Latin 2 Quiz: Reparsing Complex Sentences
9 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Reparsing Complex SentencesQuestion 1 of 9

Milites quos dux in proelium miserat feminas quae trans flumen stabant vix videre poterant.

In the sentence above, what is the subject of 'poterant,' and what is the correct identification of the clause 'quos dux in proelium miserat'?

'Milites' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'milites,' with 'quos' as the accusative object of 'miserat.'
'Dux' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'feminas,' with 'quos' as the nominative subject of 'miserat.'
'Feminae' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is an indirect statement dependent on 'poterant,' with 'quos' as the accusative subject of the infinitive.
'Milites' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'feminas,' with 'quos' as the accusative object of 'miserat.'
← Back to quizzes

Latin 2 Quiz

Latin 2 Quiz: Reparsing Complex Sentences

Practice Reparsing Complex Sentences 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 Reparsing Complex Sentences, 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

Milites quos dux in proelium miserat feminas quae trans flumen stabant vix videre poterant.

In the sentence above, what is the subject of 'poterant,' and what is the correct identification of the clause 'quos dux in proelium miserat'?

  1. 'Milites' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'milites,' with 'quos' as the accusative object of 'miserat.' (correct answer)
  2. 'Dux' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'feminas,' with 'quos' as the nominative subject of 'miserat.'
  3. 'Feminae' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is an indirect statement dependent on 'poterant,' with 'quos' as the accusative subject of the infinitive.
  4. 'Milites' is the subject of 'poterant,' and 'quos dux in proelium miserat' is a relative clause modifying 'feminas,' with 'quos' as the accusative object of 'miserat.'
Explanation: When you encounter a complex Latin sentence like this, your first move should be to identify the main clause separately from any subordinate clauses embedded within it. Look for relative pronouns (qui, quae, quod) as signals that a relative clause has begun. The main clause here is Milites... feminas... vix videre poterant — "The soldiers were scarcely able to see the women." The subject of poterant (3rd person plural imperfect) must agree in number and person: milites (masculine nominative plural) fits perfectly. The embedded clause quos dux in proelium miserat is introduced by quos, a relative pronoun that must refer back to milites. Since quos is accusative and the verb miserat is transitive ("had sent"), quos logically functions as the direct object of miserat, with dux as the nominative subject. This makes A correct: milites is the subject of poterant, and quos dux in proelium miserat is a relative clause modifying milites with quos as the accusative object of miserat. B is wrong on two counts: dux is inside the subordinate clause and cannot be the subject of the main verb poterant, and quos is accusative, not nominative. C incorrectly names feminae as the subject — they appear only in the accusative (feminas) as the object of videre — and misidentifies the clause as an indirect statement, which would require an infinitive, not a finite verb (miserat). D correctly identifies milites as the subject but wrongly claims the relative clause modifies feminas — a relative clause must match its antecedent in gender, and quos is masculine, agreeing with milites, not feminine feminas. Study tip: Always check the gender and case of a relative pronoun to identify its antecedent — this instantly reveals which noun the clause modifies.

Question 2

Rex cui senatus pecuniam dederat bellum gerere constituit.

When reparsing this sentence to confirm subject–verb agreement and clause boundaries, a student must determine the subject of 'constituit' and the role of 'cui.' Which analysis is correct?

  1. 'Rex' is the subject of 'constituit'; 'cui' is dative singular, the indirect object of 'dederat,' introducing a relative clause modifying 'rex'; 'senatus' is the subject of 'dederat.' (correct answer)
  2. 'Senatus' is the subject of 'constituit'; 'cui' is dative singular, the indirect object of 'dederat,' introducing a relative clause modifying 'rex'; 'rex' is the subject of 'dederat.'
  3. 'Rex' is the subject of 'constituit'; 'cui' is ablative singular showing means, introducing a relative clause modifying 'senatus'; 'senatus' is the subject of 'dederat.'
  4. 'Rex' is the subject of 'constituit'; 'cui' is nominative singular functioning as the subject of 'dederat,' introducing a relative clause modifying 'rex'; 'senatus' is the indirect object of 'dederat.'
Explanation: When you encounter a complex Latin sentence like this, your first task is to identify the main clause and any embedded relative clauses before assigning grammatical roles. The sentence Rex cui senatus pecuniam dederat bellum gerere constituit contains a relative clause (cui senatus pecuniam dederat) embedded inside the main clause. The relative pronoun cui is dative singular — and because dare (to give) takes a dative indirect object, cui logically serves as the recipient of the giving. Ask yourself: who gave money to whom? The senate (senatus, nominative singular) gave money (pecuniam, accusative) to the king (cui, dative, referring back to rex). This makes senatus the subject of dederat. The relative clause modifies rex, which is the antecedent of cui. With the relative clause stripped away, the main clause reads Rex... bellum gerere constituit — the king decided to wage war — confirming rex as the subject of constituit. This is exactly what answer A describes, making it correct. Answer B fails because it swaps the subjects: senatus cannot be the subject of constituit (the king is clearly the one deciding to wage war, and rex is nominative in the main clause). Answer C misidentifies cui as ablative showing means — but cui is dative, and dare does not take an ablative of means for its recipient. Answer D incorrectly calls cui nominative and makes senatus the indirect object, which ignores that senatus is nominative and cui is dative by form and function. As a strategy, always resolve relative pronouns by their case function first, then trace back to their antecedent — don't let word order mislead you about which noun they modify.

