Bortone Notes

8/12/2019 Bortone Notes

1/28

1

Bortone notes

Chapter 1- background to Greek prepositions

Pg. 4

Linguists highlight the fact that the functions of cases are logically independent of whether their surface

realization is by means of independent lexical items (pre-/ post-positions), of word order or of endings.

Adposition= pre-position or post-position.

Pg. 5, he mentions that post positions were used only in the early stages of the language.

Pg. 6

Adpositions mark the function of a noun. Therefore, the category they are closest to is case forms. Linguists of

recent decades have recognized that adpositions and cases are similar in function. Interesting fact from Estonian,

pg. 7.

Katus-e pea-le= onto the head of the roof (pea=head)

Katuse-le = to the roof (Greek does this with the verb)

Pg. 9: distinguishing prepositions from cases in Russian, Latin or German is easy, indicating the following as key

distinguishing features:

Case affixes follow the head noun of an NP while prepositions precede it Prepositions, unlike cases, occur only once at the beginning of an NP and may not be repeated Cases express subject- object relations, while prepositions do not

There are extra comments regarding affixes vs. prepositions, from what he says (pp10).

1. The ones that have case markers that appear only once but actually cover all nouns of the NP, such asTurkish, or sometimes English (Mary and Johns house)

2. There are languages which repeat case markers on each noun for some cases but not for others.3. There are languages which repeat prepositions4. There are languages where the preposition operates as a marker for an object (Hebrew)/ SyriacPg. 15 he sets the question: is there not a general tendency for cases to indicate syntactic meanings and for

prepositions to express concrete ones? Yes. Concrete and grammatical relations may be expressed by:

1. Word order2. Bound morphs3. Adpositions

However, concrete meanings are more likely to be expressed by inflections than by word order, and most likely by

prepositions.

Pg. 15. Cases represent the relation of action, whereas Ps talk about the relations of space. Inflectional

morphemes express relations that constitute a small set, whereas large ranges are realized by free morphemes.


2/28

2

Pg. 18. He mentions that there is a chance that a preposition combines with a particular case just owing to

structural leveling. Some trait prevalent in the overall case-marking system may cause adpositions to take a case

that can appear semantically unjustified. In the history of Greek, there has been a shift from semantically-

motivated case government to syntactically- motivated case government, resulting in all prepositions governing

the accusative in MG.

He proceeds to present the three basic options of a language:

i. It may use plain case endings or suffixes with spatial meanings, as in Turkishii. It may combine adpositions with various cases, a particular meaning being expressed by a particular

combination, as in Latin

iii. It may combine all its adpositions with one case, whose selection is syntactic rather than semantic, asin Hindi

Greek has all three systems in its history. Pg. 19. Greek also does prepositional compounding, e.g. mazi me.

When adverbs are added to prepositions, the aim is semantic strengthening or disambiguation. In Dutch they

compound prepositions with adverbs, and call them reinforced form.

Pg. 20 he creates a schema to present semantic equivalents to adposition + case:

a. [preposition] or [postposition]b. [(noun) + case]c. [preposition] + [(noun) + case] or [(noun) + case] + [postposition]

Pg. 21. As per Matthews (1974), the analysis of a preposition and case as a single discontinuous element is

rejected because it rejects word-boundaries. However, a conceptual unit is not necessarily like that on the

surface.

In Classical Greek there are instances of combinatory case marking, equivalent to case marking by means of

inflection alone in other declensions. ?????

Pg. 23, regarding Greek syntagms, [preposition+ case], the two elements are relatively independent, and other

constituents can be freely inserted.

Pg. 24. Ancient Greek, Latin or German combinations of preposition + case may also convey different

specifications, such as location and direction. (para+ genitive= from near/ para +dative = at near/ para +

accusative= to near)

Prepositions in Ancient Greek were added to an inflected noun in order to add to the meaning of the case form.

This gave rise to combinations in which the original individual senses of the preposition and the case were still

clear. Gradually the syntagm developed unpredictable combinatory meanings which the initial components did

not have, so at that point we can only accept a synsemantic (and monomorphemic) description. That means that

the meaning of the preposition can only be determined by taking it together with the case.

Pg. 25 he mentions Kurylovitz, who says that when the meaning of two P+C combinations is completely different

despite the same P, we have two different prepositions. It doesntmean that because some prepositions take

different cases, that the case form is semantically autonomous.


3/28

3

Also there are languages where only the case can incorporate locative and directional morphemes, the same way

that ps and cases can.

Pg. 26 he discusses compound prepositions. Brondal and also others before him do not believe that combinations

of two prepositions are indeed prepositions. Sigurd says that there are multi word prepositions, and uses in spite

of as a counter example, because it is similar to despite and just as invariable.

How do we decide? One criterion is semantics. E.g. as to, where the meaning cannot derive from as and to. Whena syntagm develops a new combinatory meaning, we can talk about a single, synsemantic unit. Similar

considerations will be made for Modern Greek. E.g. kato apo which literally means to under (hothike kato apo to

trapezi).

Pg. 27 he discusses forms of PPs. In MG there is a kind of unity between prepositions and adverbs, based on their

morphological identity and syntactic similarity. Pg. 29, the combination of a primarily intransitive and an

obligatorily transitive preposition (pano se) is a compound preposition, another possible expansion of a PP. the

superficially linear sequences of prepositions are not always independent ps in succession.So, we dont rule them

out in Greek, since they do the job of simplex Classical language Ps. Also (pg. 30) Greek adverbs do not do the job

of English ones, which also act as prepositions, so they need to be compounded in order for them to be transitive.

Jackendoff enables us to distinguish compound Ps from accidental sequences of Ps. (I gata ine mesa sti dulapa

[inside]/ [indoors, in a]). Interjections operate as diagnostics here.

