Beginner's question about Ï€Ï￾ός.

[rouclen]

Hi there, everyone, I've just joined up to textkit. I'm learning Greek with A Reading Course in Homeric Greek and am really having a good time. Thanks for providing the service!

So to get to the question, every preposition that I've learned up until Ï€Ï￾ός has seemed to have a bundle of closely related meanings, like "ὑπό - from under, under the influence of, motion underneath, resting underneath". So why does Ï€Ï￾ός then have such divergent meanings based on the case of its noun?

The varying meanings seem to correspond to the general meanings of the cases; so does Ï€Ï￾ός then function of some sort of intensifying preposition? Is there such a thing? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-rouclen

[Bert]

There are prepositions that are intensifying but I don't think that is the case here. An intensifying preposition intensifies the meaning of the verb.
Making fall into crash or eat into devour.
I think the reason the behaviour of PROS corresponds to the general meanings of the cases is; PROS usually indicate motion. The "general meaning of the cases" also has to do with motion.

[cb]

hi, there is a good little book online on greek prepositions which is worth reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GAVLAA ... =fr&pgis=1

your post above echoes the beginning of chapter 8, which goes on to propose an underlying meaning of Ï€Ï￾ός.

cheers

[annis]

Erm. Adams' a little too Romanticist for my tastes.

In any case, G. Horrocks interprets Ï€Ï￾ός similarly — if you squint a bit — in his Space and Time in Homer:

I propose the following componential definition of the locative phrases:

L(FACE-x dat)

Where FACE is to be interpreted to mean that the location in question is viewed as a point, surface, area or volume which 'faces' or 'opposes' the object located there.

He has more puzzling things to say about Ï€Ï￾ός as well later, but I don't grok that enough yet to inflict on anyone else.

[cb]

hey will, thanks for that, i haven't read horrocks' book.

i would appreciate it if you could you let me know whether horrocks gives definitions of the other prepositions as well, and if so, are there any which are particularly worth noting (i.e. which differ from the common account / the meanings given in adams' book linked above)?

cheers

[annis]

i would appreciate it if you could you let me know whether horrocks gives definitions of the other prepositions as well,

He discusses every one that can act as a preverb.

are there any which are particularly worth noting (i.e. which differ from the common account / the meanings given in adams' book linked above)?

Since I only know about Adams' since your post this morning, and I approach Horrocks' only when feeling very brave, I'm afraid I cannot give a comparison just now.