επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby David Lim » August 3rd, 2012, 1:29 am

I just found a book to which I have access, "Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present" by Pietro Bortone in 2010 (I note that it was mentioned at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2010-July/053896.html), that says:
5.4.5 wrote:This applies to most other prepositions too. Similar semantic equivalences can be seen (cf. Blass and Debrunner 1979: 185) in

διά + accusative / διά + genitive (the dative not being a possibility altogether)
ὑπό + accusative / ὑπό + genitive (the dative not being a possibility altogether)

The results are equivalences such as

(5.28) ἐπί + accusative:

   ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος   (Rev. 4:2)

   ‘sitting on the throne’

(5.29) ἐπί + genitive:

   καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου   (Isa. 6:1)

   ‘sitting on the throne’

(5.30) ἐπί + dative:

   καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῳ̑ θρόνῳ   (Rev. 21:5)

   ‘sitting on the throne’

5.5 wrote:In summary, in post‐classical usage we see the tendencies detected in Classical and pre‐Classical Greek strengthened:

• cases have a long history of syncretism, and the dative now looks particularly weak;

• at earlier stages, plain cases sufficed to express spatial meanings, but now spatial meanings are expressed by prepositions (added to cases);

• however, cases appear to be losing their individual significance; this is also happening when they are inside a prepositional phrase;

• there are very many prepositions (of different date), including many synonyms;

• prepositions fall into two groups, and the “improper” type (ex‐adverbs), which is the newer group, is being used more and more frequently (at times even compounding the “improper” prepositions with a “proper” one); their inventory is also expanding, thanks to new creations;

• “proper” prepositions are, to some extent, ousting one another (i.e. a number are becoming obsolete), but are mainly replaced by “improper” prepositions;

• most importantly, the “improper” prepositions 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.

So I try to distinguish between the uses of different cases as far as possible, but I see no reason to assume that there must always be a difference, given the widespread occurrence of apparently equivalent formulations, even as others such as Pietro mentioned. I would be interested to see what BDF says that Pietro quoted, since I don't have access to it. In particular I think "δια + acc." / "because of" is clearly distinct from "δια + gen." / "through (direction / channel)" in the NT.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 874
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby Louis L Sorenson » August 11th, 2012, 12:52 pm

I think there is one place each the synoptic writers use a different case of ἐπί in the same passage referring to the same object, but I can't find that passage for now. Here are some more examples of ἐπί's case becoming irrelevant....the classical distinction is movement towards (acc.) and position on (gen./dat.). I personally find it hard to predict the use of the dative versus the genitive. Anyways, here are some more examples:

Mk 6.48 ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης *var. τὴν _ην
Mt 14.25 ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν.
Jn θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης *var. τὴν _ην

Mt 14.19 καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου,
Mk 6.39 καὶ ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ.

Mt 15.35 καὶ παραγγείλας τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
Mk 8.6 καὶ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·
Louis L Sorenson
 
Posts: 582
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby David Lim » August 11th, 2012, 11:49 pm

Louis L Sorenson wrote:I think there is one place each the synoptic writers use a different case of ἐπί in the same passage referring to the same object, but I can't find that passage for now. Here are some more examples of ἐπί's case becoming irrelevant....the classical distinction is movement towards (acc.) and position on (gen./dat.). I personally find it hard to predict the use of the dative versus the genitive.


I think the relevance of the case depends on the semantic domain. For example it seems that only the accusative is used for "to (destination / target)" (Mt 3:13, 6:27, 10:34, 12:49, 21:19, 22:9, 24:16, Mk 5:21, 6:53, 15:22, ...), including "επι το αυτο" = "together (location)" (Mt 22:34, Lk 17:35, Acts 1:15, 2:1,44, 3:1, 4:26, 1 Cor 7:5, 11:20, 14:23), and "against (opposition)" (Mt 10:21, 12:26, 24:7, 26:55, Mk 3:24,25,26, 10:11, 13:8,12, 14:48, ...).

