Latin 2 Quiz: Identifying And Translating Main Clauses
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Identifying And Translating Main ClausesQuestion 1 of 10

Cum milites in castra rediissent, dux epistulam quam legatus miserat legit.

Which of the following best identifies the main clause of the sentence above and renders it accurately in English?

"cum milites in castra rediissent" — 'when the soldiers had returned to the camp,' because it sets up the temporal context and the subjunctive rediissent signals that this clause governs the meaning of the rest of the sentence
"dux epistulam legit" — 'the general read the letter,' because this is the independent clause containing the main finite verb (legit) and is not introduced by any subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun
"quam legatus miserat" — 'which the envoy had sent,' because the relative clause modifies the direct object and therefore carries the sentence's central action, making it the grammatical core
"dux epistulam quam legatus miserat legit" — 'the general read the letter which the envoy had sent,' because the main clause must include all words not introduced by a subordinating conjunction such as cum
← Back to quizzes

Latin 2 Quiz

Latin 2 Quiz: Identifying And Translating Main Clauses

Practice Identifying And Translating Main Clauses in Latin 2 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Identifying And Translating Main Clauses, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Latin 2.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Cum milites in castra rediissent, dux epistulam quam legatus miserat legit.

Which of the following best identifies the main clause of the sentence above and renders it accurately in English?

  1. "cum milites in castra rediissent" — 'when the soldiers had returned to the camp,' because it sets up the temporal context and the subjunctive rediissent signals that this clause governs the meaning of the rest of the sentence
  2. "dux epistulam legit" — 'the general read the letter,' because this is the independent clause containing the main finite verb (legit) and is not introduced by any subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun (correct answer)
  3. "quam legatus miserat" — 'which the envoy had sent,' because the relative clause modifies the direct object and therefore carries the sentence's central action, making it the grammatical core
  4. "dux epistulam quam legatus miserat legit" — 'the general read the letter which the envoy had sent,' because the main clause must include all words not introduced by a subordinating conjunction such as cum
Explanation: When analyzing a Latin sentence's structure, your first task is to identify the main clause — the independent clause that can stand alone grammatically. Look for the finite verb that is not controlled by a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun. In this sentence, legit ("read," perfect indicative active, third person singular) is the finite verb standing free of any subordination. It belongs to dux epistulam legit — "the general read the letter" — making B the correct answer. Nothing introduces this clause to make it dependent; it is the grammatical backbone around which everything else is arranged. Choice A mistakes the cum-clause for the main clause. The conjunction cum with the pluperfect subjunctive rediissent creates a subordinate temporal clause ("when the soldiers had returned to the camp"). Subordinating conjunctions like cum explicitly signal dependence — this clause cannot stand alone, so it cannot be the main clause. The subjunctive here is a result of subordination, not a sign of importance or governance. Choice C confuses a relative clause with the main clause. Quam legatus miserat is introduced by the relative pronoun quam and modifies epistulam; it is a subordinate adjective clause, not the core of the sentence. Choice D is tempting but misunderstands clause boundaries. While dux epistulam quam legatus miserat legit is a valid translation, it conflates the main clause with an embedded relative clause. The main clause specifically is dux epistulam legit; the relative clause is nested inside it, not part of it. Study tip: When identifying the main clause, eliminate every word introduced by a subordinating conjunction (cum, quia, si) or relative pronoun (qui, quae, quod) — what remains is your main clause.

Question 2

Quamquam via longa erat, mercatores ad urbem iter fecerunt ut merces venderent.

Which portion of the sentence above constitutes the main clause, and what is the most accurate English rendering of that clause alone?

