Talk:Modern Greek grammar/Archive 1

Untitled
'''Well done to everybody that cintributed to this article! Great work!''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimboukas (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New article outline
Nice job with all this material for a new article. Just a few thoughts: If you like, I'll join in the development of this article. I can probably find some time tonight. Lukas (T. 14:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the amount of paradigm tables should be reduced a bit. Of course, we can't write a full grammar of Modern Greek here anyway, so we shouldn't aim to reproduce all the possible paradigms, just the most important ones.
 * Some tables can be presented in a more concise fashion, I think. Especially the verb paradigms. I'm thinking of a nice way of presenting such a table that I once found in my Greek learning grammar for Germans. I'll make a draft shortly.
 * "Grammar" is, of course, more than just morphology, and morphology is more than just paradigm tables. I think in some places more important than the tables themselves will be the explanations: E.g. what is an inflectional class in the first place?
 * A bit of syntax should be added too, of course.


 * Some common forms of the verbs would be nice to have, such as, how to negate a sentence, and some small stuff like that. Where to put adverbs, etc. --Puellanivis 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek language article series
Could people interested in this article please have a look at a discussion I instigated at Talk:Greek language, regarding a proposed restructuring of the whole series of Greek-related language articles. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Demotic" and "Standard Modern Greek"
Does the 'proposition' section make enough of an argument to imply in the head that modern Greek grammar contains elements of purification? Kathareuousa influences are mainly found on vocabulary. To claim that Standard Greek and Demotic Greek are different idioms due to katharevousan's influence is something truly "pulled by the hair". Britannica is the only source I've ever seen to support this claim. It needs to be further researched. Miskin 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The relation between "Standard Modern Greek"/"Νεοελληνική Κοινή" and "Demotic" proper has been quite a big issue in modern Greek linguistics. I can certainly find you some references. Yes, there are "learned" elements in SMG grammar. Much is just vocabulary, but the vocabulary brings with it whole new gramatical forms that didn't exist in pure Demotic. Off the top of my head, what I was thinking of are mostly inflectional paradigms, like:
 * adjectives in -ής/-ες (διεθνής)
 * feminine nouns in -ος (οδός)
 * feminine plurals in -εις/-εων (πόλεις)
 * neuter nouns in -ος (βάθος)
 * various minor verb classes (εξαρτάται, ενδείκνυται...)
 * participles preserving reduplication (τετελεσμένος)
 * various other participle forms (επείγων, μέλλων, ...)
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of those mentioned influences but in my opinion they are overexaggerated. For example, unless someone claims that toponyms like Paros, Andros, Rhodos and Samos fell out of use, the second point is exaggerated. Similarly for the 4rth, I doubt that words like 'μάκρος' existed in Katharevousa. I'm not sure about the origin of plural in -eis. All the rest can be more safely seen as loan words rather than grammatical rules. Despite all influences, it's absurde to say that Standard Greek is a different idiom from Demotic because of a number of Katharevousa loan words (which is the only concrete influence anyway). Most sources claim that Demotic replaced Katharevousa as the official Greek language, and it didn't transform into something else. Miskin 10:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought I'd properly avoided giving any definite statement about whether SMG and Dem. constitute "separate" varieties. (If you read closely, the sentence in the intro is primarily stating their fundamental identity, only with a "but" added.) Anyway, that SMG has an overall character of a compromise variety with significant admixtures of Kath., including grammar and phonology, is indeed consensus in the literature. Babiniotis was making much of that idea back in the 70s or 80s when he was promoting his notion of modern "koine"; Mackridge (1985) is a authoritative treatment, Horrocks (1997) devotes the last chapter of his book to it. His list of learned features in grammar is similar to what I sketched out above, but contains quite a few more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see you removed your "fact" tag, so I guess we can regard this as clarified for now. But thanks for questioning it anyway, because that shows there's room for some expansion of this topic, maybe in a separate article on Greek language question or a separate article on Demotic Greek. The picture I get from the literature is that during the 60s/70s, the political rhetorics of the "language struggle" very much worked in terms of a strict dichotomy between Dem. and Kath., and both sides regarded any "mixed" forms with some ideological misgivings. That's why, when the relevant political decisions were made after 1974, they were made in terms of "replacing Kath. with Dem." It was only a few linguists at first who drew attention to the fact that linguistic reality had in fact moved on independently and was producing these convergent koine phenomena. Interesting stuff. - I'll add Mackridge and perhaps Babiniotis to the sources; actually you were right there should be a footnote where your "fact" tag was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All the types you say that they are ovsolete are used in every day speaking. There are hundreds of simple neuter words which are used like "το δάσος - του δάσους". Children at school learn the declension of the adjectives in -ης and feminine nous in -ος. Dimboukas (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables of verbs
Can anyone explain me why the tables are like that? For example why the past tenses are presented first and then the non-past? Have a look at the article Ancient Greek grammar (tables) (verbs) and you may undestand that this arrangement is much more cmprehensable. I think we should make the tables this way for every voice.

