Guard(s) & Garrison

[kalowski]

Strange singular/plural word this one I think.

[face=SPIonic]fulakh/[/face] is translated as guard (sing.) or garrison. Now garrison suggests a collection of soldiers or guards to me. So is there any problem with translating Guards as [face=SPIonic]fulakh/[/face]
or
[face=SPIonic]fulakai/[/face] ?

I ask this because, during Paragraph 74 of White I translated

You led the guards from the houses to the sea as

[face=SPIonic]e)k tw~n oi)kiw~n e)pi\ th\n qa/lattan h]gej ta8/j fulaka8j.<br />[/face]

whilst Koala, on another thread, translates it as


[face=SPIonic]e)k tw~n oi)kiw~n ei)j th\n qa/lattan h]gej th\n fulakh/n.<br />[/face]

Is there a common convention?

Thanks?

Secondly, is there a specific reason for choosing [face=SPIonic]ei)j[/face] over [face=SPIonic]e)pi\[/face]

[Paul]

Secondly, is there a specific reason for choosing [face=SPIonic]ei)j[/face] over [face=SPIonic]e)pi\[/face]

With either preposition the accusative case designates the goal of the activity. Xenophon routinely renders phrases like "marching/going to the X" using [face=SPIonic]e)pi/[/face] with "the X" in the accusative. This is the better construction because [face=SPIonic]ei)j[/face] with the accusative can also mean "into" giving here the possible meaning "into the sea" (cf. use of [face=SPIonic]ei)j[/face] in book of Exodus).

[face=SPIonic]e)pi/[/face] with the dative case would mean "upon the sea", as in "by the sea".

Cordially,

Paul

[kalowski]

Thanks, Paul. I knew Xenophon and I had something in common.