Chapter 2- On the meaning of prepositions

Pg. 34. Cases appear to be unpredictable, so they were assumed to be per se semantically empty. He gives an

example of Latvian Ps which take genitive with singular nouns and dative with plural. The counterexample is

Russian, where the case changes the interpretation from directional to locative (pg. 35). The same happens with

Ancient Greek.

Pg. 35. In the same way as cases, also prepositions seem to have minimal semantic load. Some Ps in English are

even optional, for this particular reason. This is also the case with some compound prepositions. E.g. Italian,

dentro da, dentro di, dentro a & dentro. This is proven over pgs. 36- 37 with examples from different languages,

the main one being the tak + PP example, which is a totally different and unrelated preposition in each of the

languages attested. Pg. 37, he mentions Brondal, the main propounder of the purely formal and abstract

definition of ps as lexemes indicating relationships. He claimed that a P (pg. 38) is sufficiently defined as the

expression of relation in general. He claims that in every lexical item, one or two of four fundamental semantic

qualities appear: Relatum, Descriptum, relator, descriptor. Based on these distinctions, he claims that

prepositions are r, pure relators. His theory is not very clear, so it has been attacked. Saying that prepositions only

express a generic relation between items transfers the semantic load to the context. Horrocks says that perhaps

the choice of p is intrinsic to an individual nominal, and should be listed in the lexicon as it is not predictable from

context. Crisari says that prepositions are like a + sign, they solely link two lexical items. Again this highlights the

importance of the context.

Pg. 40, he uses the example in Greek (ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH THAT) to prove how the choice of

preposition gets unpredictable when the meaning that needs to be expressed is more abstract. This happens also

in Classical Greek, where Ps of opposite concrete spatial sense having the same meaning in non-local expressions


4/28

4

and governing the same case can express the same notion of distribution according to a standard of measure. But

they wouldnt have identical meaning in spatial expressions.

Pg. 42, some linguists argue that p meaning is a combination of an inherent meaning with a specification supplied

by the context, and others seem to think that the different meanings of a preposition share a connection.

Pg. 43 he says that Jackendoff supports that the different meanings of a preposition are arrived at by reapplying

the semantic structure of its basic meaning on the basis of the context.

THERE IS A GAP AND I START FROM PG 50 AGAIN

There have been a lot of scholars who suggest that the primary meaning of prepositions is spatial (Scaliger 1540,

Becker 1841, Leibniz 1765 to name a few).

Pg. 51, Hjelmslev (1935) discusses localism and analyzes all cases in terms of variables. The most important ones

are the ones that follow:

i. Directionality, or lack of itii.

Coherence, the degree d intimate distinguishing, for example, the Finnish exterior and interior cases

iii. Objectivity or subjectivity, whether the choice of a given case does or doesnt vary according to theviewpoint of the speaker

He made a daring suggestion by which he claimed that even nominative and accusative, which bear a

semantic and not local load, can be analyzed in essentially the same terms.

pg. 52, Anderson (1977) suggests there are only four case relations, resulting from the combination of two binary

features.

Absolute Locative Ergative Ablative

- Place - Place- - Source source

He mentions that he will focus on the diachronic validity of the suggestion that local meanings are the starting

point of non-local ones. But the synchronic validity is also supported by many sources.

Pg. 61, an interesting note that most other case endings can also be used on verbs in Finnish!

Pg. 67, he mentions that Italian and MG have this construction of perfect formant exw parkarismeno to amaksi

ekei, exw to amaksi parkarismeno ekei, and to amaksi to xw parkarismeno ekei. The perfect formant in all these

examples needs to agree in gender with the noun, which proves that it is an apposition of the object of the verb.

This is important to his investigation because some languages in which possession is expressed with a locative

prepositional construction (rather than with a to haveverb) use the same possessive-locative construction even in

sentences that correspond to the use of the English to have,not as a possessive verb, but a mere auxiliary for

the perfect. The perfect tense entails a locative predication. That means that a local notion is the origin of an

expression of tense.


5/28

5

Pg. 70, in Swahili existential and possessive constructions are locative. In Chadic languages, the evolution of

prepositions into copula has been proven, and some semantic analyses of English also accept that the use of the

verb to be indicates a quality or status which should be classified as locative. Also Finnish has a distinct essive case

for that which has local origin, and still has locative uses.

Pg. 78 he says that in the expression of a concrete spatial relation, the choice of adposition (or case, or a

combination of both) is linked to certain characteristics of the referent object, such as relative position, direction,

and dimensions. Other influential physical aspects may be

a. Orientation, horizontal or verticalb. Contact, as in the contrast between English on and abovec. Singularity, duality, plurability, which distinguish between and amongd. Part/ whole, opposing corresponding casese. Animacy, which decides on genitive next to adverbs in Greekf. Definiteness, in the use of Spanish and Turkish accusative

We also need to bear sth else in mind regarding adpositional meaning. Apart from the location and physical

characteristics, it is also the pragmatics and more subjective factors that may decide which preposition isselected.

Pg. 80 he uses examples of the English language to prove that the use of prepositions can be both arbitrary and

sometimes also conceptual depending on the human body and its subjective perception.

Pg. 86 he says VERY IMPORTANT cases develop from adpositions. He uses an example from Estonian, where the

comitative ending can be used with two nouns, either as an ending in both, or as an ending in the second one,

governing both.

Pg. 89 he discusses the origin of adpositions. He mentions Svorou (1994), who says that there are two routes

leading from verbs to local adpositions: co-verbs and participles. She uses Thai as an example of co-verbs (caak =to leave, but after verb of motion it means from). Participles are common in Indo-European languages.

Pg. 91, in Greek, verbs are not a very fruitful source of prepositions. Participles were inflected in Classical Greek,

so it was difficult to use them as prepositions. When inflected languages use verbs as adpositions, they tend to

stop adding onto them the markers that are customary for verbal forms.