  1. 'quamquam via longa erat' — 'although the road was long,' since the concessive idea introduced by quamquam provides the logical foundation that motivates everything else in the sentence
  2. 'mercatores ad urbem iter fecerunt' — 'the merchants made the journey to the city,' since this is the independent clause with a main indicative verb, unintroduced by any subordinating word (correct answer)
  3. 'ut merces venderent' — 'so that they might sell their goods,' since the purpose clause expresses the merchants' ultimate goal and therefore represents the most important information in the sentence
  4. 'via longa erat mercatores iter fecerunt' — 'the road was long; the merchants made the journey,' since both verbs are indicative and therefore both clauses share equal status as main clauses
Explanation: When analyzing a Latin sentence, your first task is always to identify the main clause — the independent backbone that can stand alone grammatically. The key signal is a finite verb with no subordinating conjunction introducing it. In this sentence, three distinct clauses compete for your attention. The main clause is "mercatores ad urbem iter fecerunt" — "the merchants made the journey to the city." The verb fecerunt is a perfect indicative active, and crucially, no subordinating word introduces this clause. It stands alone, making B the correct answer. Now consider why the distractors fail. A misidentifies quamquam via longa erat as the foundation of the sentence. While quamquam ("although") does set up important context, it is itself a subordinating conjunction, which by definition makes the clause it introduces a dependent concessive clause — it cannot stand alone. The logical importance of an idea does not determine its grammatical independence. C points to ut merces venderent ("so that they might sell their goods"). The conjunction ut paired with a subjunctive verb (venderent) is the classic signature of a purpose clause — always subordinate, always dependent on a main clause. Expressing the ultimate goal does not make a clause grammatically independent. D is tempting because both erat and fecerunt are indicative, but indicative mood alone does not make a clause independent. The word quamquam subordinates erat regardless of its mood. Your study tip: always scan for subordinating conjunctions (quamquam, ut, cum, si, etc.) before labeling any clause as "main." If a conjunction introduces it, it's subordinate — full stop.

Question 3

Pueri, quos magister laudaverat, laeti domum cucurrerunt.

Which of the following English translations most faithfully preserves the syntactic hierarchy of the Latin sentence above by keeping the main clause's idea primary?

  1. 'The boys, whom the teacher had praised, ran home happily' — the main idea 'the boys ran home happily' is foregrounded as the independent English clause, while the relative clause is embedded as a non-restrictive modifier, accurately reflecting the Latin structure. (correct answer)
  2. 'Having been praised by the teacher, the happy boys ran home' — the participial phrase replaces the relative clause, which alters the syntactic relationship and obscures the fact that magister is the explicit grammatical subject of the original subordinate clause.
  3. 'The teacher had praised the boys, who then happily ran home' — this reorders the sentence so that the relative clause's action ('the teacher praised') becomes the main English verb, inverting the subordination hierarchy present in the Latin.
  4. 'The boys ran home happily because they had been praised by the teacher' — converting the relative clause to a causal clause adds an explicit logical relationship (causation) not grammatically encoded in the Latin, distorting the syntactic hierarchy of the original.
Explanation: When translating Latin, always ask yourself: which clause carries the main action, and which is subordinate? In the original sentence, cucurrerunt ("ran") is the main verb in the independent clause — "the boys ran home happily" — while laudaverat ("had praised") lives inside a relative clause introduced by quos. A faithful translation preserves this hierarchy: the main Latin clause should become the main English clause. Choice A does exactly this. "The boys ran home happily" functions as the independent English clause, and "whom the teacher had praised" remains embedded as a non-restrictive relative modifier — a structural match with the Latin original. This is your correct answer. Choice B swaps the relative clause for a participial phrase ("having been praised"), which technically conveys similar meaning but dissolves the explicit subordinate clause structure. Crucially, magister was the grammatical subject of the Latin relative clause; converting it to a passive participial phrase buries that subject entirely. Choice C is a hierarchy inversion trap. By making "the teacher had praised the boys" the main English clause, it promotes what was subordinate in Latin (laudaverat) to primary status — the opposite of what the Latin encodes. Choice D introduces causation ("because they had been praised") that simply doesn't exist in the Latin syntax. The relative clause quos magister laudaverat identifies the boys; it does not explain why they ran. Adding "because" imports a logical relationship foreign to the original. Study tip: When evaluating translations of complex Latin sentences, locate the main verb first — that action must anchor the main English clause. Any option that elevates a subordinate verb to main-clause status is syntactically unfaithful.

Question 4

Dum Romani muros aedificabant, Hannibal, qui trans Alpis transierat, in Italiam descendit.

How many subordinate clauses does the sentence above contain, and which clause is the main clause?

