I have a short and simple question this time. In Athenaze, even though the dictionary entry for ἐκεῖσε is “to that place,” this word is used in places where I would have expected an ἐκεῖ instead. Here is one sentence that is repeated twice in the textbook (so probably not a typo):
δεῖ ἡμᾶς πρὸ τῆς νυκτὸς ἐκεῖσε παρεῖναι.
I think the translation should be: “We must be there before the night,” in which case, however, shoudn’t we expect an ἐκεῖ instead of an ἐκεῖσε?
πάρειμι in contexts like these has implied motion.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 1333). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
ἐκεῖσε here is simply the adverbial equivalent of εἰς + acc.
Two questions come to mind here:
Why would Athenaze, an introductory textbook, use the verb πάρειμι with an accusative without telling the student why it does this? Because up to that point in the text, πάρειμι had already been used quite a few times, but never with an accusative (and it is not self-evident why the verb for “to be present” would imply an accusative). It would be better if the textbook had mentioned what you explained me.
In this context, is ἐκεῖσε necessary to the point that ἐκεῖ would be incorrect? That is to say, is the sentence δεῖ ἡμᾶς πρὸ τῆς νυκτὸς ἐκεῖ παρεῖναι ungrammatical?
Hairetikon
Can you tell me which page(s) you find this sentence on? I Have an explanation but I would like to check the context first.
Good questions, actually. To the first, I think that it’s really hard to write a beginning grammar and keep in mind everything that you have introduced to the students. I’ve seen slips like this in other beginning grammars. If I or the students notice, I just call it sneak preview of coming attractions. As to the other I think ἐκεῖ would change the meaning somewhat, that it was necessary to be present there. So right or wrong would depend on what the intended idea is. However, the sense of “arrival” is sufficiently common, particularly with the temporal prepositional phrase, that it’s difficult to imagine it written otherwise.
Sure. Mine is Athenaze, Second Edition, Book I, p. 165, and it is from the main text of the chapter entitled Η ΣΥΜΦΟΡΑ (Β). Here Dicaeopolis is not convinced by his wife’s words (who wants to stay overnight in the city) and instead tells her that they will hurry towards home as soon as possible, and then says something to the effect of “We should be there before night.”
In my copy, this sentence is repeated on page 170 (in the grammar section titled “Impersonal Verbs”).
I think that rather than concentrate on using πάρειμι with an accusative you need to think about how the verb can imply movement.
You have understood that ἐκεῖσε means “to there” or in rather old fashioned English “thither”. So if you are not home and talking about being home you are contemplating going there. So the thought being expressed implies some movement towards home. Following this logic one can understand why ἐκεῖσε is used rather than ἐκεῖ. It emphasises the idea that the place referred to is not where the speaker is standing but somewhere else. The penultimate sentence of the first paragraph on p 165 makes it clear that a journey is being urged.. σπεύσομεν οὖν πρὸς τὰς πύλας καὶ οἴκαδε πορευσόμεθα. ἐκεῖσε picks up the idea of movement expressed in οἴκαδε.
You ask about whether ἐκεῖ can be used in place of ἐκεῖσε. LSJ says for ἐκεῖ :
“…II with Verbs of motion, for ἐκεῖσε, thither, ἐ. πλέομεν Hdt. 7.147; ἐ. ἀπικέσθαι v.l. in Id. 9.108; ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐ. S. OC 1019; οἱ ἐ. καταπεφευγότες Th. 3.71, cf. Plb. 5.101.10; βλέψον δὲ κἀκεῖ Men. Epit. 103.”
So just as in English we say “I am going there” in place of “I am going thither” so Greek can use ἐκεῖ in place of ἐκεῖσε with verbs of motion in the same way.
I wouldn’t get too worried by this. Athenaze is a classroom textbook and if this was raised by a student it would be discussed and explained as we have done here.
I suspect the authors were thinking more of the impersonal construction explained on page 170. That is the most important point of grammar being explained here (there 
?).
I don’t think I need to push this idea further, for my main objective is to improve my Greek, but just as somebody who enjoys talking about grammar and about languages in general, let me say that I disagree with this interpretation.
Assume that I am on a train towards New York and I say “I will be in New York tomorrow.” I don’t say “I will be towards New York.” Sure, my being in New York tomorrow implies an as-of-yet-unfulfilled motion, but none of the languages that I know would render it with an accusative or something implying “direction towards” (e.g., would you use “Wo?” or “Wohin?” with sein?)
In my view, the verb to be, Sein, or einai make more sense when used with a complementary object that is not in any of the oblique cases. If this holds, why assume pareinai to be any different?