Matthew, try to fix the errors I spotted in your previous exercise.
Yes
Q) versu nonagesima septem:
A) versus nonagintaseptem
Q) Per temporem longum conatus sum ut adietivi subiectivique concurrant!
A) tempus, temporis, 3rd declension, neuter in which the singular accusative duplicates the singular nominative,therefore: per tempus lognum conatus sum…
Per tempus longum conatus sum ut adietivi subiectivique concurrant.
When “adiectivi” and “subjectivi”, nouns in the plural nominative, are put with a transitive verb, must there be an object? What I wanted to say: I took a long time to have agreement of subject and adjective.
I guess you tried to translate adjective and subject into Latin. Although they derive from Latin, your translation is not correct. You may want to use this dictionary.
PS
Per longum tempus → Longe (more elegant)
concurrant —> Wrong. See example in Smith at the end of the voice “agree”
In general, it is too early for you to discuss grammar in Latin. You should start with something easier. I recommend you join the conversation about the weather in the Agora.
What’s the weather today? (Latine)
Q) Horae diei sunt duodecimus.
A) Horae diei sunt duodecim
Q) Hora sexta diem divitit induas partes: ante meridiem et post meridiem.
A) Hora sexta diei dividit in duas partes.
Q) Novus annus incipit ab eo die qui dicitur kalendae Ianurariae.
A) Novus annus incipit ab eo die qui dicitur kalendae Ianurariae
Q) Sol stella clarissimus est.
A) Sol stella clarissima est
Q) Ianurarius mensis primus est. and “Ianuarius” agrees with “mensis” in number and gender…?
A) (Mensis, is and Ianuarius, a um) [Lewis and Short, Tufts]
(Januario mense cura ut Romae sis) [Lewis and Short, Tufts]
Take care that you be in Rome in the month of January.
Q) Mane est inintium diei, vesper finis diei est et initium nocte.
A) Mane est initium diei, vesper finis diei est et initium noctis
Q) Ianuario a deo Iano nominatus est.
A) Ianuarius a deo Iano nominatus est.
Q) A quo mensis Iulius nomen habet?
A) A quo mense Julius nomen habet?
Q)
CAPITULUM TREDECIM
Q) Hora sexta diei dividit in duas partes.
A) Horae dividunt diem, hora sexta diem dividit in duas partes.
Q) Novus annus incipit ab eo die qui dicitur kalendae Ianurariae
A) ?? Pagina septemnonaginta: “…‘kalendae Ianuariae’; is dies anni primus est atque initium anni novi.”
nonaginta septem
Holy smokes…how blind can I be??
nonaginta septem.
You can also have septem et nonaginta (cfr. sieben und neunzig in German), but you need to insert et.
CAPITULUM QUATTUORDECIM
Puer dormiens nihil audit. Davus puerum dormientem excitat: in aurem pueri dormientis clamat: Marce! Marcus oculos apertit servum apud lectum stantem videt. Servus puero frigenti vestimenta dat. Parentes filium intrantem salutant et a filio intrante salutantur. Filius discedit, Vale inquit. Corpus valens non dolet. Medicus caput dolens sanare non potest. Pisces sunt animalia natantes.
Pueri in lectis cubant. Alter puer dormit, alter vigilat; alter valens, alter aegrotat. Uter puer aegrotat, Marcusne an Quintus? Quintus aegrotat.
Servus dormientem excitat et ei aquam dat. Marcus e lecto surgit et primum manus lavat, deinde faciem. Puer vestimenta a servo poscit, et primum tunicam induit, deinde togam. Iam puer nudus non est. Viro togato bracchium dextrum nudum est. Davus Marcum secum venire iubet: Veni Marce!
Marcus Medum, qui cum eo ire solet, non videt. Medus ire cum Marco solet. Medus libros et ceteras res Marci portare solet, Marcus ipse nullam portare solet praeter malum. Hodie, inquit Julius, Medus tecum ire non potest. Marcus solus abit librum et regulam et stilum et tabulam ferens.
Errors in bold.
Moreover, if you use parataxis, you need to include a conjunction before servum apud lectum stantem videt
This is true also for Vale inquit
CAPITULUM QUATTUORDECIM
Q) Marcus oculos apertit servum apud lectum stantem videt.
A) Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt.
Q) Pisces sunt animalia natantes
A) Pisces sunt animalia natalitates
Q) Alter puer dormit, alter vigilat; alter valens, alter aegrotat.
A) Alter puer dormit, alter vigilat; alter valet, alter aegrotat.
Either you use hypotaxis (i.e., the participle) and don’t use the conjunction or you use parataxis (i.e, the indicative) and you use the conjuction
natalitates is not Latin
Q) Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt.
Either you use hypotaxis (i.e., the participle) and don’t use the conjunction or you use parataxis (i.e, the indicative) and you use the conjuction.
aperire, aperio, aperui, apertum
A) Marcus oculos aperit, not apertit…which, according to L.S. does not occur as a Latin word. Hypotaxis seems to be a device used to convey images in poetry by means of following clauses or phrases with less significance than a main clause which they modify and which device does not involve the use of conjunctions and the absence of conjunctions in following clauses contributes to increasing possibility of these for the image of the main clause. But Marcus oculos aperit servum apud lectum stantem videt is too simple, too indicative (hypotaxis) for my over-thinking and complicated mind and the sentence is simply indicative and if only I had spelled “aperit” correctly I would have lost the opportunity to think about hypotaxis without conjunctions for clauses unequal to the main which contribute to the main versus parataxis with conjunctions for clauses contributing to the main following an indicative verb.
Q) Pisces sunt animalia natalitates
A) natatilis
Well, no. 
Forget about parataxis and hypotaxis. It’s only making things more complicated. You may either write
Julius magistrum videns eum salutat
or
Julius magistrum videt et eum salutat.
Do you see the difference? Do you understand what is wrong with your Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt? Can you fix it? Your pick.
Second, an adjective should agree with the substantive in gender, number, and case. Can you fix natatilis?
Seeing the magistrate, Julius greets him.
Julius sees the magistrate and greets him.
If I were not to consider the definitions you proposed, these might not have been suggested. But it is really definitions I want or I wouldn’t be here. I intend to train my thinking. I am not afraid of making mistakes.
Q) Do you understand what is wrong with your Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt?
Well, no.
Forget about parataxis and hypotaxis. It’s only making things more complicated. You may either write
Julius magistrum videns eum salutat
or
Julius magistrum videt et eum salutat.
Do you see the difference? Do you understand what is wrong with your Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt?
A) In the first sentence the conjunction is not used. The active participle works as an adjective for “Julius” and it takes the direct object “magistrum”. “Julius eum salutat” is independent. “…magistrum videns” is an adjectival clause for its antecedent “Julius”. “In Marcus oculos aperiens et servum apud lectum stantem videt” the coordinating conjunction must not be used because those conjunctions join words and sentences grammatically independent of each other. “Marcus aperiens oculos” is not independent as the nouns and the participle in that clause would only make the subject of some sentence. “servum apud lectum stantem videt” is independent, the subject provided in the third person of the verb which takes a direct object with its active participle adjectve. Mark may be opening his eyes but who is he who sees the servant? So Marcus oculos aperiens servum videt solves the ambiguity of who is seeing the servant.
“Julius magistrum videt et eum salutat.” In this sentence each clause has a subject, verb and object and the coordinating conjunction joins them both. I could have written: Marcus oculos aperit et servum stantem…videt.
Bedwere, thank you, don’t cut me no slack
Welcome! Speaking of slack, check your translation of magistrum. 