  1. Two subordinate clauses ('dum Romani muros aedificabant' and 'qui trans Alpis transierat'); the main clause is 'Hannibal in Italiam descendit,' which contains the primary finite verb and is not introduced by any subordinating word. (correct answer)
  2. One subordinate clause ('dum Romani muros aedificabant'); the main clause is 'Hannibal qui trans Alpis transierat in Italiam descendit,' because the relative clause is part of the main clause's subject description and must be counted with it.
  3. Two subordinate clauses ('dum Romani muros aedificabant' and 'qui trans Alpis transierat'); the main clause is 'dum Romani muros aedificabant,' since it provides the temporal frame and is therefore the clause on which the others logically depend.
  4. Three subordinate clauses ('dum Romani muros aedificabant,' 'qui trans Alpis transierat,' and 'in Italiam descendit'); 'Hannibal' alone is the main clause since it is the only element not embedded within another structure.
Explanation: When analyzing Latin sentence structure, your first job is to identify every finite verb and ask: what word introduced this clause? Each subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun signals a subordinate clause; whatever remains — the finite verb with no subordinating introduction — is your main clause. In this sentence, there are three finite verbs: aedificabant, transierat, and descendit. Work backward from their introducers. Dum ("while") is a subordinating conjunction, so dum Romani muros aedificabant is a temporal subordinate clause. Qui ("who") is a relative pronoun, so qui trans Alpis transierat is a relative subordinate clause modifying Hannibal. That leaves descendit — introduced by nothing at all. Its clause, Hannibal in Italiam descendit, is the main clause. This makes answer A correct: two subordinate clauses, with the main clause built around descendit. Answer B is tempting because relative clauses do describe a noun in the main clause, but "describing a noun" doesn't collapse the relative clause into the main clause — it is still its own subordinate clause with its own finite verb, introduced by a relative pronoun. Answer C commits a logical error: the temporal clause sets the scene, but logical importance has nothing to do with grammatical rank. The main clause is defined by syntax, not by which idea matters most. Answer D confuses an infinitive phrase or prepositional phrase with a clause; in Italiam descendit is not a separate clause — it is part of the main clause's predicate. Your quick checklist: count finite verbs → identify each clause's introducing word → the clause with no subordinating introduction is your main clause.

Question 5

Nemo scit cur philosophus, qui multos annos docuerat, urbem reliquerit.

Which of the following correctly identifies the main clause of the sentence above AND explains why the verb form in that clause is appropriate for a main clause?

  1. 'nemo scit' — 'no one knows,' a third-person singular present indicative active (scit from scio); it is the main clause because it is not introduced by any subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun, and its indicative mood marks it as a direct, independent assertion standing alone grammatically. (correct answer)
  2. 'philosophus urbem reliquerit' — 'the philosopher left the city,' a perfect subjunctive; it is the main clause because the perfect subjunctive can function as a main verb when the subject is further described and emphasized by a relative clause.
  3. 'cur philosophus urbem reliquerit' — 'why the philosopher left the city,' a perfect subjunctive in an indirect question; it is the main clause because indirect questions always contain the sentence's core informational content and therefore take syntactic priority.
  4. 'philosophus qui multos annos docuerat urbem reliquerit' — 'the philosopher who had taught for many years left the city,' because the relative clause and the indirect-question clause together form a compound main clause centered on the philosopher as subject.
Explanation: When analyzing a Latin sentence, your first job is to identify the main clause — the independent backbone that can stand alone grammatically. Look for a verb in the indicative mood with no subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun pulling it into dependency. In this sentence, nemo scit ("no one knows") is that backbone. Scit is third-person singular present indicative active from scio, and it carries no subordinating word introducing it. It makes a direct, independent assertion — exactly what a main clause does. Everything else in the sentence depends on it: cur philosophus urbem reliquerit is an indirect question (triggered by cur) serving as the object of scit, and qui multos annos docuerat is a relative clause modifying philosophus. Answer A correctly identifies both the clause and the reason its indicative verb signals independence. Answer B is wrong because philosophus urbem reliquerit is embedded inside an indirect question introduced by cur — it cannot be a main clause. Subjunctive verbs in indirect questions are grammatically dependent by design, not independent assertions. Answer C makes a similar error: the indirect question cur philosophus urbem reliquerit is the object of scit, not the main clause. The claim that indirect questions "take syntactic priority" is simply false — they are subordinate noun clauses. Answer D invents a "compound main clause" by mashing together subordinate elements, which is not how Latin clause structure works; subordinate clauses cannot combine to form an independent main clause. As a study tip: whenever you see subjunctive verbs in Latin, ask yourself why they're subjunctive — the answer almost always points to a subordinate construction (purpose, result, indirect question, etc.) and rules them out as main clauses.

