I'm (re)teaching myself Latin (I studied at school decades ago), and I've just picked up a book of excerpts from Ovid.
Aurea prima sata est aetas, quae vindice nullo,
sponte sua, sine lege fidem rectumque colebat.
This very first line, or part of a line, has me puzzled: looking around, most translations appear to favour "The first golden age planted ... "... but couldn't it be "The first age is planted with gold"? Or maybe even the meaning "hesitates" between the two meanings (or more than two).
A few thoughts occur:
Perhaps Latin is stricter is use of tenses: in certain languages, e.g. French and to some extent English, you can use the present to mean the past, but maybe not in Latin. However, whichever way you interpret this first phrase, it appears that est will have to have a past meaning.
Maybe there are also clues from just the way Latin-speakers habitually ordered their words, which at my level of pretty much beginner I won't have any real idea of.
To have two words of an ablative expression separated by an nominative adjective belonging to a later noun may also be unlikely, for all I know.
And... I haven't yet read thoroughly a few pages of the introduction of this book about metre of Ovid's verse, but maybe clues come from that too, in the sense that the trailing "a" in aurea may or may not be a "long" "a", which may or may not indicate the case Ovid intends. I.e. if aurea is ablative, then (as I understand it) it must then have a long trailing "a".
Hope someone can provide illumination!