Pg. 110, he discusses the case system of Classical Greek

The five possible cases are:

Nominative (pg. 111) the case of subject and its predicates. It has essive and translative sense. He claims that

even the role of nominative could have been spatial in origin.

Vocative

Accusative (pg. 112) the most common case. The other meanings of accusative, apart from marking direct objects

and elements coreferential to it, were the following:

1. Spatial extension: 2. Temporal extension: 3. Limitation:


6/28

6

4. Quantity or mode: , ()Genitive (pg. 111) historically, it continues two different Indo-European cases. Genitive and ablative. In the so-

called proper genitive (Luraghi 1996, Chantraine 1948) the sense is partitive, singling out a portion of the referent,

as opposed to the spatial extension and total affectedness indicated by the accusative. (

). Also ablative use is discernible (

). Other meanings include:

1. Possession: 2. Reference: 3. Material: 4. Individuation: 5. Quality: 6. Comparison:

Dative (pg. 113). He claims it continued many IE cases, having arisen from the old dative, locative and

instrumental. Its main function was that of marking indirect objects. It also expressed:

1. Motion towards: 2. Location at: 3. Location in time: 4. Means: 5. Interest: 6. Possession: 7. Association: 8. Agency: 9. Cause:

He argues that vocative does not qualify for case, and nominative is also questionable when compared to

accusative, genitive and dative.

Pg. 111, each case form had a multiplicity of semantic functions, due either to internal semantic developments or

to formal mergers of once separate case forms.

Pg. 113, footnote 11, the ancient Greek endings of the dative plural of the second declensionois andoisi- are

those of the old instrumental and locative respectively. The Indo-European dative is an offshoot of the locative

forms. Locative and allative senses came to coincide again in post- Classical Greek, with also being used

instead of .

Footnote 15, Stefanski (1983) argued that there is a link between accusative and dative. Their contrastive use

with ps seems to suggest that the dative emphasizes more the contact with the goal, while the accusative

highlights the movement itself more. There is an allative sense in both, though.

Pg. 114, he goes on to study the remnants of oblique cases of Attic, i.e. Locative. , . Normally, a less

archaic was used, with a P ( , ). By the classical age, the locative endings, although

morphologically different, were perceived as Dative.

He continues with a few endings with case-like meanings which were occasionally used.

a. . Semantically ablative


7/28

7

b. semantically allative (used only in accusative stems)c. semantically locative ()d. semantically lative (= to many places)

He goes on to the hard-core stuff:

Pg. 116. The Classical Greek prepositional inventory is traditionally divided into two groups. The first comprises

the Ps that also occur as prefixes, e.g. :

preposition on both sides of the river

verb prefix throw around

noun prefix attack on both sides

adjective prefix thrown around

adverb prefix in an equivocal manner

The ps of this type are termed proper. He makes a table of proper ps, pg. 117.

Ps with ONLY accusative

accusative into a place, towards a time, up to a number, for a purpose

accusative1 Up (along), all over, in groups of

Ps with ONLY genitive

+ genitive instead of

+ genitive away from, from a time, due to

genitive out of, after, on thehand side, because of

genitive in front of, before a time, in defense of

Ps with ONLY dative

dative in a place, at/in a time, amongst

dative with, with the help of

Ps with alternation between accusative and genitive

+accusative2 On both sides, around, about the time of

+ genitive On both sides, around, concerning, for the sake of

accusative all over, on account of

+ genitive crossing, through, each time, after

+ accusative downwards, sparsely in, in pursuit of, according to, in

+ genitive down from, down on(to), in(to), against, concerning

+ accusative going above/ over/ beyond, (mtph) all over

1Luraghi says ana combines with all three cases, Bortone says ana only combines with Accusative

2Luraghi says amfi combines with all three cases, Bortone only gives two possible combinations


8/28

8

+ genitive above, in favour/ defense of, replacing

3+ accusative After a time

+ genitive Together with, in accordance with, in a manner

Ps with all three cases combination

+ accusative Going onto/over, against, for time, in quest of, depending on+ genitive Down from, down on(to)/ in(to), against, concerning

+ dative Staying onto (part of)/upon, in charge of, at the time of

+ accusative To the side/ to the presence of, beyond

+ genitive From the side/ from the presence of, by an agent

+ dative At the side/ next to/ chez

+ accusative All round/ all over, pertaining, approximately

+ genitive About a topic, being worth, concerning

+ dative Placed around, for the sake of

+ accusative Going facing/ towards, towards a time, with a view to

+genitive Placed facing/ towards, from the direction of, swear by

+dative Being facing/ near, in addition to+ accusative To under, near the time of

+ genitive Under, by (cause or agent)

+ dative (at) under, through the power of

There is a second group of prepositions (pg. 118), which could not be used as prefixes, and are classified

separately, as untrue, improper, or misused. The improper ones are usually followed by one case only, and

tend to be polysyllabic, or polymorphemic.

RATHER INTERESTINGLY, THERE WERE NO IMPOPROPER PS COMBINED WITH ACCUSATIVE

Improper ps with dative

+ dative = with

Improper ps with genitive

opposite

close to

outside

in front of

opposite; against

because of/ / within

facing

outside

() above

as far as

following

3Luraghi says it combines with all three cases, Bortone says only two


9/28

9

far from

between

/ / / as far as; until

-/- behind

() beyond, across

except

near

far inside before

before

below

for the sake of

/ away from, without

There is only one preposition which combines with all three cases, with no difference in meaning, and that is

= all around.

Pg. 120, he says that proper Ps in Greek are thought to be the same category as prefixes. The main argument hasa morphological base, as in most instances a preposition has an identical looking counterpart amongst the

prefixes.

Arguments against this view:

1. There are some prefixes which do not operate as Ps (-, -).2. The semantics of the same form used as a prefix may differ. E.g., : Gulp down

Bore through

Shrink back Beget anew

Have a fever recurrently

Begin to play

Uncover

Paint completely

Examine closely

Teach otherwise

In Ancient Greek (pg. 121), there are also syntactic differences between Ps and prefixes. Prefixes cannot case-

mark their attached nouns.vs. .

