why not 'in aedificium'?
in with an accusative implies more movement (in aedificium is more into the building).
in with an ablative does not have the same implication of movement, only the location. (in aedificio = in the building)
The cases are driving me crazy. No need to reply. I just needed to vent
I'm with you
quot architecti adificio sunt marked wrong.. why? as far as I know the "in" in Latin can be detected in the ending of the noun ablative.... which would be adificio. please advise if I am wrong.
I believe the "in" is only implied by the ablative for those few words that have a locative case, such as domus (and cities and towns and small islands...)