# Some troubles with the issue of case when using prepositions.



## Michael Zwingli

Hello, all, and Happy New Year! I hope that all are well.

A reply by bearded that I just read in another thread has spurred me to post this regarding the difficulties that I am having in deciding what case to use in certain situations. In said reply, bearded quoted the aphorism _In cauda venenum_. I assume that therein _cauda_ is in the ablative, as is _auro_ within Seneca's _Venenum in auro bibitur_, since in both cases _in_ presents a spatial aspect. Am I correct in that? If, then, I wish to note a man's uneasiness during a time of personal troubles, I would be inclined to use the dative, as: _Is vir anxius in angustiis suis est_, with _angustiae_ and _suae_ taking the dative because of _in_ presenting a temporal aspect. Would that be correct? To proceed further, if one were to change the preposition from _in_ to _per_, how would that effect the issue of case? For instance, would I want to maintain the dative in the following: _Is vir anxius per angustiis suis erat_?

My uncertainties in understanding the correct case in Latin expression are vexing me mightily.

Also, I am curious, given _In cauda venenum_ and _Venenum in auro bibitur, _when the verb _esse_ "to be", can be implied and left unstated, as it is within _In cauda venenum_, as it famously is within _In vino veritas, in aqua sanitas_, "In wine there is truth, in water there is health." Is that only because those are well known aphorisms, or can _esse_ be left unstated in other situations? I have noticed that sometimes it is omitted from the sentence in Latin, and have for some time wondered why, and in what circumstances this is possible.

Thanks, guys.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

After posting this question, I thought of another example of _esse_ being left unstated within an expression, within which there is no preposition: _Virtutis gloria merces_, "Glory/fame/honor is the reward of virtue." This seems to undermine my initial notion that _esse_ might only be left unstated when using a preposition.
Thanks again.


----------



## bearded

Hello Michael and a Happy New Year to you,too!

1) Yes, 'cauda' is ablative case in that phrase.
2) Most Latin prepositions can just govern one (or two, like ''in'' does) case(s).  ''In'' only governs ablative for static location, or accusative for direction/motion - and the respective abstract/figurative complements.  To my knowledge, *no *Latin preposition can govern/be constructed with the dative case.  ''In angustiae suae'' would be wrong.
3) The verb _esse _can really be omitted when it means 'to exist/to be there', and this mostly happens in mottoes/aphorisms. This phenomenon has nothing to do with the presence or absence of prepositions.

I hope that my replies are clear and that expert members will confirm them.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Thanks much, buonomo mio.


bearded said:


> The verb _esse _can really be omitted when it means 'to exist/to be there', and this mostly happens in mottoes/aphorisms. This phenomenon has nothing to do with the presence or absence of prepositions.


I can see, within the examples that I provided, _esse_ being used in the sense of "to be there", for that is the very sense that it would fulfill if present in both: _In cauda venenum_ and _In vino veritas_. I cannot envision an example of _esse_ taking this sense, however, without there being a preposition in the sentence. Within _In cauda venenum est_, for instance, _est_ has the exact meaning of "is there". With the motto _Virtutis gloria merces_, however, there is no preposition, but rather a object in the genitive. Within this context, it seems to me that the verb _esse_ would have the sense not of "is there", but rather of "is/exists". Perhaps the omission of _est_ in this case is strictly incorrect, and represents a liberty having been taken? If anyone can provide me with an example within which an omitted _esse_ takes the sense of "to be/to exist", I shall be grateful.


----------



## bearded

Michael Zwingli said:


> the verb _esse_ would have the sense not of "is there", but rather of "is....". Perhaps the omission of _est_ in this case is strictly incorrect, and represents a liberty having been taken?


No, apparently it is no 'liberty'. The meaning of the implicit _est _here is simply ''is'', like in the very  well-known _Faber quisque suae fortunae _(everyone _is _the creator of their own destiny/fortune) and in other famous aphorisms.  It seems that the number of cases in which the verb _esse _can be omitted/understood is actually larger than mentioned in my #3 3) above, and can include the simple 'copula' (at least in the 3rd person present indicative...).


----------



## Snodv

I would repeat that no preposition ever takes dative, but ablative plural always (and ablative singular in some declensions) looks exactly like dative.  Your _in_ _angustiis_ was ablative.  In elementary Latin we learn that _in,_ _sub, _and_ super _can take both ablative and accusative, depending on whether they signify motion or position.  In English we have _in _vs. _into_, but I don't think we can similarly differentiate the two meanings of _sub _and_ super._
Other than these, all prepositions (that I can think of anyway) take one particular case.  A mnemonic device I used in elementary classes I taught was the "Ablative Astronaut," SID P. SPACE, where each letter of the name stood for a preposition used with the ablative:  Sub, In, De, Pro, Sine, Prae, Ab, Cum, E/Ex.  That does not constitute a complete list but it's a good start.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Thanks, fellas. Being in the initial stages of familiarizing oneself with a language often feels like being lost in the woods.


----------

