Rachel and Michael Aubrey 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 4.1 Introduction One way to describe Greek prepositions like ἐκ and ἀπό is to begin with simple English glosses: ἐκ “out of”; ἀπό “from, away from.” While this may provide a convenient shorthand, it does little for understanding how prepositions function in the Greek language, what spatial relations they mediate (e.g., contact, container, path), and what consequences these have on more abstract expressions (e.g., time, cause, and effect). Likewise, it says nothing of how synchronic patterns in postclassical Greek are situated within diachronic shifts, or what functional elements (e.g., control, distance) may be associated with ἐκ and ἀπό through sustained use.1 It is precisely these spatial dimensions that form the basis for the present description. We aim to delineate the basic schematic structure of ἐκ and ἀπό, along with their primary usage patterns, and how more abstract expressions are motivated by their spatial grounding. As with all prepositions, the semantic nature of ἐκ and ἀπό is predicated on a set of relationships in space between a Trajector and a Landmark.2 Prepositions mediate or encode spatial scenes in which a Trajector and Landmark are in some spatial configuration relative to one another. These spatial scenes rely on image schemas, or gestalt patterns that emerge from human experience in space.3 One image schema reflected in the meaning of the preposition ἐκ is the container schema. Humans understand containment as an experiential gestalt in everyday existence:4 We go into and out of containers where we are surrounded by boundaries. We put things into and take things out of containers to organize our lives. This underlies the concept of “where things go”; objects have source containers where they come out of when in use. 1 See Maria Brenda, “3.5.2 Functional Elements,” in The Cognitive Perspective on The Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition Over (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 232–38. 2 Both terms are common in cognitive linguistic literature, though figure and ground are also used. See John R. Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 206. 3 Image schemas are “simple structures that constantly recur in our everyday bodily experience: container, paths, links, forces, balance, and in various orientations and relations: up-down, frontback, part-whole, center-periphery, etc.” (George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [Chicago: University Press, 1987], 267). 4 See Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., “The Psychological Status of Image Schemas,” in From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Beate Hampe and Joseph E. Grady (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2005), 113–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110777895-004 68 Rachel and Michael Aubrey Two primary dimensions that underlie these spatial scenes are place and path. The former defines the location or position of the Trajector with respect to the Landmark; the Trajector may be on/in/under/over the Landmark. The latter defines the movement of the Trajector in the spatial configuration (e.g., motion toward/away, or no motion at all).5 Note that in both cases, the spatial status of the Trajector is defined with reference to the Landmark because it is the Landmark that serves as the stable point of reference in the context of communication. In talking about place, we are interested in three variables: direction, orientation, and distance.6 Distance denotes the relative amount of space between the Landmark and Trajector. This can range from a substantial amount of distance, very far, to no distance at all, where the Trajector is either in contact with the Landmark or entirely enveloped by it. Direction describes the relative position of the Trajector as facing toward or away from the Landmark, where the positional axis is centered in the directional bearing of the Trajector. For example, earth, as a Trajector, rotates on its axis with reference to the sun, as a Landmark, where the continents on earth are either in daylight, facing toward the sun or in the shadow of night facing away from the sun. Similarly, the seasons are determined by earth’s axial position relative to the sun, where winter is the tilt away and summer the tilt toward. Orientation describes the position of the Trajector as beside/above/below/in/near, and so forth relative to the Landmark, where the positional axis is centered in the Landmark. Continuing with the solar system analogy, orientation involves the orbits of planets, comets, and asteroids in their relative positions circling the sun. The conceptualization of path is primarily framed in terms of motion relative to the Landmark. A Trajector might not have a path at all. It might be in a static location with no movement, such that its path is effectively a point rather than a line. A Trajector might be moving toward its Landmark or away from its Landmark. A Trajector could be passing by the Landmark with no implication of source or goal. Path is thus framed as the motion or lack of motion involved in place. These spatial relations, as mediated by the prepositions, have consequences for how the prepositions are used, not only spatially, but also how they are extended into nonspatial domains. For clarification, these are not meant to be features – components of meaning wherein the right bundle brought together produces the meaning of a preposition. Instead, they represent cognitive concepts grounded in human experience of space 5 Peter de Swart, Hanne M. Eckhoff, and Olga Thomason, “A Source of Variation: A Corpus-Based Study of the Choice between ἀπό and ἐκ in the NT Greek Gospels,” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12, no. 1 (2012): 161–62, DOI: 10.1163/156658412X649760. 6 Günter Radden and René Dirven, Cognitive English Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins 2007), 307–10. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 69 and embodiment.7 It is within this context that the usage of ἐκ and ἀπό are identical (or nearly so) in their prototypical usage for most of these characteristics. Both profile a Trajector’s path of motion away from a source Landmark. This naturally results in a direction facing away from the Landmark and creates distance between Trajector and Landmark. Where they differ is in the Trajector’s starting point. For ἐκ, the Trajector’s path begins from within the Landmark. Thus, in its source location it is both in contact with the Landmark and surrounded by it. Ἀπό specifies no such containment or contact for the relationship between Trajector and Landmark. The starting point is indefinite, neither identifiable nor specific from the standpoint of the prepositional phrase.8 These similarities and differences are represented in two schemas in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Basic schemas for ἐκ (left) and ἀπό (right). 4.2 ἐκ and ἀπό in Historical Context Usage patterns of ἐκ and ἀπό in the New Testament era exist within a larger historical context. By the first century CE, ἐκ and ἀπό have already experienced two thousand years of history. Both can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European, ἐκ from *h1ǵʰ-s “out” and ἀπό from *h2epo “from.”9 As noted, their prototypical functions already overlap in Homeric Greek, though they differ with respect to their Landmark. In this case, ἐκ profiles the container schema with a bounded Landmark in its conceptualization. That is, because the Trajector emerges from the interior of the Landmark and has direct contact with it, the Landmark sustains an element of control over the 7 Claude Vandeloise, “Are There Spatial Prepositions?,” in Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, ed. Maya Hickmann and Stéphane Robert, TSL 66 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006), 137–54. 8 This does not preclude such information being provided by the larger clause/discourse context. 9 Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, vol. 1, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10.1 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 117, 433. 70 Rachel and Michael Aubrey Trajector’s point of origin and emergence.10 This is not the case for ἀπό. With ἀπό, the Landmark merely serves as a point of orientation for the motion of the Trajector. As a result of these differences, in Homer, ἐκ and ἀπό are very nearly in complimentary distribution. Each shows clear preferences for Landmarks of a particular type.11 For example, ἐκ demonstrates a preference for toponym Landmarks, particularly those that can be easily construed as surrounding a Trajector (e.g., cities). In this vein, ἐκ is exclusively used when a ship is the Landmark. Likewise, ἀπό shows a preference for motion verbs and Trajector-Landmark pairs where the Landmark is viewed (based on encyclopedic knowledge) as the natural or expected origin of the now distant Trajector.12 As a basic pattern for Homeric usage, ἐκ is preferred for Trajector-Landmark relations that involve containment, where a Trajector emerges from within a surrounding Landmark, though this guideline grows fuzzy with age. In the Classical period, the general pattern for ἐκ and ἀπό evinces a progressive semantic generalization of ἀπό from its use for noncontainer Landmarks to an unmarked status for Landmark structure. While this process is not fully complete in the Classical era, by late Byzantine and Medieval Greek, Pietro Bortone reports that ἐκ had effectively dropped out of use and that ἀπό had encompassed all uses. Bortone observes that when ἐκ does appear, it functions as a formal, archaic version of ἀπό that contributes more to the status and style of a text than a difference in semantic content.13 The focus of the present account spans the intervening period, with particular attention to the status of ἐκ and ἀπό in Hellenistic and early Roman era Greek. The goal is to trace the broad outlines of their usage in this era, with Silvia Luraghi’s14 description of classical era usage serving as a baseline or starting point from which to continue. In this account, priority is given to their schematic structure, especially as it enables further metaphoric extensions.15 10 Silvia Luraghi, On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek, SLCS 67 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003), 95. 11 Luraghi, 95. 12 Luraghi, 119. 13 Pietro Bortone, Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present, Oxford Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 211, 232. This account is substantiated in David Holton, et al., Cambridge Grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 2019), 1993, 1996–97 (ἀπό), 1997 (ἐκ). 14 Luraghi, Meaning of Prepositions. 15 Following Luraghi’s Meaning of Prepositions, we use the terms “source,” “partitive,” “origin,” “time/ temporal,” and “cause” as the core semantic usage categories for describing the meaningful relationships signaled by prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 71 4.3 ἐκ and ἀπό in Hellenistic and Early Roman Era Greek 4.3.1 Source Constructions Source constructions are those most closely tied to human activity in physical space. Prototypically expressions of source involve motion, as paired with motion verbs in (1) and (2), but this is not a required element of the schema. (1) καὶ ἀπῆρεν ἀπὸ Ἀντιοχίας, ἀπὸ πόλεως βασιλείας αὐτοῦ (1Macc 3:37) He departed from Antioch from the capital of his kingdom.16 (2) Σπεῦσον καὶ ἐξελθε ἐν τάχει ἐξ Ἰερουσαλήμ (Acts 22:18) Hurry and get out of Jerusalem in haste. An instance like (3), below, profiles the entire source-path-goal schema; the notion of path rises as a consequence of the connection between a locational source and an endpoint goal. A path may be conceptualized as a continuous set of spatial points that serves as a conduit that facilitates passage between two locations. Functionally, it originates from goal-oriented action in which a spatial goal is reached by relating it to a particular point of origin.17 In (3), ἀπό signals the starting point from which the event (as the Trajector) proceeds, with ἕως marking the final endpoint of the action. (3) τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπʼ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω (Mark 15:38) The curtain of the temple split in two from top to bottom. At times, a speaker or writer may want to focus on the static spatial relationship between two points without profiling motion. Location expressions represent a spatial snapshot in which a Trajector is located with reference to a Landmark. Because ἀπὸ references an orientation for the Trajector as facing away from the Landmark, it is then associated with separation or distance; one thing is removed from another by a designated interval. Use of ἀπό in (4) indicates the distance between Bethany and Jerusalem. 16 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are by the authors. 17 Andrea Tyler and Vyvyan Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 217–18. 72 Rachel and Michael Aubrey (4) ἦν δὲ ἡ Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε (John 11:18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem some two miles away. Similar to location expressions are separation expressions. These specify a spatio-physical or metaphorical relationship between Trajector and Landmark that highlights their unrelatedness. In addition to distance, these also profile the orientation of the Trajector as having an opposing direction away from the Landmark. Example (5) serves as a command: you (Trajector) must stay away from every form of evil (Landmark).18 (5) ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε (1Thess 5:22) Abstain from every form of evil. Various elements of the source schema can be reconceptualized metaphorically. The basic source schema for ἐκ profiles a relationship in which a Trajector emerges out of (and away from) a surrounding Landmark.19 This spatial relationship can then be extended to the perceptual domain, involving notions of accessibility. One of the consequences of a Trajector emerging out of a container Landmark is that the Trajector is now accessible to anyone exterior to the Landmark. In (6), human thought is conceived as a Trajector emerging out of a bounded Landmark, the human heart, which normally hides its contents from an exterior vantage point. When the heart is pierced, thoughts are revealed, or made accessible to all those outside of that bounded space. (6) [. . .] καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία, ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί. (Luke 2:35) [. . .] and a sword will pierce your own soul also, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. Motion “away from” or “out of” can also be metaphorically conceptualized in other ways. Example (7) below profiles a change of state, with the initial state and the final (changed) state being the source and goal. In this material source expression, the Trajector, as the resulting product, is conceived as emerging from the Landmark. In 18 Presumably this is both a spatio-physical command to keep oneself physically distant from evil and those engaging in evil acts as well as a more abstract construal to be mentally cognizant of avoiding temptation toward evil in all its manifestations. 19 The basic source schema for ἀπό profiles a relationship in which the Trajector is separated from a Landmark source. One of the consequences of this spatial configuration is that a Trajector that is distant from a Landmark becomes difficult to see, distance limits visibility (e.g., Luke 24:31). Likewise, with a separated Trajector and Landmark, something can come between them to visibly block one from the other. See esp. Acts 1:9; Rev 6:16. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 73 (7), the whip (Trajector) emerges from the cords (Landmark) as its material source. An entailment of this schema is an initial spatial proximity or intrinsic connection between Trajector and Landmark. The whip may look different in shape, length, and in other ways, but it consists of the same (source) material.20 (7) ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων (John 2:15) Making a whip out of cords. 4.3.2 Origin Constructions Following Luraghi, origin expressions are abstractions from more basic source constructions. Prototypically, origins involve physical Landmarks and Trajectors, but rather than motion, they express more abstract ideas of provenance, origination, or genesis (e.g., prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό trace their origins from Proto-Indo-European).21 As with source, origin expressions can also involve other metaphoric mappings. One of the most common expressions of origin relates to ethnic groups or places of residence. (8) τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἰουδαῖοι (Acts 24:19) Some of the Jews from Asia. In (8), the Jews in question are specifically those who live in Asia and are currently visiting Jerusalem for a religious celebration. With ἐκ especially, origin relations provide a means for the speaker to delineate or define those who are in or out of a particular social, religious, or ethnic group. In this case, the preference for ἐκ is predicated on a metaphoric extension from embodied experience. Consider, for instance, that with source expressions, ἐκ is preferred with birthing verbs, where the container schema is explicit (with the mother as the source container and the child as the emerging Trajector). The extension from birth to lineage and then from lineage to tribe/ethnicity, illustrated in (9) and (10), is a natural and predictable path of grammaticalization. (9) ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (Gal 4:4) God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law. (10) μὴ λάβῃς γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν ἣ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ πατρός σου (Tob 4:12) Do not take a foreign wife who is not from your father’s tribe. 20 Luraghi, Meaning of Prepositions, 215. 21 Luraghi, 21. 74 Rachel and Michael Aubrey Furthermore, social groups are conceived as contained entities that require the crossing of a boundary to enter or leave the group, hence their association with the preposition ἐκ above. Partitive expressions (see next section) are a logical extension from origin in such contexts. Origin expressions referring to religious groups are particularly prominent in the Pauline and General Epistles in the New Testament, where the boundaries of faith and belief are discussed, debated, and taught. Examples like (11)–(12) are common cases. (11) εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας (Gal 3:18) For if inheritance is from the law, it is not from promise. With social groups like in (12), the Landmark has shifted from the physical domain to the abstract. Origin expressions are useful for separating people into categories, such as good or evil. (12) οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν (1John 3:12) We must not be like Cain who was from the Evil One. It should be noted that even though ἐκ is most common for these expressions, since ἀπό is left unspecified for boundaries or containers, it can also be used in such contexts. (13) τούτου ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν ἤγαγεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν (Acts 13:23) From this man’s descendants God brought to Israel a savior, Jesus, just as he promised. In addition to an abstract Landmark, the Trajector can also be abstract. This is the case for origin expressions involving knowledge or education. (14) κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (Rom 2:18) being instructed from the law. In example (14), the notion of provenance is retained, but both Trajector (education) and Landmark (Mosaic law) are abstract entities. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 75 4.3.3 Partitive Constructions Partitive constructions with ἐκ and ἀπό may be of two general types.22 The first, entity partitives, involve the physical domain. They denote inherent relationships between a part and a larger whole, based on the metaphor the object comes out of the substance23 or alternatively wholes are origins.24 As with origins, these relationships are also reliant on shared human experience, involving an intrinsic relationship between a part and a larger whole (e.g., a wheel of cheese and a wedge cut from that wheel). The wedge maintains a direct link in its conceptual structure with its whole. Entity partitives are closely related to material source constructions and likely function as one of the paths by which source extends to partitives. The second is set partitives. Set partitives involve collective groups, where an entire collection of independent entities is treated as a whole on the basis of a shared feature, such as physical space (a crowd) or a set of beliefs (the Jews), or an ethnic background (the Greeks).25 (15) Physical part-whole/entity partitive: λήμψῃ τέφραν θυμιαμάτων καὶ ἐπιθήσεις ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας καὶ τοῦ ἥπατος τοῦ ἰχθύος (Tob 6:17) You will take incense coals and put some of the heart and fish liver on them. While hearts and livers are body parts, and thus function within an entity partitive frame, they also function in terms of a part-whole expression. The speaker in (15) is referring to indistinguishable pieces from the heart and liver. Example (16) illustrates a set partitive where one participant is highlighted among a set of independent participants/entities. (16) Set partitive: Οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δώδεκα ἐξελεξάμην; καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν (John 6:70 Did I not chose you twelve? And yet one of you is the devil. 22 Helen de Hoop, “Partitivity,” in The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, ed. Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma, Studies in Generative Grammar 61 (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2003), 184. 23 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 73. 24 Kiki Nikiforidou, “The Meanings of the Genitive: A Case Study in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change,” Cognitive Linguistics 2 (1991): 149–205, DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149. 25 See Helen de Hoop, “A Semantic Reanalysis of the Partitive Constraint,” Lingua 103 (1997): 151–74, DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00018-1. Since this last set (ethnic background) is so closely related to origin constructions, they can be practically identical. 76 Rachel and Michael Aubrey The fact that there are two types of partitives allows for more creative expression. For example, in (17), Paul takes what might otherwise be conceived as a set partitive (the church community) and reconceptualizes it as an entity partitive in 1 Corinthians to make a point about the church. (17) Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος (1Cor 12:16) Because I am not an eye, I am not part of the body. Some partitives exist in an ambiguous space between source, origin, and partitive, as in (18). (18) οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν (1Cor 10:17) For we all share from one bread. In example (18), the metaphor evoked is one of taking pieces of bread from a loaf, which involves aspects of the material source usage, origin constructions (we share a provenance and are part of the same ground), and partitive (pieces of bread from a loaf). Among partitive constructions, ἐκ consistently tends to be preferred since most partitives rely on the notion of a bounded entity/group – relying on the container schema. However, ἀπό still occurs with partitives where the boundary between whole and part is minimized in some way, such as example (15), where the portion of fish is not specified as distinct from the rest. The constituency of the fish is irrelevant for the aims of the discourse. 4.3.4 Temporal Constructions Temporal constructions shift the Trajector-Landmark relationship out of the physical plane and reconceptualizes it on a temporal scale. The Trajector is an event conceived as moving away from the Landmark; the Landmark event serves as a temporal reference point. Fundamental to temporal expressions with ἐκ and ἀπό are distance and separation, which are applied to the temporal plane. (19) ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (John 15:27) You have been with me from the beginning. While origins and partitives demonstrate a preference for ἐκ, temporal expressions prefer ἀπό, especially in contexts like (19). The preference for ἀπό comes naturally from the nature of its unspecified Landmark. Most temporal expressions do not involve a temporal starting point with a boundary that can be crossed (à la the con- 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 77 tainer schema). The temporal starting point exists as undifferentiated from the temporal path. This naturally fits the usage of ἀπό and corresponds with its increasing frequency over time. Nevertheless, since diachronic change occurs gradually, we still find instances of ἐκ in the temporal domain, as in (20). (20) οἱ πρεσβευταὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἦλθαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς φίλοι ἡμῶν καὶ σύμμαχοι, ἀνανεούμενοι τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν (1Macc 15:17) The ambassadors of the Jews came to us as our friends and allies, renewing their ancient (=from the beginning) friendship and alliance. While this kind of temporal expression is significantly more common with ἀπό, there are still a handful of instances with ἐκ. Already in Classical Greek Luraghi describes ἀπό as the preferred preposition for temporal expressions,26 