Question 6

Antequam pax facta est, multi cives, ne ab hostibus caperentur, ex urbe fugerunt.

Which of the following correctly isolates the main clause of the sentence above and translates it without importing meaning from the subordinate clauses?

  1. 'antequam pax facta est' — 'before peace was made'; this is the main clause because the antequam clause states the primary chronological anchor of the sentence and all other actions are understood relative to it.
  2. 'ne ab hostibus caperentur' — 'lest they be captured by the enemy'; this is the main clause because the negative purpose clause with the subjunctive expresses the citizens' primary motivation and thus the central meaning of the sentence.
  3. 'multi cives ex urbe fugerunt' — 'many citizens fled from the city'; this is the main clause because it contains the main finite indicative verb (fugerunt) and is not introduced by any subordinating conjunction or negative purpose particle. (correct answer)
  4. 'multi cives ne ab hostibus caperentur fugerunt' — 'many citizens fled lest they be captured'; this is the main clause because the purpose clause is so tightly bound to the verb fugerunt that both must be considered together as a single main unit.
Explanation: When identifying the main clause of a Latin sentence, your job is to find the clause that could stand alone as a complete, grammatically independent statement — one with a finite indicative verb and no subordinating element introducing it. In this sentence, fugerunt (they fled) is a third-person plural perfect indicative active verb, and it is not introduced by any subordinating conjunction or particle. The subject multi cives and the prepositional phrase ex urbe belong naturally to it. Stripping away the subordinate clauses, you get multi cives ex urbe fugerunt — "many citizens fled from the city" — a complete, self-sufficient statement. That makes C the correct answer. A is wrong because antequam pax facta est is introduced by the subordinating conjunction antequam ("before"), which by definition marks a subordinate temporal clause, not a main clause. The fact that it provides chronological context does not grant it independence. B is wrong because ne ab hostibus caperentur is a negative purpose clause — the particle ne plus the subjunctive mood (caperentur) are the twin markers of subordination. Purpose clauses are always subordinate; they answer why the main action happened, but they cannot stand alone. D is a clever trap: it folds the purpose clause into the main clause on the grounds that purpose and action are semantically inseparable. But grammatical independence is determined by structure, not meaning. Ne ab hostibus caperentur remains subordinate regardless of how tightly it relates to fugerunt. Study tip: On Latin clause-identification questions, always look for the finite indicative verb that has no subordinating conjunction, relative pronoun, or mood-based particle in front of it — that's your main clause.

Question 7

Si consul aderit, senatus leges quas populus poscebat confirmabit.

A student claims that the main clause of the sentence above is 'leges quas populus poscebat confirmabit' because it contains the future-tense verb that expresses the sentence's outcome. Which response best evaluates this claim?

  1. The student is correct: a future-tense verb always signals the main clause in Latin, and any clause without a future verb is automatically subordinate regardless of other grammatical markers.
  2. The student is partially correct: 'confirmabit' is indeed a main verb, but the full main clause should be identified as 'senatus leges confirmabit,' since the relative clause 'quas populus poscebat' is subordinate and must be excluded from the core identification of the main clause. (correct answer)
  3. The student is incorrect: 'si consul aderit' is the main clause because the conditional protasis introduced by si governs the logical structure of the whole sentence and therefore represents the primary assertion on which the outcome depends.
  4. The student is incorrect: because aderit is also a future-tense verb, 'si consul aderit' and 'senatus leges confirmabit' are co-equal main clauses, and the student should have listed both rather than selecting only one of them.
Explanation: When analyzing complex Latin sentences, your first task is to identify clause boundaries — distinguishing the main clause from all subordinate clauses embedded within it. Two common subordinate structures appear here: a conditional protasis (introduced by si) and a relative clause (introduced by quas). The student correctly identifies confirmabit as the main verb — it carries the sentence's primary assertion, the apodosis of the conditional. However, the student's boundary-drawing is too broad. The phrase quas populus poscebat is a relative clause modifying leges, making it subordinate. Strip it away and you get the actual main clause skeleton: senatus leges confirmabit — subject, object, verb. That's why B is correct: the student's instinct about confirmabit is right, but the main clause should be defined as senatus leges confirmabit, excluding the embedded relative clause. A is wrong because tense alone never determines clause type. Subordinate clauses in Latin routinely use future or future perfect verbs (especially in conditions), so "future tense = main clause" is a false rule. C has the logic exactly backwards: the si-clause is by definition the protasis — a subordinate conditional clause. It sets up a condition; it does not make the primary assertion. Calling it the main clause confuses logical dependency with grammatical primacy. D is wrong because the si explicitly marks si consul aderit as subordinate. Two future-tense verbs do not automatically create two co-equal main clauses. Your study tip: always identify subordinate clause markers (si, qui/quae/quod, cum, ut, etc.) first — they tell you what to exclude before you define the main clause.

