Ex. 25, B, 5. So far from cruelty having been shown in our case…
The key has: Tantum abest ut in nobis sit saevitum…
Shouldn’t that be “in nos”? I’ve never seen saevio used with in + abl.
in nos would mean “cruelty against us”, wouldn’t it? Not sure how in nobis fits here, though. What’s the rest of the sentence, English and Latin? Is the speaker claiming he (or his group) did not commit cruelty or is he claiming that cruelty was not committed against him?
The English in Bradley’s exercises is usually somewhat figurative, in order to force the student to contrive idiomatic Latin instead of translating literally. I have no problem with the key’s answer except that “in nobis” should be “in nos” in my opinion. The full context is:
So far from cruelty having been shown in our case, a revolt and rebellion on the part of our forefathers has been twice over pardoned by England.
Tantum abest ut in nobis sit saevitum, ut defectioni ac rebellioni maiorum nostrorum semel atque iterum sit ab Anglis ignotum.
OK, I agree–should be in nos.
Deleted.
Salvete!
Is this certain? If that should be the case, I will update my transcription of the Key to Arnold’s Latin Prose Composition (revised by G. G. Bradley).
Valete,
Carolus Raeticus
Nothing you read on the internet is certain.
I hesitated to say before, but I don’t see anything amiss with in nobis myself.
(Cf. OLD in 41d, 42?)
Carole, I wouldn’t presume to correct Bradley except for obvious typos, which this is not.
Interestingly, Bradley has the accusative here:
Ex. 49, 3. Imperandum fuit militibus ut (a) caede desisterent (or jubendi fuere milites … desistere), neu quem inermem trucidarent (neu in inermes saevirent); feminis certe puerisque, ne aegris dicam sauciisque, parcendum erat.
Nesrad, I don’t think you should be focusing on the verb. Of course in nos would be grammatical and contextually appropriate, but the English has not “against us” but “in our case,” to which in nobis corresponds perfectly. Its temporary ambiguousness, in both the English and the Latin, is resolved only by the rest of the sentence.
That is plausible. Thanks.
Thank you for the heads-up. Pretty complicated case, this one.
Valete,
Carolus Raeticus
Live and learn.
I finally did what I should have done in the first place and trotted out the OLD. in sec. 42 (with ablative), gives the following (abbreviated) cites for “In the matter of (a person or a thing), when dealing with, etc.”. I’ll give just the cites (not the whole phrase), which everyone who’s interested can look up on Perseus. If anyone doesn’t recognize an abbreviation, just ask and I’ll supply the full cite. I hope this is useful for those who don’t have ready access to the OLD.
Ter. Haut. 193
Cic. Verr. 2.155; 4.46
Cic. Dom. 58
Cic. Sen. 68
Cic. Fin. 210
Cic. Tusc. 4.16
Caes. Civ. 3.84.3
Prop. 2.20.11
Liv. 27.42.3
Ov. Fast. 6.576
Vell. 1.12.7
Cels. 5.27.5.A
Plin. Ep. 6.23.2
Plin. Ep. Tra. 10.105 (106)
Gel. 10.26.7
I usually go for Lewis & Short simply because it’s easier (and it’s on line), but the article on in demonstrates how much better the OLD can be.