the weft

A learner should remember that grammatical gender in Latin does not always match natural gender or any obvious logic in English.

From both meaning and form.

• implicō means entangle, twist into, involve
• It naturally takes a direct object: the thing that gets entangled

Since stamen is a neuter noun whose nominative and accusative singular look the same, the form alone does not distinguish subject from object. But the sentence structure and sense make it clear:

• the daughter is being warned not to entangle the warp

So stamen is the direct object of implicet.

Again, from meaning and syntax.

Dūcō often means lead, draw, pull, and it commonly takes a direct object.

In the weaving context:

• subtemen ducit = she draws/pulls the weft

So subtemen is the direct object of ducit.

Like stamen, subtemen is neuter, so nominative and accusative singular are identical in form. Context tells you it is accusative here.

Yes, most naturally.

The sentence does not repeat the subject in the dum clause, so the understood subject is the same person being warned in context: the daughter.

So the sense is:

• the mother warns her daughter not to entangle the warp
• while the daughter is drawing the weft

Latin often leaves such subjects unexpressed when they are clear from context.

Because Latin verbs often contain enough information to identify the person and number of the subject.

• implicet = she may/should entangle in form, here with subjunctive force
• ducit = she draws

Latin can add pronouns for emphasis, but usually does not need them. If the subject is clear from the context, it is often left unstated.

Yes: it is natural Latin, but not fixed in an English-like way.

The sentence goes:

• Mater — subject first
• filiam — object of monet
• monet — main verb
• ne stamen implicet — what she warns her not to do
• dum subtemen ducit — the time clause

This order is quite clear and elegant. But Latin could rearrange many of these words without changing the basic meaning, because case endings and verb forms carry most of the grammar.

It is a very common Latin pattern:

• person
  • moneō
    • ne/ut
      • subjunctive

That means:

• warn/admonish someone not to do something
• or advise someone to do something

So this sentence is a good example of a standard construction worth memorizing:

• moneō aliquem ne + subjunctive = I warn someone not to...

Yes, though it would sound more literary than ordinary modern English.

• Mater filiam monet ne stamen implicet
  could be rendered as
  The mother warns her daughter lest she entangle the warp

But in normal English, a learner would more naturally say:

• The mother warns her daughter not to entangle the warp

So lest can help you see the grammar, but not to is usually the better everyday translation.