while Bortone describes Medieval Greek usage as reviving ἐκ for literary effect as a formal and archaic usage.27 It is possible that in postclassical Greek there is already a preference for ἐκ in high register usage.28 Despite the dominance of ἀπό, there still exists a pattern of complimentary distribution with different types of temporal expressions. Ἐκ continues to be used with clearly distinguished or bounded Landmarks, particularly when event quantification is involved, as in (21) and (22). (21) προσηύξατο ἐκ τρίτου (Matt 26:44) He prayed for a third time. (22) καὶ προσέθετο τὸν Βακχίδην καὶ τὸν Ἄλκιμον ἐκ δευτέρου ἀποστεῖλαι εἰς γῆν Ἰούδα (1Macc 9:1) And he repeated sending Bacchides and Alcimus for a second time to the land of Judah. The same is true when a bounded time period is specified, as in (23). (23) εὗρεν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπόν τινα ὀνόματι Αἰνέαν ἐξ ἐτῶν ὀκτὼ κατακείμενον ἐπὶ κραβάττου, ὃς ἦν παραλελυμένος (Acts 9:33) He found a man there whose name was Aeneas, who had been lying on a mat for eight years and was paralyzed. 26 Luraghi, Meaning of Prepositions, 130. 27 Bortone, Greek Prepositions, 232. 28 There is also an idiomatic expression that prefers ἐκ where we might otherwise expect ἀπό: ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας (“day after day”). 78 Rachel and Michael Aubrey In (23), the temporal expression fits a highly schematized version of a container, with clear boundaries for the beginning and end of the man’s time on the mat. Temporal usage with ἀπό on the other hand, is either unspecified, as in (19), or it involves a continuous span of time, such as applying the source-path-goal schema to the temporal plane with nonspecific reference points. (24) ἴδετε τὴν γῆν καὶ διανοήθητε περὶ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ γενομένων ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τελειώσεως (1En. 2:2) See the earth and be reminded of the works that continue in her from the beginning until completion. (25) καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν καὶ κατήγγειλαν τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας (Acts 3:24) And all the prophets from Samuel and following, all those who have spoken and proclaimed these days. The preference for ἀπό in (24)–(25) is likely a result of the lack of distinguishability between the starting point and path. Because there is only a point of initiation rather than a specific boundary, ἀπό is the natural choice – just as in spatial source constructions. Both ἐκ and ἀπό demonstrate a coherent mapping from the spatio-physical source domain to the temporal sphere. A few final examples demonstrate how various schematic elements from the spatial domain create motivational potential for metaphoric extension to the temporal domain. Example (26) involves a metonymic mapping where ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ “from his mother’s womb” stands in for the beginning of his time on earth, marking the temporal span of his lameness from birth until the time of speech/writing. (26) Wombs are containers τις ἀνὴρ χωλὸς ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ (Acts 3:2) A certain man lame from his mother’s womb. Similarly, example (27) marks the passage of time by delineating specific life stages. A bounded span of time, identified by age (e.g., “my youth”), by status (e.g., “my army days”), or by location (e.g., “my time in the city”) is used as a temporal starting point from which a Trajector emerges and moves away, along a temporal path. Judas Maccabaeus had the character trait of strength (Trajector event) which emerged from the days of his youth (Landmark source). 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 79 (27) Life stages are containers29 Ἰούδας ὁ Μακκαβαῖος αὐτός, ἰσχυρὸς ἐν δυνάμει αὐτὸς ἐκ νεότητος αὐτοῦ (1Macc 2:66) Judas Maccabaeus himself, he was strong from his youth. 4.3.5 Cause Constructions To describe how source prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό are used in cause expressions, it may be helpful to point to a few key observations regarding the human perception of events. There is a strong conceptual link or experiential correlation30 formed between two events if: (1) one temporally precedes the other; this is especially true if (2) one event/object is in contact with another, and (3) there is a detectable change that takes place between one event occurring and another’s initiation. The temporal stipulation in (1) is based on a conceptual metaphor time is space, in which a person is conceived as coming from the past (behind) and going to the future (ahead). This spatial grounding provides a foundation for understanding abstract notions of causation: The causing event is the preceding source (starting point), and the resulting event is the following goal (endpoint).31 If one event precedes another, it is natural to conceive of the former as source or cause of the latter.32 This inference is so common that writers and directors rely on it as part of their craft. Two clauses in a discourse or two scenes in a film appear one after the other without overt marking of a causative relationship and yet they are naturally conceived as denoting cause and effect. In this way, actions are linked to consequences and causes precede their effects. There are other ways that cause can be profiled. For example, if an event can be traced back to the actions of a person who acts with control or impetus, then it is natural to understand the animate agent as the source or origin for the event. In (28), two events are temporally sequenced and then presented with ἀπό asserting a cause-effect relationship. 