Louis L Sorenson wrote:Anyways, here are some more examples:

Mk 6.48 ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης *var. τὴν _ην
Mt 14.25 ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν.
Jn θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης *var. τὴν _ην

Mt 14.19 καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου,
Mk 6.39 καὶ ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ.

Mt 15.35 καὶ παραγγείλας τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
Mk 8.6 καὶ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·


Thanks for this! I missed Mt 15:35 and Mk 8:6. I am guessing that there could be a slight difference between the dative and the genitive for location. I am guessing that perhaps the dative is used when specifying a position relative to another object, while the accusative and genitive are used interchangeably for generic location (when there are no ambiguities due to other semantic domains). Thus you should never see "επι τη γη". However, for some things like "grass" both mean essentially the same, "right on the grass" and "on the grassy place" respectively, thus the apparent interchangeability. I am compiling as complete a list, specifying which semantic domains are covered by which cases, and I will post it when I am done. This is what I have so far, covering all of Matthew and Mark and a few other places (parallels with different case, if any, are noted in the second line):

Accusative
{ onto / on } (direction of action)
(Mt 3:16, 5:39,45, 10:13,29, 12:28, 13:5,7,8,20,23,48, 17:6, 21:44, 23:36, 26:7,39, Mk 1:10, 4:5,16,20, 15:24?)
on (location of action or object)
(Mt 4:5, 5:15,23, 9:9,18, 7:24,25,26, 11:29, 12:18, 13:2, 14:19,28,29, 18:12, 21:5, 23:4, 24:2, 26:50, 27:25,29,45, Mk 2:14, 4:21,38, 8:25, 10:16, 11:13, 14:46, 15:33, 16:18, Jn 3:36)
(Mt 14:19(Byz); dat. in Mk 6:39; gen. in NU) (Mt 14:26(Byz); gen. in 25(Byz),26(NU), Mk 6:48) (Mt 15:35; gen. in Mk 8:6) (Mt 19:28; gen. in 28, Lk 20:30) (Mk 11:2; dat. in 7(Byz)) (Lk 5:36; dat. in Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21) (Rev 14:14; gen. in Rev 14:15)
to (destination / target)
(Mt 3:13, 6:27, 10:34, 12:49, 21:19, 22:9, 24:16, Mk 5:21, 6:53, 15:22,46, 16:2, Jn 19:33, Acts 11:21, 2 Tim 4:4)
against (hostile opposition)
(Mt 10:21, 12:26, 24:7, 26:55, Mk 3:24,25,26, 10:11, 13:8,12, 14:48)
before (in the presence of someone)
(Mt 27:27, 2 Thes 1:10)
(Mt 10:18; gen. in Mk 13:9)
for (period of time)
(Mt 9:15, 25:40,45)
upon (occasion in time)
(Mk 15:1(Byz), Lk 10:35, Acts 3:1, 4:5)
{ on / in } (object of thought)
(Mk 9:12,13, Acts 9:42, 11:17, 16:31, 22:19, 27:43, Rom 4:5,24)
(Mt 15:32, Mk 8:2, 9:22; dat. in Mt 14:14, Mk 6:34(Byz))
for (objective)
(Mt 3:7)
over (in authority)
(Mt 25:21; gen. in 21)
επι το αυτο
= together (location) (adv.)
(Mt 22:34, Lk 17:35, Acts 1:15, 2:1,44, 3:1, 4:26, 1 Cor 7:5, 11:20, 14:23)

Dative
upon (on the basis of / in reliance on) (basis)
(Mt 4:4, 16:18, 18:5, 19:9, 24:5, Mk 1:22, 9:37,39, 13:6, Lk 5:5)
(Heb 10:28; gen. in 1 Tim 5:19, 2 Cor 13:1)
on (position of the object)
(Mt 14:8,11, Mk 6:25,28,39,55, 13:2)
(Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21(Byz); acc. in Lk 5:36, Mk 2:21(NU)) (Mk 2:4(Byz); not in NU) (Mk 5:33(Byz); not in NU) (Mk 6:39; acc. in Mt 14:19(Byz); gen. in Mt 14:19(NU)) (Mk 11:7(Byz); acc. in 2,7(NU))
just at (location)
(Mt 24:33, Mk 13:29, Jn 5:2)
{ upon / besides } (in addition to) (addition)
(Mt 25:20,22)
{ on account of / over } (reason)
(Mt 7:28, 18:13, 22:33, Mk 3:5, 10:22,24, 11:18, 12:17, Acts 13:12, Rom 10:19, 2 Cor 7:13)
{ on / in } (object of thought)
(Mt 18:26,29, 27:42, Mk 6:52?, Lk 24:25, Rom 9:33, 10:11, 1 Tim 1:16, 1 Pet 2:6)
(Mt 14:14, Mk 6:34(Byz); acc. in Mt 15:32, Mk 6:34(NU), 8:2, 9:22)
for (objective)
(Mt 26:50(Byz); acc. in NU)
over (in authority)
(Mt 24:47; gen. in 45)
upon (occasion in time)
(Jn 4:27)

Genitive
on (location of action or object)
(Mt 4:6, 6:10,19, 9:2,6, 10:27, 16:19, 18:18,19, 21:19, 23:2,9,35, 24:3,17,30, 25:31, 26:12,64, 27:19, 28:18, Mk 2:10, 4:1,26,31, 6:47, 7:30, 8:4, 9:3,20, 11:4, 13:15, 14:35,51)
(Mt 14:25(Byz), Mk 6:48,49; acc. in Mt 14:25(NU),26(Byz)) (Mt 19:28; acc. in 28) (Mk 8:6; acc. in Mt 15:35) (Rev 14:15; acc. in Rev 14:14)
upon (on the basis of / in reliance on) (basis)
(Mt 18:16, Mk 12:14,32, 2 Cor 13:1)
(1 Tim 5:19, 2 Cor 13:1; dat. in Heb 10:28)
before (in the presence of someone)
(Mt 28:14)
(Mk 13:9; acc. in Mt 10:18)
in the time of (era of time)
(Mt 1:11, Mk 2:26)
over (in authority)
(Mt 2:22)
(Mt 24:45; dat. in 47) (Mt 25:21; acc. in 21)
on (topic)
(Mk 12:26)
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 874
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby David Lim » August 12th, 2012, 5:22 am

David Lim wrote:I think the relevance of the case depends on the semantic domain. For example it seems that only the accusative is used for "to (destination / target)" (Mt 3:13, 6:27, 10:34, 12:49, 21:19, 22:9, 24:16, Mk 5:21, 6:53, 15:22, ...), including "επι το αυτο" = "together (location)" (Mt 22:34, Lk 17:35, Acts 1:15, 2:1,44, 3:1, 4:26, 1 Cor 7:5, 11:20, 14:23), and "against (opposition)" (Mt 10:21, 12:26, 24:7, 26:55, Mk 3:24,25,26, 10:11, 13:8,12, 14:48, ...).


Apparently the second is wrong; the accusative is used in Mt 10:21, Mk 13:12 and the latter half of Lk 12:53 while the dative is used in Lk 12:52 and the first half of Lk 12:53!
[Byz] διαμερισθησεται πατηρ επι υιω και υιος επι πατρι μητηρ επι θυγατρι και θυγατηρ επι μητρι πενθερα επι την νυμφην αυτης και νυμφη επι την πενθεραν αυτης
[NU] διαμερισθησονται πατηρ επι υιω και υιος επι πατρι μητηρ επι θυγατερα και θυγατηρ επι την μητερα πενθερα επι την νυμφην αυτης και νυμφη επι την πενθεραν
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 874
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby Tony Pope » August 15th, 2012, 6:18 am

David Lim wrote:Accusative
{ onto / on } (direction of action)
(Mt 3:16, 5:39,45, 10:13,29, 12:28, 13:5,7,8,20,23,48, 17:6, 21:44, 23:36, 26:7,39, Mk 1:10, 4:5,16,20, 15:24?)
on (location of action or object)
(Mt 4:5, 5:15,23, 9:9,18, 7:24,25,26, 11:29, 12:18, 13:2, 14:19,28,29, 18:12, 21:5, 23:4, 24:2, 26:50, 27:25,29,45, Mk 2:14, 4:21,38, 8:25, 10:16, 11:13, 14:46, 15:33, 16:18, Jn 3:36)
(Mt 14:19(Byz); dat. in Mk 6:39; gen. in NU) (Mt 14:26(Byz); gen. in 25(Byz),26(NU), Mk 6:48) (Mt 15:35; gen. in Mk 8:6) (Mt 19:28; gen. in 28, Lk 20:30) (Mk 11:2; dat. in 7(Byz)) (Lk 5:36; dat. in Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21) (Rev 14:14; gen. in Rev 14:15)
to (destination / target)
(Mt 3:13, 6:27, 10:34, 12:49, 21:19, 22:9, 24:16, Mk 5:21, 6:53, 15:22,46, 16:2, Jn 19:33, Acts 11:21, 2 Tim 4:4)


I've not had time to look through your categories in great detail but I’d like to make two suggestions.

Many of the verses listed in your second Accusative category really belong in the first. This is important because otherwise, although you are probably right that there is confusion of the cases in some examples, you may be missing distinctions that are still maintained in NT Greek. I believe you should pay closer attention to the kind of verb that occurs in the clause. For example, in Matt 4.5 the verb is a causative form of the motion verb ἵστημι, meaning “to cause to stand”, “to set”. Although in such a case ἐπί is to be translated in English as “on”, it is not location of action but direction of action, just as you get with an ordinary motion verb like ἔρχομαι in Matt 3.16. Similarly with τίθημι in Matt 5.15, προσφέρω in Matt 5.23, etc. Thus, IMO, your second category should be markedly less populated than at present.

Secondly, there are some examples where ἐπί refers not to superposition “on, onto” but immediate juxtaposition “by, up to”. For example, I wonder if you are construing ἐπ’ αὐτὴν in Mark 11.13 with the verb εὗρεν “he found”, so as to give location of action. I suggest on considerations of phrase order that grammarians and commentators are right when they construe it with the preceding motion verb ἐλθὼν. “When he came right up to it, he found …” This example seems to go in your third category, destination/target. It’s used for situations where the motion ends right up close to the target but, unlike εἰς, not inside it. Mark 16.2 is another example. In contrast, when the motion is targeted to a person, the usual preposition is, of course, πρός (implying face to face), but you can also get ἐπί with a person, as in Mark 5.21 or John 19.33, again with the nuance of immediate juxtaposition (so the lexica, even if it is not discernible in the English versions).
Tony Pope
 
Posts: 47
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby David Lim » August 15th, 2012, 11:24 pm

Tony Pope wrote:[...]

I've not had time to look through your categories in great detail but I’d like to make two suggestions.

Many of the verses listed in your second Accusative category really belong in the first. This is important because otherwise, although you are probably right that there is confusion of the cases in some examples, you may be missing distinctions that are still maintained in NT Greek. I believe you should pay closer attention to the kind of verb that occurs in the clause. For example, in Matt 4.5 the verb is a causative form of the motion verb ἵστημι, meaning “to cause to stand”, “to set”. Although in such a case ἐπί is to be translated in English as “on”, it is not location of action but direction of action, just as you get with an ordinary motion verb like ἔρχομαι in Matt 3.16. Similarly with τίθημι in Matt 5.15, προσφέρω in Matt 5.23, etc. Thus, IMO, your second category should be markedly less populated than at present.


