Could someone explain why I missed these (Latin Grammar from 2002)?

In order; hopefully this will help to clear things up:

tibi is dative; the passive requires an ablative construction. In the case of personal pronouns, this is usual done using a preposition (hence a).

The verb celo takes a so-called double accusative - the accusative of what is hidden, and of whom it is hidden from.

Unlike the usual English translation (harm), the verb noceo takes a dative object, not accusative. If it helps, think of it as 'do harm to.'

This is a time when phrase, taking the accusative - it happened five years ago. If it had been ablative, it would have meant he went to Rome for five years. Nominative isn't really possible.

aestimo is followed by an accusative and a genitive. The genitive is what is known as a partitive, meaning 'of a certain group/thing.' A literal translation might be, I rate you (as one) of the biggest kind. A strange bit of idiom, but it makes some sense.

This is a matter of case: quodam is ablative, cuidam dative. Here, cuidam functions as a possessive dative; the teeth belong to someone. It's a bit of a weird sentence (the dirty teeth are somebody's, is the meaning suggested by the word order), but there you go.

Verbs of fearing always take ne instead of ut. The usual use of ne is to mean 'in case' or 'lest'; neither work particularly well here, so it's best just to remember the rule. Basically, you always want what you're afraid not to happen, so ne is used.

Again, a rule that you'll probably just have to learn. opus est takes a dative of person, and usually an ablative of thing needed. The latter part could technically take a nominative or a genitive, or even use an accusative and infinitive construction, but the dative is never found.

Negative commands are formed quite differently from positive ones. There is a variety of different options available, but with the exception of noli + infinitive, they all involve the second person subjunctive. The command cave means literally beware, in the sense of be wary of. The subjunctive follows, as in the English be wary, should you do this, which idiomatically becomes don't do it. As a rule of thumb, though, remember that the main idea of a negative command will never be in the imperative.

I'm not entirely certain some of those explanations are particularly clear, but over this medium they're probably as good as I can provide, without going into massive and unnecessary detail.

i'm no longer white and maximum of that stuff is right away lunacy. It appears like some thing that become printed to make different White nationalists look insane. per chance a number of them do believe that stuff, yet from what i learn about lifelike White nationalists is in simple terms that they fairly a lot do exactly not like Blacks going round raping, beating and killing White people and how the media ignores those brutal crimes. maximum of them vehemently oppose unlawful immigration, yet however, an vast majority of people of all different ethnicities oppose unchecked unlawful immigration. in reality, i'm fairly confident you're able to circulate to any u . s . a . contained in the international and they could oppose unchecked unlawful immigration. some are sepratists and are slightly better xenophobic. they don't like minorities and purely favor to stay in White communities. large deal. For the most section, multiculturalism is a failed try and purely reward large authorities. so as that being stated, why do not you connect that communicate board and pose the inquiries to them?

Your primary problem is that your nouns/pronouns/adjectives do not agree in number, person, gender, and/or case to the associated words.