Question 8

Tam sapienter oravit orator ut iudices, qui primo recusaverant, sententiam mutarent.

Which of the following statements is true about the main clause of the sentence above AND the challenge it poses for an accurate English translation?

  1. 'tam sapienter oravit orator ut iudices sententiam mutarent' is the main clause, because in a tam…ut construction the two halves are co-equal main clauses joined by a correlative pair, and translating only one half would omit part of the primary assertion.
  2. 'ut iudices sententiam mutarent' is the main clause ('so that the judges changed their verdict'), because it contains the finite verb describing the actual outcome; translating it as a purpose clause rather than a main clause would misrepresent the sentence's most important information.
  3. 'iudices qui primo recusaverant sententiam mutarent' is the main clause, because stripping the relative clause from the result clause reveals mutarent as an unsubordinated subjunctive verb that outranks tam sapienter oravit in the sentence's hierarchy.
  4. 'orator tam sapienter oravit' is the main clause ('the orator spoke so wisely'), but translating it in isolation risks making 'tam' appear to be a simple intensifier ('very wisely') rather than the correlative that signals an upcoming result clause introduced by 'ut.' (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a tam…ut construction in Latin, recognize immediately that you're dealing with a result clause: tam ("so") intensifies an adverb or adjective in the main clause and signals that a consequence follows in the subordinate ut clause. Your job is to identify which half is the main clause and which is subordinate — and then think about what gets lost if you translate the main clause alone. The main clause here is "orator tam sapienter oravit" — "the orator spoke so wisely." This is correct answer D. The verb oravit is indicative and unsubordinated, making it the sentence's anchor. The translation challenge is subtle but real: tam by itself looks like it could simply mean "very," the way a student might casually render tam sapienter as "very wisely." But tam is a correlative, not a plain intensifier — it points forward to the ut clause and promises a result is coming. Translating the main clause in isolation erases that forward-pointing function entirely. A is wrong because tam…ut is not a pair of co-equal main clauses — the ut clause is subordinate (a result clause with a subjunctive verb), not a coordinate partner. B is wrong because the ut clause is precisely the subordinate result clause; mutarent is subjunctive because it depends on the main clause, making it the less central of the two. C is wrong because stripping the relative clause from a subordinate result clause does not "liberate" mutarent into an independent verb — it remains subjunctive and subordinate regardless. Study tip: Whenever you spot tam/ita/adeo + ut + subjunctive, label the ut clause as subordinate immediately, then ask yourself what the correlative signals — this prevents you from misreading tam as a simple intensifier.

Question 9

Omnes qui Romae habitabant gaudebant quod imperator victoriam nuntiaverat.

A student translates the sentence above as: 'Because the emperor had announced the victory, all who lived in Rome rejoiced.' Which of the following best assesses the translation's handling of the main clause?

  1. The translation is accurate because quod can introduce either a causal clause or an independent assertion; in this sentence it introduces an independent clause, so 'the emperor had announced the victory' correctly functions as a co-equal main clause alongside 'all rejoiced.'
  2. The translation is flawed because placing the quod clause first gives it undue prominence, making 'because the emperor had announced the victory' sound like the primary idea; even if the grammar is technically correct, the informational hierarchy of the Latin is obscured.
  3. The translation is flawed because 'quod imperator victoriam nuntiaverat' is the main clause in Latin, and rendering it with 'because' incorrectly subordinates what should be the primary English verb, reversing the Latin structure entirely.
  4. The translation is accurate and preserves the hierarchy: 'all who lived in Rome rejoiced' is the main English clause, and fronting the quod clause is acceptable because English subordinate clauses may appear in any position without changing their syntactic rank. (correct answer)
Explanation: When translating Latin into English, your job isn't just to convert words — it's to preserve the syntactic hierarchy: which clause is grammatically dominant, and which is subordinate. This question tests whether you understand that a clause's position in English doesn't change its rank. In the Latin sentence, gaudebant ("they rejoiced") carries the main verb, and quod imperator victoriam nuntiaverat is a subordinate causal clause explaining why they rejoiced. The student's translation renders this correctly: "all who lived in Rome rejoiced" remains the main English clause, and "because the emperor had announced the victory" is the subordinate clause — even though it appears first in the sentence. Fronting a subordinate clause is standard English style and does not demote the main clause. D is correct because the grammatical hierarchy is fully preserved regardless of word order. A is wrong because it misidentifies the quod clause as an independent clause. In this sentence, quod is clearly causal and subordinate, not a coordinating connector introducing a main clause. C makes the opposite error — it claims quod imperator victoriam nuntiaverat is the main clause in Latin, which is false; gaudebant holds that role. B is the trickiest distractor: it acknowledges the grammar is technically correct but penalizes the translation anyway for "informational hierarchy." This is a trap. Syntactic rank in English is determined by clause structure, not by sentence position — fronting a subordinate clause doesn't make it "primary." Study tip: Always ask yourself, "Which verb is the main verb in Latin?" — that clause must remain the main clause in English, no matter where you place it in the sentence.

Question 10

Postquam hostes urbem ceperunt, cives qui in foro manserant fugerunt.

A student translates the sentence above as: 'The citizens who remained in the forum fled after the enemies captured the city.' Which statement correctly evaluates whether the student's translation keeps the main idea of the Latin sentence clear?

  1. The translation is flawed because it buries the main clause by placing the postquam clause first in Latin; a faithful translation must also begin with the postquam clause to mirror the Latin word order precisely.
  2. The translation is acceptable but incomplete because it omits the relative clause 'qui in foro manserant,' which is actually the grammatical core of the sentence and should be foregrounded.
  3. The translation successfully foregrounds the main clause: 'the citizens…fled' (fugerunt) stands as the grammatical and informational core, with the postquam clause and the relative clause rendered as subordinate modifiers, matching the Latin structure. (correct answer)
  4. The translation is flawed because 'fugerunt' is a subordinate verb controlled by 'postquam,' so the student should have made 'ceperunt' the main verb of the English sentence to reflect the true main clause.
Explanation: When evaluating a Latin-to-English translation, your job is to identify the main clause versus subordinate clauses and check whether the translation preserves that hierarchy. Every Latin sentence has one main verb that carries the primary action — everything else modifies or sets up that core idea. In this sentence, the structure breaks down as follows: postquam hostes urbem ceperunt is a subordinate temporal clause ("after the enemies captured the city"), qui in foro manserant is a subordinate relative clause modifying cives ("who remained in the forum"), and fugerunt is the main verb — the grammatical heart of the sentence. The student's translation, "The citizens who remained in the forum fled after the enemies captured the city," correctly places "fled" as the central action, with both subordinate clauses functioning as modifiers. That's exactly what C describes, making it the right answer. Answer A is wrong because faithful translation does not require mirroring Latin word order into English. Latin and English have different conventions; what matters is preserving grammatical relationships, not surface order. Answer B is wrong because the relative clause qui in foro manserant is not the "grammatical core" — it's a subordinate modifier of cives. Calling it the foregrounded element reflects a fundamental misreading of clause hierarchy. Answer D is wrong because fugerunt is not subordinate to postquam — it's the opposite. Ceperunt lives inside the postquam clause; fugerunt is the independent main verb. A quick study tip: whenever you identify a postquam, cum, ubi, or qui/quae/quod clause, mentally bracket it as subordinate — the main verb is always outside those constructions.