(Active voice - in ancient greek just for example using obsolete now forms which will not be used) Dimboukas (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The format used in the article now is a format found in the literature; for instance, I'm familiar with it from Ruge, Neugriechische Grammatik (a learner's grammar); I think other works do it similarly. It fits the Modern Greek system because it brings out the basic 2x2 nature of the morphological contrasts. In that sense, it is far superior to the format above. The left-right order is of course arbitrary, but it can be motivated by the description of the contrast as "past versus non-past", where past tense is the marked category and "non-past" the unmarked default category. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In comparison, the table you provided implies that the basic structure of the system is along these two logical dimensions: tenses (present-imperfect-aorist, etc.), cross-classified with moods (indicative-conjunctive etc.). That's an expectation familiar from the ancient languages. But Modern Greek just doesn't work that way. The imperfect and the aorist aren't two tenses; they are two aspect forms of one and the same tense. Your table would lead the reader to expect that aorist, imperfect and present should each have their own subjunctive. They of course haven't, because these are really not three tenses but only two. Also, there isn't a separate "subjunctive" for every tense; rather there is a separate subjunctive (and future and imperative) for each of the two aspects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all thank you for the explanation! I cannot understand the fact that you say that the aorist and the imperfect are not different tenses. I am sure you know the difference between the two forms. The imperfect explains an action that happened in the past continually and the aorist an action that happened once. For example we can use the french language: the imperfect is the french imparfait and the verb parler (=to talk) is formed je parlais and in greek μιλούσα. The french aorist is the passé or the passé composé which explains an action that happened once in the past: j' ai parlé and μίλησα. I expect you to tell me that it is difficult to compare two languages but I do it here because the meaning is the same. I have been taught the Aorist and the Imperfect as two seperate tenses. And yes; in modern greek there are two (or three if you count the perfect) different forms of Subjunctive.

Dimboukas (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Aorist and the Imperfect are of course two different things, and they are traditionally called "tenses", but really they are just two different combinations of the same tense (past) with two different aspects (perfective/punctual and imperfective/continuative). That's what the table shows. The difference between the two past tense forms (imperfect vs. aorist) is exactly the same as that between the two future forms (θα γράφω / θα γράψω), the two subjunctives (πρέπει να γράφω / πρέπει να γράψω), and the two imperatives ( γράφε! / γράψε). That's why it's useful to have all these pairs of forms in the same two rows in the table. The only item in the tense/aspect system that hasn't got this double form is the present indicative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK! I do not disagree. I just want to make some more specific explanation (not exactly) but I certainly will not change at all the arrangement of the article and of the tables.Dimboukas (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

γραφω as an example.
I think we may need a better example here. Don't get me wrong, γραφω is a great verb, everyone should know how to write, but i think we should pick a verb whose root ends in a consonant that cannot combine into ψ or ξ or anything. To someone who understands that why πσ, βσ and φσ become ψ this is nice, but to someone who doesn't know anything about greek this seemingly inexplicable alteration between two consonants would look confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, but somehow I can't think of many verbs where it would be a lot more transparent than this. The addition of /-s-/ in the perfective stem almost always goes together with some modification either of the final sound of the present stem or at least - like here - its orthographical representation. Would you say if we chose a verb in -ίζω, -ίσω it would be better? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