Yes I noted this, but I decided to categorize them as I did because of instances like Matt 6:5, 12:46-47, 16:28, 18:2, Mark 10:16, 15:47, 16:6, where the verb is clearly not one indicating direction but a location.

Tony Pope wrote:Secondly, there are some examples where ἐπί refers not to superposition “on, onto” but immediate juxtaposition “by, up to”. For example, I wonder if you are construing ἐπ’ αὐτὴν in Mark 11.13 with the verb εὗρεν “he found”, so as to give location of action. I suggest on considerations of phrase order that grammarians and commentators are right when they construe it with the preceding motion verb ἐλθὼν. “When he came right up to it, he found …” This example seems to go in your third category, destination/target. It’s used for situations where the motion ends right up close to the target but, unlike εἰς, not inside it. Mark 16.2 is another example. In contrast, when the motion is targeted to a person, the usual preposition is, of course, πρός (implying face to face), but you can also get ἐπί with a person, as in Mark 5.21 or John 19.33, again with the nuance of immediate juxtaposition (so the lexica, even if it is not discernible in the English versions).


Yes, if taken that way, it would be under the category of "to (destination / target)". I am not sure there is unambiguous reason for taking "επ αυτην" to modify "ελθων", and had not read it that way, since many times "ελθων" is used just by itself, thus my classification, though your suggestion is certainly possible.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 874
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby D Ryan Lowe » November 1st, 2013, 1:43 pm

Reviving this dead thread at David's request.

My tentative hypothesis on επι is:

επι + genitive groups the prepositional phrase within the noun phrase, i.e. "[ The fool on the hill ] is speaking perfectly loud."

επι + dative makes the prepositional phrase incidental to the clause and the verb, sometimes like an indirect object, i.e. "The scholar is reading on the hill"

επι + dative often also sets up a passage construction in which the active participant is in the prepositional phrase, i.e. "The crowd was amazed at his message."
This phrase could be made active by changing it to "His message amazed the crowd."

επι + accusative makes the prepositional phrase directly related to the clause, like an object of the verb, i.e. "Humpty Dumpty fell to the ground."

With many verbs and objects, it often is pretty clear which case to use.

The lines get blurred for something like "The crowd sat on the grass."
A genitive construction would group the noun phrase "[The crowd on the grass] sat."
A dative construction would make the location incidental, i.e. "The crowd sat ... (where?) ... on the grass."
An accusative construction would make the location central to the verb, i.e. "The crowd moved their bottoms on the grass."
The distinction between these are slight, so it's no surprise that these types of constructions are interchangeable.

David Lim wrote:[Matt 14:14] και εξελθων ο ιησους ειδεν πολυν οχλον και εσπλαγχνισθη επ αυτοις και εθεραπευσεν τους αρρωστους αυτων
[Matt 15:32] ο δε ιησους προσκαλεσαμενος τους μαθητας αυτου ειπεν σπλαγχνιζομαι επι τον οχλον οτι ηδη ημεραι τρεις προσμενουσιν μοι και ουκ εχουσιν τι φαγωσιν και απολυσαι αυτους νηστεις ου θελω μηποτε εκλυθωσιν εν τη οδω
Do you mind explaining the difference in meaning between the use of "επι" in Matt 14:14 and Matt 15:32? One is with the accusative but the other is with the dative.


Matt. 14:14 I would read this dative as a passive construction, i.e. "he was deeply moved by the crowd." Note the verb is passive. The emphasis, I think, is that the crowd had an effect on Jesus, and Jesus responds by healing.
Matt. 15:32 I would translate this accusative more in an active sense, i.e. "I have pity on the crowd." The verb is still passive, but Jesus is speaking in an active, volitional sense of how he is willingly having compassion on the crowd, and desires to show his compassion.

