This book provides a detailed, empirically supported, and theoretically informed examination of alignment and subject assignment in Latin. The author challenges the myth of Latin as a language defined solely by a nominative-accusative alignment system through a comprehensive analysis of a wide range of constructions across the history of the language within a single, consistent framework. In accordance with the idea of a tension between a syntactically principled system and a semantically oriented system of alignment, the book offers an in-depth exploration of quirky case and alternating patterns of argument realization. The analysis demonstrates that alongside a tendency to neutralize the semantic roles of arguments for syntactic purposes, Latin displays numerous grammatical patterns that do depend on the semantic relation between the arguments and their predicate. The fundamental assumption is that the underlying principles of lexical semantics (i.e. for verbs, their Aktionsart and their argument structures) are crucial in accounting for those marked patterns that do not fit the canonical nominative-accusative alignment. The book also defends the idea that subjecthood in Latin should be understood as a split relation between a Privileged Syntactic Argument and a pivot, distinguishing between coding and behavioral properties of subjects. The findings shed new light on the grammar of Latin, and make a strong case for a rich, and fully analyzable, lexicon in the architecture of grammar.