Nihil fideiussorem impedit quominus syngrapham obsignet.

Yes:

• nihil — nothing; a neuter singular substantive, functioning here as the subject
• fideiussorem — the guarantor / surety; accusative singular of fideiussor
• impedit — hinders, prevents; 3rd person singular present active indicative of impedire
• quominus — a conjunction used especially after verbs of hindering; here it means something like from ... -ing or that ... not
• syngrapham — the bond / written agreement / IOU; accusative singular of syngrapha
• obsignet — may seal / should seal / seal in this construction; 3rd person singular present active subjunctive of obsignare

So the structure is:

• main clause: nihil fideiussorem impedit
• subordinate clause: quominus syngrapham obsignet

Because it is the direct object of impedit.

Latin impedire works like English to hinder / prevent someone. The person being prevented is put in the accusative:

• impedit fideiussorem — it prevents the guarantor

So fideiussorem is not the subject. The subject is nihil.

It has two accusatives, but not as two objects of the same verb.

Each verb has its own object:

• impedit takes fideiussorem
• obsignet takes syngrapham

So this is not a special double-accusative construction. It is just:

• in the main clause, the guarantor is being prevented
• in the subordinate clause, the document is what he would seal

After verbs like impedire, prohibere, deterrere, Latin often uses quominus plus the subjunctive to express the action that is being prevented.

So:

• impedit quominus obsignet = prevents him from sealing

You should learn quominus here as a set construction, not by trying to translate each part mechanically every time.

A good practical rule is:

• verb of hindering + quominus + subjunctive

Because quominus clauses after verbs of hindering normally take the subjunctive.

So the subjunctive here does not mainly mean doubt or unreality. It is used because the grammar of the construction requires it.

Also, the tense is present subjunctive because the action of sealing is viewed as contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the present impedit:

• impedit ... quominus obsignet — prevents ... from sealing

If the main verb were past, you would expect the subjunctive tense to shift accordingly.

Because Latin usually expresses this idea with a full subordinate clause, not with an infinitive phrase.

English says:

• Nothing prevents the guarantor from sealing the document

Latin prefers:

• Nothing prevents the guarantor that he not seal the document
• more idiomatically, Nothing prevents the guarantor from sealing the document

So the English from sealing corresponds to Latin quominus ... obsignet.

This is a very common difference between Latin and English syntax.

Here it simply means nothing and serves as the subject of impedit.

So the sentence is built exactly like this:

• nothing — subject
• prevents — verb
• the guarantor — object

A learner sometimes wonders whether nihil might be adverbial, like in no way. Not here. It is a substantive word meaning nothing.

No problem at all. This is not a mistake and not an awkward double negative.

Even though quominus historically contains minus, in this construction it functions as a standard conjunction after verbs of hindering. So you should not read the sentence as if Latin were stacking negatives randomly.

The overall sense is the normal one:

• nothing prevents X from doing Y

So nihil ... quominus is perfectly natural Latin.

Fideiussor is a legal term. It means a surety, guarantor, or person who guarantees another’s obligation.

In Roman legal language, a fideiussor is someone who undertakes responsibility for another person’s debt or obligation. So this is not just a casual supporter or promiser; it is a fairly technical legal role.

Syngrapha is a Greek loanword used in Latin, especially in legal or commercial contexts.

It usually means a written agreement, bond, acknowledgment of debt, or similar formal document.

So syngrapham obsignare means something like:

• to seal the document
• to affix one’s seal to the bond
• in a looser legal-English rendering, to execute the document

The exact English choice depends on context, but the core idea is a formal written instrument.

Not exactly.

Obsignare means to seal, to seal up, or to affix a seal. In legal and documentary contexts, sealing can function somewhat like formal authentication, so in some translations it may come close to sign or execute. But the literal meaning is about a seal, not an ordinary handwritten signature.

So if you want the most literal sense here, think:

• to seal the bond/document

The word order is natural, but Latin is flexible.

This sentence begins with nihil, which gives immediate emphasis to nothing. Then comes the object fideiussorem, then the verb impedit, followed by the subordinate clause.

You could rearrange the words somewhat without changing the basic meaning, for example:

• Nihil impedit fideiussorem quominus syngrapham obsignet

That said, the given order is perfectly idiomatic and clear. Latin word order often serves emphasis and flow more than fixed grammatical position.