29 Marking the passage of time by delineating separate stages in life is familiar to English speakers: “Back in my day”; “From childhood to adolescence, he always”; “She picked up the habit from her college days.” 30 Tyler and Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, 32. 31 Günter Radden, “Spatial Metaphors Underlying Prepositions of Causality,” in The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, ed. Wolf Paprotté and René Dirven, AST 29 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985), 187. 32 When people ask: “What is the cause of the opioid crisis?,” they are looking for what (temporally/ spatially) preceding event can be said to be the source or point of origin for the current state of affairs. 80 Rachel and Michael Aubrey (28) ὡς δὲ ἔστιλβεν ὁ ἥλιος ἐπὶ τὰς χρυσᾶς ἀσπίδας, ἔστιλβεν τὰ ὄρη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν (1Macc 6:39) When the sun reflected on the golden shields, the mountains gleamed from them. First the sun’s rays reflect on the shields of the soldiers, then the mountains gleam as a result. Other cause-effect relationships involve Landmarks that are physical objects, such as (29): (29) οὐκέτι αὐτὸ ἑλκύσαι ἴσχυον ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἰχθύων (John 21:6) They could no longer haul it [the net] from the many fish. In (29), their struggle to pull the net up into the boat can be traced back to a preceding source – the net has become full of fish. The force of a heavy net counteracts their ability to pull it up. Causes with physical objects that may be construed with the container schema, as in (30), tend to prefer ἐκ. (30) πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα ἐχορτάσθησαν ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῶν (Rev 3:18) All the birds became engorged from their corpses. The same can be said for physical processes. Fire and smoke, which envelop a Trajector take ἐκ in cause expressions, but heat – even heat produced by fire – does not and is used with ἀπό. In this regard, a conception like (31) takes advantage of the emergence schema with ἐκ. An event that transpires in a surrounding Landmark is closely tied to the consequences of its emergence from that Landmark. The process of refining gold takes place in the fire and the gold emerges as a purified product. For (32), the heat of a fire is conceived as a preceding source-cause for the subsequent action of a viper where the viper not only moves away from the heat (Landmark) but also that the heat is the reason for its motion away. (31) χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρὸς (Rev 3:18) gold refined by fire. (32) ἔχιδνα ἀπὸ τῆς θέρμης ἐξελθοῦσα (Acts 28:3) a viper came out because of the heat. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 81 Other times, emotion plays a role in the causative chain where internal emotional states are thought to be the cause of external action.33 Such contexts seem to prefer ἀπό, as in (33). (33) ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ ἐσείσθησαν οἱ τηροῦντες (Matt 28:4) The guards shook with fear. Emotion-event causes follow the construal of ἀπό that involves a lack of distinguishability between the Trajector and source. When the guards shake with fear, the emotional state that caused the shaking is internal to the affected participant. Animate causes also prefer ἀπό, as with (34) and (35), where the event is conceived as proceeding from an animate source/cause: (34) μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα (Matt 10:28 par. Luke 12:4) Do not be afraid of those who kill the body. (35) καὶ ηὐφράνθη Ὀλοφέρνης ἀπʼ αὐτῆς (Jdt 12:20) Holophernes was delighted by her. There are a few exceptions. If a Cause-Landmark expresses high control over the Trajector and involves physical contact, then ἐκ is used. Again, there is a tight correlation between a Trajector inside the Landmark and the consequences of its emergence from the Landmark. This, combined with an animate agent as Landmark comes to be associated with a level of influence or control over the emergence of the event. (36) ἔπεσον ἐξ αὐτοῦ τραυματίαι πολλοί (1Macc 16:8) there fell from him many casualties. (37) οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (John 6:65) No one can come to me unless it has been granted to them from the Father. In (36), the concepts of both control and contact are profiled. The death of the soldiers is a direct result of physical contact and a high degree of control. Likewise, the use of δίδωμι in (37) activates the image schema for a transference construction where the source (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός) is also profiled as a possessor, which in turn implicates a high degree of control over permission to come to Jesus. 33 Radden and Dirven, Cognitive English Grammar, 329. 82 Rachel and Michael Aubrey 4.4 Conclusion Once again, as a shorthand, the preposition ἐκ may be characterized as “out of,” and ἀπό as “from, away from.” The former preposition mediates a spatial relation with the container schema as its conceptual basis: A Trajector that was once interior to a bounded Landmark is now exterior to it. The latter preposition mediates a spatial relation in which a Trajector moves away from a Landmark source. The shape of the Landmark is unspecified, serving as a point of reference from which to locate the Trajector. Because of differences in schematic structure, each preposition is associated with different entailments. For instance, ἐκ is associated with a bounded Landmark, which supplies the basic structure for metaphors of emergence with entities that are intrinsically related (such as a whip from a cord) or experience a change of state (gold refined from fire). It also supplies the basic structure for event quantification and bounded time periods in temporal constructions. Ἀπό, on the other hand, lacks such boundaries in its basic structure; it is unspecified with regard to the shape of the Landmark as well as contact with it. Because of its indefinite nature, it is more readily available for extension to a wide variety of conceptions, which is likely the reason for its eventual spread in taking over the use of ἐκ. It must not be forgotten, however, that they have many basic functional elements in common. For both ἐκ and ἀπό, the Trajector moves away from the Landmark. The Landmark serves as its source, starting point, or point of origin. Similarly, both relational schemas involve the notion of orientation away from the Landmark along with separation or distance from it. Motion away entails that there is space or distance created between the two entities involved. Based on this shared conceptual structure, there is a natural logic that ἐκ and ἀπό would extend over time to include the same set of semantic senses from a fundamental spatial notion of source to origin, and to time, partitive, and cause. The diachronic path they follow through Homeric and Classical Greek may diverge, but by the New Testament period, their semantic domains largely overlap. Any distinctions in usage can often be identified with respect to certain lexical preferences with particular kinds of Landmarks or with constructional types motivated by their basic schematic structure. Bibliography Beekes, Robert S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, vol. 1. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10.1. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bortone, Pietro. Greek Prepositions from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Brenda, Maria. The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition Over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 4 Spatial Profiling: ἐκ, ἀπό, and Their Entailments in Postclassical Greek 83 Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. “The Psychological Status of Image Schemas.” In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Beate Hampe and Joseph E. Grady, 113–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2005. Holton, David, Geoffrey Horrocks, Marjolijne Janssen, Tina Lendari, Io Manolessou, and Notis Toufexis. Cambridge Grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Hoop, Helen de. “A Semantic Reanalysis of the Partitive Constraint.” Lingua 103 (1997): 151–74. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00018-1. Hoop, Helen de. “Partitivity.” In The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, edited by Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma, 179–212. Studies in Generative Grammar 61. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, 2003. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Luraghi, Silvia. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. SLCS 67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. “The Meanings of the Genitive: A Case Study in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change.” Cognitive Linguistics 2: 149–206. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149. Swart, Peter de, Hanne M. Eckhoff, and Olga Thomason. “A Source of Variation: A Corpus-Based Study of the Choice between ἀπό and ἐκ in the NT Greek Gospels.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12, no. 1 (2012): 161–87. DOI: 10.1163/156658412X649760. Taylor, John R. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Radden, Günter. “Spatial Metaphors Underlying Prepositions of Causality.” In The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, edited by Wolf Paprotté and René Dirven, 177–208. AST 29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. Radden, Günter, and René Dirven. Cognitive English Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Vandeloise, Claude. “Are There Spatial Prepositions?” In Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, edited by Maya Hickmann and Stéphane Robert, 137–54. TSL 66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006.