Thoughts?
D Ryan Lowe
 
Posts: 31
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 1:45 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 2nd, 2013, 3:59 pm

D Ryan Lowe wrote:My tentative hypothesis on επι is:

επι + genitive groups the prepositional phrase within the noun phrase, i.e. "[ The fool on the hill ] is speaking perfectly loud."
επι + dative makes the prepositional phrase incidental to the clause and the verb, sometimes like an indirect object, i.e. "The scholar is reading on the hill"
επι + accusative makes the prepositional phrase directly related to the clause, like an object of the verb, i.e. "Humpty Dumpty fell to the ground."

Thoughts?

I'm very skeptical that the case governed by a preposition should affect the syntactic relationship of the prepositional phrase to the rest of the clause.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby D Ryan Lowe » November 3rd, 2013, 2:56 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
D Ryan Lowe wrote:My tentative hypothesis on επι is:

επι + genitive groups the prepositional phrase within the noun phrase, i.e. "[ The fool on the hill ] is speaking perfectly loud."
επι + dative makes the prepositional phrase incidental to the clause and the verb, sometimes like an indirect object, i.e. "The scholar is reading on the hill"
επι + accusative makes the prepositional phrase directly related to the clause, like an object of the verb, i.e. "Humpty Dumpty fell to the ground."

Thoughts?

I'm very skeptical that the case governed by a preposition should affect the syntactic relationship of the prepositional phrase to the rest of the clause.


Fair enough. But why?

We're faced with two generally accepted facts:
1) The case affects the syntactic relationship of a noun to the rest of the clause.

Thus, we know that case can affect syntactic relationship. This opens up the possibility that it may do the same with prepositions.

2) Unlike for other prepositions, επι appears frequently in three different cases, yet its basic meaning is essentially the same in all three cases.

See for example Wallace, in which the :
1. With Genitive
a. Spatial: on, upon, at, near
b. Temporal: in the time of, during
c. Cause: on the basis of

2. With Dative
a. Spatial: on, upon, against, at, near
b. Temporal: at, at the time of, during
c. Cause: on the basis of

3. With Accusative
a. Spatial: on, upon, to, up to, against
b. Temporal: for, over a period of

You would be hard pressed to find differences in meaning based on the case of επι.

So the question is, if the basic meaning of επι is the same in all cases, and all three cases have frequent attestation, what could possibly distinguish them? My suggestion, that they affect the syntactic relation, should be the first hypothesis, given that this is how cases function outside of prepositions.

From the data that I've studied so far, I think this explanation works pretty well. One piece of evidence I'm looking at is that I'm not finding data where there is both an accusative object of the verb AND επι with accusative. If there is an object of the verb, επι will take genitive or dative. (If you can find a counter-example, let me know). This seems to indicate that case does matter for επι in terms of syntactic relationships.

Skepticism is perhaps warranted, but I would prefer skepticism to be backed up with an argument against it, or an alternate proposal for the difference in meaning for the three cases for επι.
D Ryan Lowe
 
Posts: 31
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 1:45 am

Re: επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 3rd, 2013, 4:13 pm

D Ryan Lowe wrote:Skepticism is perhaps warranted, but I would prefer skepticism to be backed up with an argument against it, or an alternate proposal for the difference in meaning for the three cases for επι.

Well, I'm still skeptical. The cases don't have the syntactic functions you're proposing for them in this construction. And even if they did, in classical and Koine Greek, prepositions are the heads of their phrases, so the cases of their objects shouldn't matter syntactical above the prepositional phrase. The proposition παρά also governs three cases, but it is not claimed to feature this behavior. There's no reason why the pattern, if valid, shouldn't generalize to prepositions governing genitive and accusatives; or, that it would suggest that all prepositional phrases with genitive objects should be adnominal. It really sounds like a special syntactic rule for ἐπί, and there is no theoretical reason why ἐπί should be so special. These are just some of the reasons why I'm feeling skeptical.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

PreviousNext

Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron