Il. 24.707-709

[vir litterarum]

IL.24.707 ὣς ἔφατ', ο?δέ τις α?τόθ' ?νὶ πτόλεϊ λίπετ' ἀνὴ?
IL.24.708 ο?δὲ γυνή: πάντας γὰ? ἀάσχετον ἵκετο πένθος:
IL.24.709 ἀγχοῦ δὲ ξ?μβληντο πυλάων νεκ?ὸν ἄγοντι.

Is πυλάων the object of the preposition ἀγχοῦ, i.e. "near the gates," or is it just a genitive of separation? If it is the object of ἀγχοῦ, how can the preposition be separated from its object by a verb?

[modus.irrealis]

Can't it be both? I'd say it's an adverb (or "improper preposition") governing πυλάων in some sense. But isn't one of the origins for prepositions in general the usage of the individual cases? Although, I don't think a genitive of separation works here, maybe the genitive of place (place within-which). Or, if ἀγχοῦ is a case-form of a noun, this might just be a normal genitive in origin. Either way, I don't think the position is that strange. It's not exactly the same but 1.498 has

εὗ?εν δ' ε???οπα Κ?ονίδην ἄτε? ἥμενον ἄλλων

with ἥμενον coming between ἄτε? and ἄλλων.

[vir litterarum]

is it typical for improper prepositions to be separated from their "objects" by a verb?

[modus.irrealis]

Considering how long it took me to find another example, I'd say not typical. But that's not based on much.

[vir litterarum]

I was just thinking of this rule cited in Smyth:


§1663. Position.--The preposition usually precedes its noun. It may be separated from it

a. By particles (μέν, δέ, γέ, τέ, γά?, οὖν) and by οἶμαι I think: ?ν οὖν τῇ πόλει P. R. 456d, εἰς δέ γε οἶμαι τὰ̄ς ἄλλᾱς πόλεις to the other cities I think 568 c.

Note that the order τὴν μὲν χώ?ᾱν (1155) usually becomes, e.g. π?ὸς μὲν τὴν χώ?ᾱν or π?ὸς τὴν χώ?ᾱν μέν. Demonstrative ? μέν and ? δέ, when dependent on a preposition, regularly follow the preposition, and usually with order reversed (1109): ?ν μὲν ἄ?α τοῖς συμφωνοῦμεν, ?ν δὲ τοῖς οὔ in some things then we agree, but not in others P. Phae. 263b. [p. 369]

b. By attributives: εἰς Καΰστ?ου πεδίον to the plain of the Cayster X. A. 1.2.11 .

c. By the accusative in oaths and entreaties (with π?ός): π?ός σε τῆσδε μητ?ός by my mother here I implore thee E. Phoen. 1665; cp. per te deos oro and see 1599.




Are improper prepositions exempt from this rule because they aren't technically prepositions?

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

So is there no rule for all of Greek literature concerning what words can separate a preposition from its object? I found this in Kuhner:

b Those instances where the preposition is separated from the Case of its substantive Here also throughout Homer the preposition exhibits its original adverbial meaning and belongs to the verb both i.e. the verb and the adverbial preposition form one verbal idea and this (not the preposition alone) governs the Case

In this instance, I think you were right that technically the genitive is a "genitive of place within which," and that "agchou" is being used quasi-prepositionally here as Kuhner states. It seems that "pulawn" is genitive both because of an independent usage indicating place and also because the adverb influences it.