Nemo amicum fraudat.

Because nemo means no one / nobody, and in Latin it is grammatically singular. So the verb is singular too: fraudat.

A native English speaker may think of nobody as referring to many possible people, but Latin treats it as one singular subject for agreement purposes.

Amicum is accusative singular of amicus.

You can tell because:

• amicus = nominative singular, usually the subject
• amicum = accusative singular, usually the direct object

In this sentence, amicum is the person receiving the action of the verb, so it is in the accusative case.

Because amicus would make friend the subject, while amicum makes friend the object.

So:

• amicus fraudat = the friend deceives
• amicum fraudat = he/she deceives the friend

In Nemo amicum fraudat, nemo is the subject, so amicum has to be the object.

Fraudat is third person singular present active indicative of fraudare.

That means it is the normal present-tense form meaning deceives, cheats, or defrauds.

The ending -t is the usual marker for he/she/it in the present tense.

Because Latin has no articles. It has no separate words for a, an, or the.

So amicum can mean:

• a friend
• the friend

The context decides which English wording is best.

Not explicitly.

The Latin only says friend as the direct object. English may sometimes translate this as a friend or his friend, depending on context, but the Latin itself does not directly say whose friend it is.

If Latin wanted to say his own friend, it could say amicum suum.

Because Latin often likes to put the verb near the end of the sentence, especially in simple textbook-style sentences.

That does not mean Latin must always do this. Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order because the endings show what each word is doing.

So verb-final order is common, but not required.

Yes, often they could.

For example, these would still have the same basic meaning:

• Amicum nemo fraudat
• Nemo fraudat amicum
• Fraudat nemo amicum

The cases tell you the roles:

• nemo = subject
• amicum = object

Changing the order usually changes the emphasis, not the core meaning.

Because nemo already contains the negative idea. It already means no one or nobody.

So Nemo amicum fraudat already means a negative statement by itself. You do not need non.

In fact, adding non would change the construction and would not mean the same simple thing.

It can be understood as a general statement: Nobody deceives a friend.

The Latin present tense often works that way, especially in short moral or general statements. Depending on context, it could also describe a present situation, but by itself it sounds very much like a general principle.

It agrees with nemo, because verbs agree with the subject, not the object.

So even though amicum is close to the verb, it does not control the verb form. The subject is nemo, and that is why the verb is third person singular.

It means no one / nobody and can refer to people generally, not just males.

Even though some Latin words have grammatical gender or masculine-looking forms, in a sentence like this nemo is understood broadly as no person.