Question 3

Nuntius qui ad urbem cucurrerat epistulam quam senator scripserat portabat.

A student reparsing this sentence identifies the boundaries of its two relative clauses. Which option correctly maps each relative clause to its antecedent and verb, and correctly identifies the subject of the main verb 'portabat'?

  1. 'Nuntius' is the subject of 'portabat'; 'qui … cucurrerat' modifies 'nuntius' with 'qui' as accusative object of 'cucurrerat'; 'quam … scripserat' modifies 'epistulam' with 'quam' as accusative object of 'scripserat.'
  2. 'Senator' is the subject of 'portabat'; 'qui … cucurrerat' modifies 'nuntius' with 'qui' as nominative subject of 'cucurrerat'; 'quam … scripserat' modifies 'epistulam' with 'quam' as nominative subject of 'scripserat.'
  3. 'Nuntius' is the subject of 'portabat'; 'qui … cucurrerat' modifies 'senator' with 'qui' as nominative subject of 'cucurrerat'; 'quam … scripserat' modifies 'epistulam' with 'quam' as accusative object of 'scripserat.'
  4. 'Nuntius' is the subject of 'portabat'; 'qui … cucurrerat' modifies 'nuntius' with 'qui' as nominative subject of 'cucurrerat'; 'quam … scripserat' modifies 'epistulam' with 'quam' as accusative object of 'scripserat.' (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a sentence with multiple relative clauses, your first job is to identify each relative pronoun, determine its case, and match it back to its antecedent noun. The case of the relative pronoun is determined by its function within its own clause — not by its antecedent. In this sentence, "qui ad urbem cucurrerat" is the first relative clause. "Qui" is masculine nominative singular, which tells you it functions as the subject of "cucurrerat." Its antecedent is "nuntius" (also masculine nominative singular), the noun it immediately follows and logically describes. The second relative clause, "quam senator scripserat," contains "quam" — feminine accusative singular — making it the direct object of "scripserat." Its antecedent is "epistulam" (feminine accusative), the letter the senator wrote. The main verb "portabat" (imperfect, third-person singular) needs a subject: "nuntius," the only nominative noun in the sentence, fills that role. This is answer D, the correct choice. Answer A incorrectly labels "qui" as accusative. "Cucurrerat" is intransitive (you run — you don't run something), so "qui" cannot be an accusative object; it must be the nominative subject. Answer B makes "senator" the subject of "portabat," but "senator" appears inside the relative clause "quam senator scripserat" — it's already functioning as the subject of "scripserat" and cannot simultaneously be the main clause's subject. Answer C claims "qui … cucurrerat" modifies "senator," but "qui" follows "nuntius" directly and agrees with it in gender and number — not with "senator." Study tip: Always check agreement (gender, number, case) between a relative pronoun and its antecedent, but determine the pronoun's case from its role inside the relative clause.

Question 4

Puer cuius pater in bello perierat tristis esse videbatur.

When reparsing this sentence, what is the correct grammatical analysis of 'cuius,' and what does it tell us about clause boundaries?

