In this paper, I examine two ways of coding Beneficiary expressions in Ancient Greek: the plain dative and various prepositional phrases. The coding of Beneficiary through the dative case is attested throughout the history of the Greek language, and appears to be inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Prepositional phrases, on the other hand, are a more recent means of expression; their extension from space to more abstract relations is often documented in texts from different periods. My discussion addresses the following points: • Types of Beneficiary: Benefactive (as in Mary bought a book for John), Behalf (as in I came on my friend’s behalf ), and Malefactive (as in My horse died on me). • The relation between Recipient and various types of Beneficiary: the dative and the preposition eis can indicate Recipient, besides they can extend to both Benefactive and Malefactive. When other prepositions occur, which are not connected with Recipient, Benefactive and Malefactive are based on different spatial metaphors. • A close connection is sometimes assumed to exist between Benefactive and Recipient: however, in Greek most frequently used means of encoding Benefactive (and Behalf) do not also encode Recipient. • Greek offers evidence for a possible connection between Benefactive/Behalf, and Purpose, to the exclusion of Recipient. The diachrony of Beneficiary expressions in Ancient Greek can be followed by comparing the Homeric poems with Classical prose texts. Frequently used prepositions that encode both Benefactive and Behalf are pró (spatial meaning: ‘in front of’), hupér (spatial meaning ‘above’, virtually limited to Behalf), and prós with the genitive (spatial meaning ‘from’); Malefactive is coded by prepositions that indicate directional motion and/or contact, such as epí with the dative (‘on’), katá with the genitive (‘against’), and prós with the accusative (‘toward’). Often, semantic extension is not yet attested in Homer, and one can see its development in later literature. Having classified types of Beneficiary, their means of coding, and the patterns of polysemy involved, I examine my findings under the assumption that different constructions convey different meanings. In this perspective, I attempt an explanation of different patterns of polysemy described above among Recipient, Benefactive, and Malefactive.

Where do beneficiaries come from and how do they come about?

LURAGHI, SILVIA
2010-01-01

Abstract

In this paper, I examine two ways of coding Beneficiary expressions in Ancient Greek: the plain dative and various prepositional phrases. The coding of Beneficiary through the dative case is attested throughout the history of the Greek language, and appears to be inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Prepositional phrases, on the other hand, are a more recent means of expression; their extension from space to more abstract relations is often documented in texts from different periods. My discussion addresses the following points: • Types of Beneficiary: Benefactive (as in Mary bought a book for John), Behalf (as in I came on my friend’s behalf ), and Malefactive (as in My horse died on me). • The relation between Recipient and various types of Beneficiary: the dative and the preposition eis can indicate Recipient, besides they can extend to both Benefactive and Malefactive. When other prepositions occur, which are not connected with Recipient, Benefactive and Malefactive are based on different spatial metaphors. • A close connection is sometimes assumed to exist between Benefactive and Recipient: however, in Greek most frequently used means of encoding Benefactive (and Behalf) do not also encode Recipient. • Greek offers evidence for a possible connection between Benefactive/Behalf, and Purpose, to the exclusion of Recipient. The diachrony of Beneficiary expressions in Ancient Greek can be followed by comparing the Homeric poems with Classical prose texts. Frequently used prepositions that encode both Benefactive and Behalf are pró (spatial meaning: ‘in front of’), hupér (spatial meaning ‘above’, virtually limited to Behalf), and prós with the genitive (spatial meaning ‘from’); Malefactive is coded by prepositions that indicate directional motion and/or contact, such as epí with the dative (‘on’), katá with the genitive (‘against’), and prós with the accusative (‘toward’). Often, semantic extension is not yet attested in Homer, and one can see its development in later literature. Having classified types of Beneficiary, their means of coding, and the patterns of polysemy involved, I examine my findings under the assumption that different constructions convey different meanings. In this perspective, I attempt an explanation of different patterns of polysemy described above among Recipient, Benefactive, and Malefactive.
2010
9783110226430
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/222232
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact