Are you sure you are actually understanding the subtleties? I can definitely read latin and work out what is meant. But when I read my native languages, I can tell that there's A LOT of meaning hidden in subtleties that I would definitely lose if I were to analyze sentences only through etymological meaning of each independent word, to say nothing of the pain of having to parse ambigueties:

e.g:

Ambigueties: "Defended Warrior" - "Warrior Defends" / "Bellator defendit" - "Bellator defensus"

Subtleties: - "Defense! Defense!" "Defend! Defend!" (Basketball vs war)

- "No good", bad? Or bad/neutral?

- "Do you take me for a fool" / "Do you think I'm dumb?" (Accusation of cheating vs Earnest)

That's not to say you don't have the tools to derive meaning from context and parse ambigueties, but if you are simultaneously parsing syntactic ambigueties, then you have much less energies to parse semantic ambigueties and to try to work out what idiomatic phrases would have meant.

And the effect is multiplicative, if you have 2 declensions you don't remember, you have 4 combinations to parse. Multiply that by 2 possible meanings of the phrase (or more) and you have 8 meanings ( or more).

Sure, you can read somewhat, but I'd be skeptical as to how much you can understand what you are reading, sure it's more than chinese since we share a lot of roots, but there's still a lot of meaning that is missed, and knowing declensions is like level 1, it doesn't guarantee you will understand latin either.

Yes, there's tons of subtleties (my Latin is mostly relegated to philosophical and theological texts, not known for unsubtle clear language!) - but they're usually restricted to the document and one or two for each given "phrase".

You become somewhat of a tokenizer and realize what the token means and can parse that way.

It's not day-1 wheelock and can read, but it's way sooner than "I can fluently ask Caesar to make me a hamburger down by the docks."