  1. 'Cuius' is genitive singular, modifying 'bello' as a possessive within the relative clause 'cuius pater in bello perierat'; the antecedent of 'cuius' is 'puer,' and 'puer' is the subject of 'videbatur.'
  2. 'Cuius' is dative singular, functioning as the indirect object of 'perierat' within the relative clause; the antecedent of 'cuius' is 'pater,' and 'pater' is the subject of 'videbatur.'
  3. 'Cuius' is genitive singular, modifying 'pater' as a possessive within the relative clause 'cuius pater in bello perierat'; the antecedent of 'cuius' is 'puer,' and 'puer' is the subject of 'videbatur.' (correct answer)
  4. 'Cuius' is nominative singular, functioning as the subject of 'perierat' within the relative clause; the antecedent of 'cuius' is 'pater,' and 'puer' is the subject of 'videbatur.'
Explanation: When you encounter a relative pronoun like cuius in Latin, your first job is to determine its case and then ask two questions: (1) what role does it play inside the relative clause, and (2) what noun outside the clause is its antecedent? Cuius is the genitive singular form of the relative pronoun qui/quae/quod. In this sentence, cuius pater in bello perierat, the genitive cuius functions as a possessive modifier of pater — essentially "whose father." The relative clause therefore means "whose father had perished in war." The antecedent of cuius is puer (the boy outside the clause), and puer serves as the subject of videbatur ("seemed to be sad") in the main clause. This makes C the correct answer. Answer A makes the same case identification (genitive singular) but claims cuius modifies bello — a mistake, since bello is ablative and already governed by the preposition in. There is no reason to attach a genitive possessive to it here. Answer B misidentifies the case entirely, calling cuius dative and treating it as an indirect object of perierat. Latin perire (to perish) does not take a dative object, and cuius is simply not a dative form. Answer D misidentifies cuius as nominative and the subject of perierat, but the subject of perierat is clearly pater, which is nominative. Cuius cannot also be nominative and subject. As a strategy, always identify the form first, then the function: case endings in Latin drive everything. With relative pronouns especially, confirming the antecedent outside the clause will prevent the most common mistakes.

Question 5

Servi qui dominum timebant opus quod eis imperatum erat celeriter fecerunt.

In this sentence, a student must correctly identify the subject of 'fecerunt' and parse the relative clause 'quod eis imperatum erat.' Which analysis is fully accurate?

  1. 'Servi' is the subject of 'fecerunt'; in 'quod eis imperatum erat,' 'quod' is accusative neuter singular functioning as the direct object of 'imperatum erat,' which is treated as an active verb, and 'eis' is dative indicating the persons commanded.
  2. 'Dominus' is the subject of 'fecerunt'; in 'quod eis imperatum erat,' 'quod' is nominative neuter singular functioning as the subject of 'imperatum erat,' and 'eis' is ablative of agent indicating who gave the order.
  3. 'Servi' is the subject of 'fecerunt'; in 'quod eis imperatum erat,' 'quod' is nominative neuter singular agreeing with 'opus,' functioning as the subject of the passive verb 'imperatum erat,' and 'eis' is dative indicating the persons commanded. (correct answer)
  4. 'Servi' is the subject of 'fecerunt'; in 'quod eis imperatum erat,' 'quod' is nominative neuter singular functioning as the subject of 'imperatum erat,' and 'eis' is accusative plural functioning as the direct object of 'imperatum erat.'
Explanation: When you encounter a sentence with a passive verb like imperatum erat inside a relative clause, your first job is to identify who's doing what — and to recognize that passive constructions in Latin reassign grammatical roles in ways that trip up many students. Start with the main clause: Servi qui dominum timebant opus fecerunt — "the slaves who feared their master did the work." Servi is nominative plural and is clearly the subject of fecerunt. Now zoom into the relative clause quod eis imperatum erat. The verb imperatum erat is a passive pluperfect (from impero), meaning "had been commanded/ordered." Because it's passive, it needs a nominative subject — and that subject is quod, a neuter singular nominative relative pronoun agreeing with its antecedent opus ("the work that had been ordered to them"). The dative eis represents the persons to whom the command was given, which is the standard construction with impero (a verb that takes the dative, not accusative, for the person commanded). This makes C correct. A is wrong on two counts: quod is not accusative here, and imperatum erat is passive, not active — there is no direct object to receive. B is wrong because dominus never appears in nominative form and has no grammatical basis to be the subject of fecerunt; additionally, eis as ablative of agent would require the preposition a/ab. D correctly identifies quod and eis's role partially, but calling eis accusative is wrong — impero governs the dative, never the accusative, for the person commanded. Your takeaway: always check whether a Latin verb governs dative or accusative for its object — impero is a classic dative verb, and confusing that will cascade into misreading entire clauses.

Question 6

Dux exercitum quem consul adiuverat et qui multas terras vicerat laudavit.

This sentence contains two relative clauses joined by 'et.' Which answer correctly identifies the antecedent and case function of both 'quem' and 'qui,' and correctly names the subject of the main verb 'laudavit'?