Pg. 124, Case usage in Homer:

1. Accusative:a. The accusative is used to mark spatial direction. It is visible in both transitive and intransitive verbs (

, , ). It is also used to express temporal

extension, which is not of interest to us, andmore generally- it indicates the extent to which a predicate


10/28

10

applies. When Homer (pg. 125) replaces this kind of accusative with P constructions, he resorts to allative

ps (, ). ( ).

2. Genitive: in Homer it has partitive spatial sense, indicating location within a limited space (pg. 125). (, he wasnt within Argos, ). When combined with

a motion verb, it can denote movement within a limited space. (). Genitive also

had ablative use in Homer (pg. 126) ( , (he chased from his house),

). The ablative use was not only limited to DPs, but also occurred with Ps, (he came down from the tops of Olympus). However, ablative genitives become a rarity in

Classical age writers (pg. 127).

3. Dative: pg. 128. It can denote spatial position (including comitation or direction) on its own. Again, inclassical Greek these uses are rarer., (put into the bonnet).

Pg. 128, he mentions the adverbial cases. The most common ones are the locative (-) and the ablative (-).

Sometimes we find a third form, namely, with lative sense. '= to elsewhere.

The endings were also added to non-nominal forms. (pg. 129). He doubts whether they should be classified as

case inflections, and proposes adverbial derivation instead (BUT BASED ON THE LITTLE V TALK THAT I HEARD,

THEY COULD BE v REMNANTS AS IN LAZ DIALECT AND THE OTHER ITALIAN DIALECT ROBERTA MENTIONED).

Nonetheless, he suggests that they had the status of case forms at some stage. (at troy in front of).

There was also an allative morpheme , which is debatable between an ending or a postposition. It only

appears with accusative endings, which supports the idea of it being a postposition. , . It also

appears often on agreeing possessives, , to his house with the two des, which supports its suffix

status.

Pg. 130, he mentions the ending, which was not used in Classical Greek. He claims that it is indeed a case

form, the relic of the instrumental plural IE *-bhis. It is used in Mycenaean as instrumental or locative plural of the

a and the athematic declension. What is well attested is the instrumental and the comitative:

a. Instrumental: = by dint of forceb. Comitative: = with chariots

It also appears instead of several other cases, and is found conjoined with them. It is used in all numbers, in

athematic and thematic nouns, also on adjectives, participles and adverbs. It also appears governed by most

available Ps. It appears with Ps which required different cases, but he stipulates that it is so due to metric

requirements. Or, it could have become a semantically void government marker that linked a P with its object.

(pg. 131).

Pg. 131. The inventory of prepositions in Homer is the same as in classical Greek. There are only some

phonological doublets which are not of our interest. However, there are differences in the cases which areassociated with adpositions, as Homer makes use of a wider range of cases.

, , can take all three cases in Homer, whereas in Attic they only take genitive or accusative. Also,

Homer uses cases where the Attic would require a PP. in Homer you can find compounding of Ps (

, ). Intransitive use of compound ps was also possible. There are also three ps , ,

which appear either as Ps, or with a P, in all cases the P being ( , ,

, ).


11/28

11

Pg. 133, syntax of Greek adpositions

In Homeric Greek there is not much distinction between categories. There are words that function, as Lehmann

says (1983) local relators. Since the relator and the N could modify each other, there was no fixed order

between the two of them. Hewson and Bubenic (2006>>>MUST SEE) argued that the lack of inflection or

agreement marker on the mobile preverb-cum-adverbial particle is what caused the development of

adpositional phrases in post-Homeric Greek, and that is what changed the typology of Greek altogether. He goes

on to describe the steps of P evolution.

a. (GEN=ablative, even with the particle did not have semantic value, the case did all thework)

b. (the particle after the noun, anastrophe)c. d. (the particle precedes the V but it is obvious that it is a particle, from morphs that come

in between )

In Homer (pg. 134) we see the classical Ps in their autonomous use (= inside, = around

earth but xthon is nom, so not governed). In Homer it is sometimes hard to distinguish them betweenintransitive, free-standing adverbial forms and adpositions, or verbal prefixes. In many verses, the roles are

semantically equally conceivable. (). Pg. 135, According to Horrocks(1981) in Homer

there are adverbs that

i. can be loosely linked to a noun, andii. adverbs loosely placed before a verb but still linked to a noun.iii. Horrocks (1981:45) says that there are also intimately fused particle + verb sequences (one sem.

Unit+ restricted choice of prefix),

iv. Fully- fledged phrasal verbs with particles not modifying case-inflected Nv. Compound verbs but with inseparable prefix

Interestingly enough, when the prefix becomes fused with the verb, the identical P is added before the noun. (

> ). Pg. 136, this fluidity is similar in German and Dutch. He discusses the

separable vs. inseparable feature of prefixal verbs, and says that the only reason why the inseparable are

characterized as prefixal is because the prefix itself also exists. There are also prefixed verbs which behave both as

separable and inseparable. When the verb is separable, the preverb is characterized as a self-standing particle.

Pg. 139. Prepositions in Greek were well established simce Mycenean times, and postpositions were therefore

obsolete and stylistically marked. Pgs 140-142 he presents Hittite, older than Greek, as evidence of the nominal

features of what later moved on to become Ps. Pg. 143 very interesting: , NOUN[CASE]+ NOUN

[GEN].

Pg. 143. Main synchronic characteristics of the Ancient Greek system

Choice of case depending on the semantics of case. Maximos Planudeswork, there is correspondence between

spatial notions and Greek oblique cases:

ACC= goal motion (allative)

GEN= source motion (ablative)


12/28

12

DAT= state/ rest (locative)

He continues with the reasoning that when we have and , they only govern one case, GEN, as they have

ablative or partitive use.