passive and agent
I would really appreciate info on the agent, as in the X by whom something "was done." You don't show a preposition that means "by" in the table of prepositions and you don't mention the agent under the discussion of the mediopassive. Thanks. 4.249.3.73 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, that ought to be mentioned somewhere. The preposition in question is apo (lit. 'from'). But intuitively I'd say it's less often used in this function than English by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "φίλος" a noun?
This article uses "φίλος" to demonstrate male noun inflection with -ος suffix and "νέος" for adjective inflection. But "φίλος" is described as adjective in all modern Greek dictionaries I've seen and it was certainly an adjective in ancient Greek. After all, it maintains a female form (φίλη) and a superlative one, usable with all three genders (φίλτατος -η -ο). You may argue of course that "φίλος" is often met alone or that other nouns appear in more than one genders too (mostly animals), but since that matter doesn't seem clear, it would be preferable to replace "φίλος" with another paradigm, like "πόνος", "φόβος", "κύκλος", "ζήλος" etc.--79.131.52.219 (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Φίλος is listed as a noun in Babiniotis' Lexiko tis Neoellinikis glossas, and honestly, I can see no reason to regard it as an adjective. The φίλος/φίλη doublet is an instance of nominal derivation, not adjectival inflection; there's no neuter form like for an adjective; it has all the syntactical behaviour of a prototypical noun, but hardly any of an adjective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After further study, it seems that "φίλος" is an adjective "converted" to noun (ουσιαστικοποιημένο επίθετο ). It means that it syntactically behaves like a noun, but grammatically remains always an adjective and can also be used as such. When accompanied by a noun, "φίλος" must agree in case, gender and number with it and it's not separated by comma, which would be the case if it was a true noun (ex. φίλε άνθρωπε, της φίλης Μαρίας). Babiniotis' dictionary shows rush to oversimplify things, therefore I'm always a bit skeptic about it (and about Wikipedia too). I recommend to use "άνθρωπος" (human) as example instead. "Άνθρωπος" is also used to demonstrate the second declension in Ancient Greek grammar article, therefore it could also indicate the linguistic continuity of Greek (irrelevant, I know). Singular: ο άνθρωπος, του ανθρώπου, τον άνθρωπο, άνθρωπε // Plural: οι άνθρωποι, των ανθρώπων, τους ανθρώπους, άνθρωποι. I am not insisting further on this, I never make direct changes to Wikipedia--79.131.4.57 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Numerals section
This article refers to absolute numerals only. But Greek grammar makes explicit distinction between absolute, regular, multiplicative and proportional numerals (απόλυτα, τακτικά, πολλαπλασιαστικά και αναλογικά αριθμητικά ). These forms should be mentioned too. Unlike absolute numerals, which are only partially inflected, all other forms are fully inflected. Examples: --79.131.4.57 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolute numerals (to indicate number): ένας-μία-ένα, δύο, τρεις -ία, τέσσερα... (one, two, three, four...)
 * Regular numerals (to indicate position in a row): πρώτος -η -ο, δεύτερος -η -ο, τρίτος -η -ο, τέταρτος -η -ο (first, second, third, fourth...)
 * Multiplicative numerals (to multiply size): απλός -ή -ό, διπλός -ή -ό, τριπλός -ή -ό, τετραπλός -ή -ό... (simple, double, triple, quadruple...)
 * Proportional numerals (to indicate comparative size): διπλάσιος -α -ο, τριπλάσιος -α -ο, τετραπλάσιος -α -ο... (twice as, three times as, four times as...)

Infinitive --PROBLEM SOLVED (thx FutPerf@☼)
Could someone please clarify the seemingly contradictory statements found between the "Characteristics of the Balkan linguistic union" and the introduction paragraph to "The verb":

"The lack of an infinitive. In Greek, verbal complementation is typically formed with the help of finite (subjunctive) verb forms, in cases where English would use an infinitive (e.g. θέλω να πάω, [ˈθelo na ˈpao], literally 'I-want that I-go', i.e. 'I want to go')."

≠

"There are also two imperatives, one for each aspect, and one invariable form, called infinitive (απαρέμφατο) which is formed from the present stem."

My guess is that the infinitive still exists but the pro-drop subject characteristic induces an inclination for pronominal redundancy in verbal complementation. But I am not a speaker of Modern Greek, so I will let somebody else make the correction.