  1. 'Consul' is the subject of 'laudavit'; 'quem' is accusative singular, object of 'adiuverat,' modifying 'exercitum'; 'qui' is nominative singular, subject of 'vicerat,' modifying 'dux.'
  2. 'Dux' is the subject of 'laudavit'; 'quem' is accusative singular, object of 'adiuverat,' modifying 'exercitum'; 'qui' is nominative singular, subject of 'vicerat,' also modifying 'exercitum.' (correct answer)
  3. 'Dux' is the subject of 'laudavit'; 'quem' is nominative singular, subject of 'adiuverat,' modifying 'exercitum'; 'qui' is nominative singular, subject of 'vicerat,' also modifying 'exercitum.'
  4. 'Dux' is the subject of 'laudavit'; 'quem' is accusative singular, object of 'adiuverat,' modifying 'consulem'; 'qui' is nominative singular, subject of 'vicerat,' modifying 'exercitum.'
Explanation: When a Latin sentence contains multiple relative clauses, your first job is to identify each relative pronoun's form (case and number) and then match it to its antecedent by gender and number agreement. The case of the pronoun is determined by its function within its own clause, not by the antecedent. In this sentence, dux is the nominative subject performing the main action — dux laudavit, "the general praised." That eliminates A immediately, which incorrectly assigns consul as the subject of laudavit. Now look at quem: it is accusative masculine singular. Inside the clause quem consul adiuverat, it functions as the direct object of adiuverat ("which the consul had helped"). Its antecedent must be masculine accusative — that's exercitum. Then qui: it is nominative masculine singular, functioning as the subject of vicerat ("who had conquered many lands"). Its antecedent is also exercitum (masculine accusative as the object of laudavit, but masculine nominative in its own clause origin — the pronoun simply reflects its role). Both relative clauses modify exercitum, connected by et. This makes B correct. C is wrong because it calls quem nominative — but the -em ending is the clear accusative marker, not nominative. D is wrong because it claims quem modifies consulem, which doesn't appear in the sentence; consul is nominative, not accusative, and cannot be the antecedent of an accusative pronoun here. Study tip: Always decode a relative pronoun in two steps — identify its ending to find its case/function, then look for a noun of matching gender and number to find its antecedent. These are independent determinations.

Question 7

Puellae quae in horto ludebant matrem quae eas vocabat non audiverunt.

The sentence above contains two relative clauses. Which of the following correctly identifies the antecedent and grammatical role of each relative pronoun?

  1. The first 'quae' refers to 'puellae' and is nominative subject of 'ludebant'; the second 'quae' refers to 'matrem' and is nominative subject of 'vocabat.' (correct answer)
  2. The first 'quae' refers to 'matrem' and is nominative subject of 'ludebant'; the second 'quae' refers to 'puellae' and is nominative subject of 'vocabat.'
  3. The first 'quae' refers to 'puellae' and is accusative object of 'ludebant'; the second 'quae' refers to 'matrem' and is accusative object of 'vocabat.'
  4. The first 'quae' refers to 'puellae' and is nominative subject of 'ludebant'; the second 'quae' refers to 'matrem' and is accusative object of 'vocabat.'
Explanation: When you see a sentence with multiple relative clauses in Latin, your job is to do two things for each relative pronoun: (1) identify its antecedent — the noun it refers back to — and (2) determine its grammatical role inside its own clause. In this sentence, puellae quae in horto ludebant contains the first relative clause. The antecedent of quae is puellae (nominative plural feminine), and quae agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Inside the clause, quae is the subject of ludebant ("were playing"), making it nominative. Then matrem quae eas vocabat contains the second relative clause. Here the antecedent is matrem (accusative singular feminine), but quae is nominative inside its own clause — it is the subject of vocabat ("was calling"). The object of vocabat is actually eas (the girls), not quae. This makes A correct. B is wrong because it swaps the antecedents entirely — quae must agree with the noun it immediately follows and modifies, so the first quae cannot refer to matrem. C makes both pronouns accusative, which misreads their roles. Neither quae functions as an object here — both are subjects performing actions within their clauses. D is a tempting trap: it gets the first quae right but claims the second quae is accusative object of vocabat. However, eas already fills that object slot, so quae must be nominative subject. Study tip: Always determine a relative pronoun's case by its function inside its own clause — not by its antecedent's case. These can and often do differ.

Question 8

Philosophus de virtute cuius fructus omnes homines desiderant multa scripsit.

When reparsing this sentence to confirm clause boundaries, a student must determine what 'cuius' modifies and what the subject of the main verb 'scripsit' is. Which answer is correct?

  1. 'Philosophus' is the subject of 'scripsit'; 'cuius' is genitive singular modifying 'virtute' directly as a possessive, meaning 'of which philosopher'; the relative clause modifies 'philosophus' rather than 'virtute.'
  2. 'Philosophus' is the subject of 'scripsit'; 'cuius' is genitive singular modifying 'fructus' as a possessive within the relative clause, meaning 'the fruits of which virtue'; the relative clause 'cuius fructus omnes homines desiderant' modifies 'virtute.' (correct answer)
  3. 'Homines' is the subject of 'scripsit'; 'cuius' is genitive singular modifying 'fructus' as a possessive, meaning 'the fruits of which virtue'; the relative clause 'cuius fructus omnes homines desiderant' modifies 'virtute.'
  4. 'Philosophus' is the subject of 'scripsit'; 'cuius' is dative singular functioning as the indirect object of 'desiderant,' meaning 'for whom all men desire the fruit'; the relative clause 'cuius fructus omnes homines desiderant' modifies 'virtute.'
Explanation: When you encounter a relative pronoun like cuius in Latin, your first job is to identify its antecedent (what noun it refers back to) and its grammatical function within the relative clause (what role it plays there). These are two separate questions that students often conflate. Here, cuius is genitive singular. Ask yourself: what noun inside the relative clause does it logically possess? The clause contains fructus ("fruits") — and it makes perfect sense to say "the fruits of which virtue," making virtute the antecedent and cuius a genitive modifier of fructus. The full relative clause, then, is cuius fructus omnes homines desiderant ("whose fruits all men desire"), modifying virtute. The main clause is Philosophus... multa scripsit, with philosophus as the subject of scripsit. This is answer B, and it is correct. Answer A goes wrong by claiming cuius modifies virtute directly as a possessive and that the relative clause modifies philosophus — but philosophus has no logical connection to the relative pronoun's genitive role here, and the word order places the clause squarely beside virtute. Answer C incorrectly identifies homines as the subject of scripsit. Homines is nominative plural and the subject of desiderant within the relative clause — not the main verb. Answer D misidentifies cuius as dative, but cuius is genitive, not dative. Desiderant does not take an indirect object in this construction. Study tip: Always determine a relative pronoun's case by its function inside the relative clause, and find its antecedent outside the clause — never mix up these two steps.

Question 9

Feminae quas vir amabat et quae eum non amabant urbem reliquerunt.

This sentence contains a compound relative construction. Which of the following correctly parses the two relative clauses and identifies the subject of 'reliquerunt'?

  1. 'Feminae' is the subject of 'reliquerunt'; 'quas' is accusative plural, object of 'amabat,' modifying 'vir'; 'quae' is nominative plural, subject of 'amabant,' also modifying 'vir.'
  2. 'Vir' is the subject of 'reliquerunt'; 'quas' is accusative plural, object of 'amabat,' modifying 'feminae'; 'quae' is nominative plural, subject of 'amabant,' modifying 'vir.'
  3. 'Feminae' is the subject of 'reliquerunt'; 'quas' is nominative plural, subject of 'amabat,' modifying 'feminae'; 'quae' is accusative plural, object of 'amabant,' modifying 'feminae.'
  4. 'Feminae' is the subject of 'reliquerunt'; 'quas' is accusative plural, object of 'amabat,' modifying 'feminae'; 'quae' is nominative plural, subject of 'amabant,' also modifying 'feminae.' (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a compound relative construction in Latin, your first job is to identify the antecedent of each relative pronoun and determine its case by analyzing its function within its own clause. In this sentence, feminae is the main subject and urbem reliquerunt ("left the city") is the main verb phrase. The two relative clauses — quas vir amabat and quae eum non amabant — both modify feminae, describing which women left. Now parse each pronoun carefully. Quas is feminine accusative plural, which tells you it functions as the object inside its clause: the man (vir, nominative) loved them (quas). Quae is feminine nominative plural, which tells you it functions as the subject inside its clause: they (quae) did not love him (eum, accusative). Both pronouns refer back to feminae as their antecedent. This confirms D is correct: feminae is the subject of reliquerunt, quas is accusative modifying feminae, and quae is nominative also modifying feminae. Choice A fails because it claims quae modifies vir — but vir is masculine, and quae here is feminine plural, so it cannot refer to him. Choice B incorrectly makes vir the subject of reliquerunt, which contradicts the plural verb ending and the overall logic of the passage. Choice C swaps the cases of the two pronouns, claiming quas is nominative and quae is accusative — a direct reversal that ignores Latin's case-ending system. Your study tip: always confirm a relative pronoun's case by its function inside the relative clause, not by its antecedent. The antecedent determines gender and number; the function inside the clause determines case.