The DAT was also locative (pg. 144), and used with the locative P , and in its comitative sense it was used with

, , and .

The ACC is used with the allative Ps and .

He uses the complex example of Ps that govern multiple cases to prove that case bears its own semantics. EG,

. +GEN= ablative ( ) +DAT= locative ( ), +ACC=

allative (). SOS FOOTNOTE 62 PG 144 ON EN DEVELOPING INTO EIS NOTE 81 PG 162-

63. ANOTHER SOS FOOTNOTE PG 144: not much credence can be given to the claim made that the occurrence of

and with the genitive is real government. Phrases like or are cases of

ellipsis of another noun (and retention of its adnominal genitive) and not a government of a (partitive) genitive.

There are parallel constructions in Modern Greek and in English although in the Greek of today all prepositions

can only govern the accusative .

Pg. 145, he claims that the original version of the PP was just an NP with the P operating as a specifier. It was

(Hewson and Bubenik, 2006:12) the N that governed the P and not the other way round.

He argues that Ps were used in conjunction with Ns either to reinforce or disambiguate the case function, or to

add to meaning, e.g. dimensionality. E.g. (pg. 146) +ACC= allative/ extensive ( /

), +DAT= locative ().

In general, with Ps that took more than one case, it was as follows:

+GEN = from under

+DAT = at under

+ACC = to under

Pg. 147, he presents the use of with cases, to show that dimensionality is expressed by Ps, and directionality

by cases, which is a universal tendency. Kilby, (1981: 210) says that languages that combine adpositions and case

forms usually express directionality with the bound morphemes and dimensionality with the independent

morphemes.

+ DAT = locative (), lative ( )

+ GEN= ablative (), partitive ()

+ ACC = allative ()

Pg. 149 he presents a series of examples of Ps combining with cases and NPs with diferent cases to prove that

there are two key points on synonymous P constructions:


13/28

13

i. There can be neutralization of semantic distinctions contextual synonymy reached by differentroutes. In the case of Greek, considering the diachrony, some Ps became superfluous and could be

discarded.

ii. When a new construction appears, it does not oust the older equivalents at once. New and olderconstructions co-exist for a while, even in the same language variety.

There are also Ps which appears with a [P+case] syntagm, e.g. and +GEN.

Pg. 153, he presents the main diachronic trends of the Ancient Greek system.

a. From prehistoric times, cases show a tendency to merge. Ancient Greek cuts the inventory of 5 obliquecases to 3 and then 2 in MG: genitive+ ablative= genitive, dative+ locative+ instrumental = dative.

b. Dative is beginning to lose its spatial sense after Homer, with the exception of poetry or fixed phrases. Italso begins to fade out in PPs after Homer, where it is substituted by ACC (pg. 154)

c. The use of plain oblique cases for spatial relations decreasesd. The use of plain oblique cases decreases in VPs (complements)e. The semantic differences of cases after Ps are lost. Pg. 159, cases did not become meaningless, they just

coalesced with the P into one semantic unit.f. More adverbs develop prepositional useg. Fine semantic differences between many pairs of spatial Ps fade (e.g. + /

+/+/+!!!!!/ +/ +) vs. = they derive from the same form (, )

but they governed different cases originally, hence the difference. EN+ DAT= inessive (no motion (pg. 162-

163)), whereas + ACC= illative. Attic blurs the distinction very rarely. Pg. 162, ft. 81: Greek invented eis

from ens (Wackernagel, 1928). The latter was en+s, related to en in trhe way ej is related to ek. Thus, eis

has an IE and yet is a Greek innovation. Most other IE languages (Latin, Germanic, Balto-slavic, Armenian,

Irish) and many Ancient Greek dialects (Arcadian, Cyprian, Beotian, Thessalian, Phocian, Locrian) left the

task of marking the distinction rest/ motion-to to the case ending. They used tehir equivalents of Classical

Attic Greek en+DAT for static location, and of en+ACC for movement. But Attic-Ionic marked formally thesemantic distinction by assigning each of the two senses to separate forms of the same preposition. While

en retained the locative sense, ens came to specialize as illative. The Greek development of a distinct

illative preposition is peculiar- quite so also within Greek itself, for it is the contrary of what Greek did

post-clasiscally. It extended the use of the (already innovative) preposition eis, which by regular loss of

the initial unstressed vowel became s supplantin en entirely. In doing so, however, it moved backwards,

to the stage where inessive and illative meanings were conflated into one form, although now it was eis

and not en.

The synonymy was due to three processes (pg. 165):

i. The growing equivalence of pairs of Psii. The semantic convergence of combinations of the same P with different cases

iii. The creation of new prepositional constructions from adverbs (, )

h. Ablative meanings show particular weakness. A phenomenon attestable in many languages (pg. 165)Pg. 166, he contrasts the semantics of synonymous proper Ps.


14/28

14

A. / : even in the older texts is receding. is newer, and comitative, or even better-interessive, and therefore more spatial or concrete in sense. In early Greek it meant between rather than

with, which is also the mycenean counterpart of . blocks the theory of all meanings of a P

connecting> with+GEN vs. after+ACC.

B. /. In ClGr wasnt used with a spatial sense, while had both.C. / . died before the new testament, and before it dided it wasnt even spatial (pg. 167).

was both.

Pg. 169, he contrasts the spatial vs. non-spatial use of improper Ps, and takes some facts which point to an

original spatial sense in many cases:

a. Only some improper Ps are encountered in a temporal and non-spatial sense (, , , ,, , , )

b. Many are almost always spatial (, , , , )c. Some are exclusively spatial (, )d. Many Homeric Ps were only spatial, and then developed a non-spatial sense (, , ,

, , , )

e. Some had rare spatial instances even in Homer (, )f. A few were non-spatial even in Homer (, , )g. Some post-Homeric were only spatial, whereas their ancestors in Homer were often non-spatial (,

)

h. Even the proper Ps were more spatial in Homeri. Spatial and non-spatial meanings seem to appear in sequence, as is the case with

Pg. 171, begins the description of Ps and cases in Hellenistic Greek. He argues that this is the period when we can

attest the beginnings of the radical changes taking place in the Greek prepositional system. He claims in the first

three pages that the interference of Hebrew, via the Bible, has affected Greek. Evidence on that is provided on pg.

174, and the combination of Hebrew Ps and theirin the Old Testament translation- Greek counterparts. The newtestament operated as a type of model, since it was more familiar to uneducated Greeks than any other type of

written passage.

Pg. 178, in Hellenistic period, he mentions the following syntagms, regarding proper Ps, without a semantic

background.

accusative ok

genitive Only once

genitive ok

genitive ok

genitive Only once dative ok

dative ok

accusative ok

+ genitive ok

accusative ok

+ genitive ok

+ genitive (only two occurences)

accusative ok


15/28

15

+ genitive ok

accusative ok

+ genitive ok

+ dative ok

accusative ok

+ genitive ok

+ dative ok

accusative ok+ genitive ok

accusative ok

+dative Only once

accusative Three occurences

+ genitive Nine

[what I notice is that the use of dative decreases rapidly, and the general use of oblique cases tends to decrease,

compared to the Classical Greek style]

Pg. 179. He notices that where Attic could have used plain cases, we often see PPs. (e.g. +). Thiscan also be seen in the objects of many verbs, which did not take Ps before their objects in Classical Greek

().

Pg. 180. There is a marked increase in the use of the improper ps. Pg. 181, the spatial sense of theimproper forms was semantically identical to that of the older equivalent simplex Ps. (

, ).

Pg. 181. There is a reduction in the use of dative. Verbs that used to govern a dative object tend to eithertake an accusative or a PP. (used with , probably due to the Hebrew parallel verb). Pg. 182. Ps

which take more than one case are usually with genitive at this stage. The only P constantly used with

dative is , which could not govern any other case.

Pg. 183. The number of cases governed by a P fades. As Ps become unable to take a wide range of cases,the choice of a particular case loses meaning. The ACC, as it loses its allative sense, comes to be used

more extensively.

Pg. 184. Some Ps are coming out of use. over . over . over . is also (pg.185) expanding semantically, taking over and the phonologically similar . becomes very

rare, and also . SOS PG 186. The distinction between rest in a place and motion to a place is lost in all

Koine texts written in familiar style, with expressions of motion coming to be used also for rest. The two

constructions co-exist in the Gospels, en + dative being rarer in more vernacular authors. (,

). To a lesser extent also took up functions of , , .

Pg. 187. There are a few new improper Ps. (THEY DO NOT FUNCTION AS PREFIXES). , () ,, , replacing, in a sense, , etc.

Pg. 188, many newer Ps seem to be used only in a local sense. Many of the ones which also appeared inClassical and Homeric Greek are used in a non-spatial sense, but the newer ones, such as ,

, , /, , , are only spatial. Pg. 189, , , , ,

are used in a non-spatial sense.

Pg. 191, there are improper Ps which are combined with a simplex P, and then followed by plain case.( )


16/28

16

Pg. 192. Developments seen in the Koine are not always in line with later Greek.Pg. 194- synopsis of trends in the Koine

1. Cases have a long history of syncretism, and the dative now looks particularly weak2. At earlier stages, plain cases sufficed to express spatial meanings, but now spatial meanings are expressed

by Ps(added to cases)

3. Cases appear to be losing their individual significance. This is also happening when they are inside a PP4. There are very many Ps of different date, including many synonyms5. Ps fall into two groups, and the improper type, which is the newer group, is being used more and more

frequently (at times even compounding the improper ps with a proper one). Their inventory is also

expanding

6. proper ps are, to some extent, ousting one another, but are mainly replaced by improper Ps7. The improper Ps tend to have a spatial sense, while the proper ones that are replaced by improper ones

in spatial uses are increasingly confined to non-spatial uses

Pg. 195, Prepositions and cases in Medieval Greek

Pg. 202. The cases and their recession. The use of plain cases becomes less common, and is replaced by PPs. (

/ ). In this example it is just the plain genitive that is

avoided, but in general there is a tendency to substitute the genitive with the accusative. This construction (pg.

203) is more modern than standard Modern Greek usage. It shows (he says) the natural direction of development

that the language would have followed if it had not been tampered with. So, in MG he says that e.g.

governs a GEN NP, and if we use ACC instead, it would be . Dative is systematically avoided.

Pg. 203, the revolution in case government

All Ps are constructed with the accusative case (Browning 1983;82). Pg. 205, the use of one case led to the rise of

compound Ps.

The proper ps found in De administrando imperio (Porphyrogenitus) (pg. 205) are the following:

1. 2. 3. 4. / 5. / 6. 7. / / 8. / 9. / 10.11.12.13./ 14.


17/28

17

15./ / However, the main ps pf the newerset had many forms, and there is only ONE seemingly new proper P, ,

and its dissimilated form , which arose without ousting .

Pg. 208, semantic mergers. It started from Classical Greek, but in medieval Greek it went even further. The

merged Ps are the following:

1. = +ACC= =. acquired a directional sense2. GEN= +GEN= GEN= GEN. We can predict that is winning (pg. 211), because it

also takes the ACC, and no longer the achaic genitive, and also because the adjective governed by

is a more noble synonym of , used after , and its accentuation is classical. is treated as a

literary equivalent of .

He also argues that (pg. 212) another reason for the fading of many Classical Ps is the loss of phonological

distinctions. xamples are and , and . He concludes that due to phonological reductions the

following archaic Ps are no longer used in Medieveal Greek. , , , +gen, , , , , ,

. Thus, the ones remaining are the following: /, , , , , . Pg. 214, there are also many

synonymous Ps replaced by a single current P:

, , (), ()= ()

, , , , , , =

The new Ps that appear have the form of compound Ps, which govern an ACC NP, unless they are followed by a

weak pronoun, which is then in GEN. (, , ).

Pg. 215, the diachrony of prepositional usage from Classical Latin to Romance languages has striking parallels with

the evolution of Greek. E.g.:

both classical latin and Greek had both plain cases and P+case syntagms, with Ps being able to governdifferent cases. The plurality of cases was gradually lost, though. The cause of loss was ascribed to

phonologal changes, as in Greek, and perhaps the adoption of Latin by foreign-speaking peoples.

Early merger of Latin genitive and dative Direct case distinctions not necessary due to strict word order Ps became necessary to express the meaning of oblique cases Many examples of certain cases lost to a P+case syntagm (ablative= de+ablative/ comitative =

cum+ablative)

The extended use of de and ad plus the loss of case distinctions called for the creation of moreperiphrastic forms.

Adverbs, old P combinations and adv+P combinations were turned into new Ps, to replace the lost items. In some pairs the semantic distinctions were lost and one of the Ps was discarded.

Pg. 220, medieval Greek shows the first signs of using a second P. this makes it easier for speakers to combine the

same adverb with different Ps. In Medieveal Greek, most improper Ps usually cobined with one simplex P,

exclusively. A later development will be contrastive combinations of the same improper P. e.g. can be made


18/28

18

illative or elative ( , , ) by its

compounding element, like would indicate motion-to, motion-away-from, or no-motion depending on the

following case.

But were the compound Ps the medieval equivalent of the Classical simplex Ps? (pg. 220). He uses examples from

Hungers medieval metaphrase of Anna Comnene to prove just that.

Pg. 221, compounds are the combinations of two Ps when the elements do not independently contribute their

individual meanings to the phrase.

Pg. 223, he mentions all the newer Ps with a spatial sense

a. b. c. ()d. /-e. f. g. ()h. ()()i. ()j. (/)()k. l. (-)m. n. /-o. p.

Pg. 225, regarding the usage of older and newer Ps, the older Ps are losing their spatial sense whereas the newer

ones appear with only a spatial sense at the beginning.

Pg. 227, he goes back to older Greek Ps, trying to work out which ones are used in a spatial sense, and which ones

have been replaced by newer ones and in what sense. The older set of Ps is: , , , , , , , -

, , , , , , , , , .We need to consider two things: a. whether a synonym was

available, b. whether that synonym was also old or new.

He moves on to create four distinct groups:

Group : Old Ps for which there were new replacements

> ()/ (). Pg. 231, used in a distributive non-spatial way.

> (/ -), /-, , . Now meant instead of.

> (), ()()it appears confined to the expression of a topic.

> (/-), /-, , . When used, which is rare, its used as primarily temporal.

> (), (). It presents the topic, the reason, or indicates an addition to some item.

> ()()it indicates being under an abstract object, or agency.


19/28

19

Group : Old Ps replaced spatially by both old Ps and new ones

> // ()/() (). Pg. 232. It had already become a superfluous synonym for in

Classical Greek.

- > // (), (). Just says that the non-spatial uses are attested in Porphyrogennitus.

> / // /-, , (). It became alien to usage due to the fact that it required a Dative

complement. It became totally interchangeable with in medieval Greek, and it did have extensive spatialusage.

> // ()/ (). It indicates the abstract grounds for something, the reason. It also indicates

topic and time duration. The spatial sense is lost to . The same happened to , but denoted a more

horizontal motion.

> // / . It is exclusively restricted to the expression of agency and to the non-spatial sense of

with the exception of. The meaning from is only found with abstract objects.

> // . Pg. 233. Rarer and loftier synonym of . When the dative disappeared, only survived as an

artificial replacement of , and the result is a prevalently spatial sense, in the rare occasions that it is found,

though.

Group : Old Ps replaced spatially by both old and new ones- but not entirely

> /// , , . Pg. 233. We usually find it in the non-spatial sense of against. It appears

with Vs of motion, and it denotes hostility (non-spatial), rather than movement (spatial). The basic sense of

downwards is taken over by , and towards by .

> /// , . Largely but not entirely replaced by , which is why it has the sense of when

used in a spatial sense (terminative motion, reaching the goal). its original spatial sense was locative or allative

approximation.

Group : Old Ps for which no recent spatial replacement was available at all

, = , = . No analysis for themThere are (pg. 230) two Ps which are not confined to non-spatial uses, and those are /and ,due to the

fact that they had no new synonyms onto which they could unload their spatial meaning. Perhaps they also had

some kind of special status. They are the only simplex Ps that can appear as the second element of compound Ps.

There could be a spatial element detectable in two more old simplex Ps, and , and these two elements are

marginally used as second elements of compounds. They too had no younger replacement.

Pg. 234. Summary

Old Ps with no rivals retain their spatial meaning Old Ps with new substitutes shed their spatial meanings Old Ps with bot old and new counterparts shed their spatial meanings as well Old Ps that has partial replacement lost the spatial menaing that could be replaced Old Ps kept their non-spatial senses Ps lose their spatial meanings when their new replacements can bear them New Ps are predominantly spatial

Pg. 240, the Greek use of the accusative to express the goal of a motion reappears in neighbouring languages, but

it is a construction found in countless languages the orld over. Bulgarian, Slav Macedonian, Romanian, Albanian


20/28


21/28

21

Without

Towards

With

Against

After

Between

Until

Contrary to Before

Towards

Like

At/to

Without

/ As far as

Compound

Between Instead of

Opposite

Facing

Facing

() Around

() Around

Beside

Beside

Except

Against

Out of After

-/-/ Over

-/-/ On

After

As far as

Under

Near

Together with

Far from

Inside

After In front of

In front of

Beyond

Behind

Next to

Next to

before


22/28

22

Pg 260-261

Theofanopoulou- Kontou makes an analysis of double P constructions as follows:

(1) [adverb + (P+NP)]PP

Spec PP P

P NP

(2) [(adverb + P) + NP]PP

Spec P

P NP

The difference between the two different sequences of adv+P+NP is due to the different position of the adverb,

that may or may not be in the Head position. In (1) the adverb is a self-standing adverb that can be separated

from the following in ways that cannot. (see ,

vs. , ;) . Thus, is a PP. Similar

objections concern lexical sequences as the following:

(1) [[P1+ N+ P2] + NPacc] (2) [[P + N] + NPacc] (3) [[NPcase] + NPgen] , (4) [[P+ N] + NPgen] ,

These sequences are often idiomatic and they do not allow all syntactic or morphological variations.

Pg 263, general diachronic observations about the whole inventory:

If the combinable improper Ps are properly taken into account, the system is not at all poor as comparedwith the classical one, or with that of modern European languages, although it has often claimed to be.

Without compound Ps, MG would have no equivalent of English Ps such as on, near or under, as it has no

counterparts to along, throughout, across.

At least one new P has been added, . There are others of Medieval origin which have well beenestablished (, , ).

The inventory is rich despite the fact that the Medieveal has been drastically curbed, with theresult that usually only one form of each P has survived.

Pg 264, compound Ps today

He supports that compound Ps today are the standard ps of Modern Greek. they correspond to the recognized Ps

of English, and to the Classical Greek simplex Ps. Pg 265, the Greek system of simplex Ps has lost the connotation


23/28

23

of dimensionality. Languages can either have nominal inflections and adpositions indistinct as to dimensional

features (e.g. MG generic P , Turkish all-purpose locative case), or cases and adpositions which identify those

features (Ancient Greek , Finnish specific adessive, inessive etc.). Thus, MG has a simplex P that subsumes

several ancient ones, and Turkish has a single case suffix that subsumes the meanings of several Finnish ones.

Non- dimensional expressions of static spatial relation (with no specification of the size and shape of the

reference object) are the most basic. If dimensionality needs to be stated, MG resorts to combined Ps and Turkish

resorts to polymorphemic postpositions which mark transparently the two required features [loc+dimension].Also, Ancient Greek was able to express fine degrees of proximity in ways that Modern Greek can only express

with compounds.

Pg 267, compound Ps allowing a single combination

Between

Except

Against

Out of

Under

Inside() Behind

Beyond

Before

Instead of

After

As far as

Near

Together with

Far from

After

He goes on about compound Ps consisting of one improper and one proper P, most times or , and then

moves on to improper Ps combining with both. In such cases, the first element takes on the overall semantic

weight (pg 273), and the second element takes on the notion of proximity or distance. = within the region of

typical interaction, = outside the region of typical interaction. Pg 277 he points out that the difference

between items that take both is that the opposition between what is and what is not particularly in focus, readily

perceptible, and available for interaction.

In pg 277 he proceeds to examine the four improper ps that only take , and claims that they all indicate

objects outside the focus area, or far away.

Pg 278, semantic innovations in the compound ps. He poses the question whether the semantic range of the

newer Ps has in any way changed. Pg 282, the once only spatial new Ps have now also become non-spatial.

Pg 284, general semantics of all simplex Ps of MG

1. ablative,


24/28

24

2. perlative 3. partitive 4. material 5. possessive 6. causal 7. agentive 8.

distributive

1. locative 2. allative 3. indir.obj. 4. time within 5. time when 6. mode/ style 7. change 8. limitation

1. destination 2. aim 3. beneficiary 4. cause 5. duration 6. reference 7. limitation 8. role 9. exchange 10.price 11.topic ;

1. locative 2. comitative 3. time comit. 4. Manner 5. Cause 6. Description 7. Instrum. 8. Content


25/28

25

1. Conjunction () 2. Adverb 3. Preposition

1. Mainly a conjunction, comparative /

1. Defective / /

1. Terminative /

1. Approx.movem. 2. Approx.locat. 3. Approx. time 4. Time duration 5. Conformity 6. Extent 7. Manner

Pg 289, the semantics of the revived Ps

1. Classical spatial use *+ 2. Modern spatial use *+ 3. Real modern translation 4. Classical non-spatial use 5. Modern non-spatial use ,

1. Classical spatial use 2. Modern spatial use () 3. Real modern translation () 4. Classical non-spatial use 5. Modern non-spatial use ()

1. Classical spatial use 2. Modern spatial use 3. Classical temporal use


26/28

26

4. Modern temporal use

1. Classical spatial use 2. No modern spatial use 3. Real modern translation 4. Classical non-spatial use 5. Not in modern use 6. Real modern translation 7. Classical non-spatial use 8. Also modern use

1. Spatial direction 2. Time direction

Pg 292, simplex Ps revived less productively

1. Classical spatial use 2. not in Modern Greek 3. real Modern Greek use 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in Modern Greek *6. used today as: intermittence

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use *3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in Modern Greek 6. modern equivalent

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use *3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in Modern Greek 6. real modern translation 7. non spatial idioms in MG


27/28

27

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use *3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. real modern translation

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use remains

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation / 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. real modern translation

+ genitive

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. real modern translation 7. also non-spatial use

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. real modern translation 7. also classical non-spatial use ()

genitive

1. classical spatial use


28/28

2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. real modern translation 7. classical non-spatial use 8.

modern (learned) use ( ) ()

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use * 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. not in MG 6. modern non-spatial use

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use 3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. no modern use

1. classical spatial use 2. no modern spatial use *3. real modern translation 4. classical non-spatial use 5. modern non-spatial use *6. real modern translation

Documents

Bortone Notes