--L&#39;œuf (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but it's in fact a bit different. The "aparemphato" form is etymologically derived from the infinitive, and is still called like the old infinitive in traditional native terminology, but it has lost all grammatical functions associated with that category in other languages. Its sole remaining function is to form the perfect periphrasis, thus corresponding functionally more to an English -ed participle than to an infinitive proper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I now see that the confusion arose partly from poor editing. The sentence you cite ("... one invariable form ... formed from the present stem") was originally talking about an entirely different form, the gerund/participle in -ontas. Somebody then changed it blindly to refer to the "aparemphato" (probably because "aparemphato" means "invariable" in Greek), without adjusting the context. The sentence as it stood was plain wrong, since the aparemphato isn't formed from the present stem. I'll remove all that and sketch out a separate section about non-finite forms further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mention the greek terminology alongside the english one for reference purposes
I apologise that I don't edit this myself, as I don't have a grammar book handy beside me to confirm I'm correct. But it would be invaluable to have the greek terminology alongside the english equivalents, as I'm sure many learners of greek learn one or the other, and the article wouldn't be of much help to people coming here to check the terminology (as I had). For instance. Present indicative (Gr: Ενεστώτας), Past Imperfective (Gr: Παρατατικός), Past Perfective (Gr: Αόριστος), Present Perfect (Gr: Παρακείμενος) etc. Tpapastylianou (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Noun phrase word order
Article currently reads:
 * Within the noun phrase, adjectives precede the noun (for example, το μεγάλο σπίτι, [to meˈɣalo ˈspiti], 'the big house'), while possessors follow it (for example, το σπίτι μου, [to ˈspiti mu], 'my house'). The opposite order is possible as a marked alternative in both cases.

Not sure what is meant by that last sentence: is it referring to cases like το σπίτι το μεγάλο, το μεγάλο μου το σπίτι and σπίτι μου μεγάλο (I suppose possible, like φεγγαράκι μου λαμπρό, but...)? But the "opposite order" would be το σπίτι μεγάλο (which I don't think is a noun phrase, but has μεγάλο as a predicate) and *μου το σπίτι or *το μου σπίτι. --Macrakis (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper and Improper Prepositions
I accidentally bumped into a paper that discusses about proper and improper prepositions in Modern Greek. I think there is a good need to clarify them. Komitsuki (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Syntax, Derivational Morphology and other possible changes
I would like to suggest the idea of removing some of the exhaustive morphological tables and the addition of a substantial section devoted to syntax.

Given the high degree of case syncretism and many declensions, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to remove most of the noun tables and leave only the most common (Masc. nouns in -ος, -ας/-ης; fem. nouns in -α, -η; Neuter nouns in -ι, -ο, -μα; for example).

As for verbs, I feel like the article should elaborate on derivational morphology. Explaining prefixed verbs of the form "Ancient Preposition + root" (υπερβάλλω, υποθέτω, καθιστώ for example), as well as common suffixes (-ούχος, -ούτσικος etc.).

Also, I feel that the article is lacking in the area of syntax. The meaning and uses of the cases in Greek are not explained, for example.

Lastly, I think that mention should be made of the formal, learned participles γράφων, -ουσα, ον and γραφόμενος, -η, -ο.

I am happy to develop the article in the areas I have just discussed.

Ellinofonos (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Feel free to go ahead. Lots of room for improvements here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak third-person personal pronouns
"The weak third-person forms are similar to the corresponding forms of the definite article.", The ones in the table above are not exactly the same. The accusative are, the genitive plural aren't, the nominative mostly begin with τ. What's going on here? If "similar" is supposed to mean "somewhat similar" the wording should be explicit. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this inconsistency. At the time that statement was put into the text, the nominative forms of the weak pronouns weren't yet contained in the table. In fact, the text is still worded as if they didn't exist. The reason is that those nominative forms are extremely marginal; there's basically just a single, highly restricted idiomatic construction in which they are used (deictic "να τος!" 'there he is!' and "που'ν τος;" 'where is he?'; here's an interesting paper about the issue: ). If you take away the nominative forms, the remaining weak forms are identical to the definite articles except for the genitive plural. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Accent section
I'm not really happy with the new "accent" section. That really belongs more into Modern Greek phonology than here. The only thing that might be of real interest for this article is the thing about the accent shift with enclitic pronouns – perhaps that could be integrated in the pronouns section. Also, the current text mixes orthography and phonology a bit too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the section has much to do with phonology. Necessarily, when explaining the accent and where it is used one needs to have examples. It is the accent that is explained not phonology. Only the the fourth paragraph contains some more phonology which again has to do with rules of orthography and grammar. Dimboukas (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with FutPerf -- the section confuses the placement of the accent and its orthography.
 * I'm also not very happy with the treatment of the so-called indefinite article. What is "The use of the indefinite article is not dictated by rules and the speaker can use it according to the circumstances of his speech." supposed to mean? After all, Είναι ένας δικηγόρος and Είναι δικηγόρος really aren't synonymous, the first meaning something like "he is just one lawyer" and not "his profession is 'lawyer'".  In general, some of the new verbiage seems to confuse the facts of the language with the state of their description in descriptive or prescriptive grammars.  --Macrakis (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I can't understand the difference between "the placement of the accent and its orthography". This section explains, as many grammars of Greek do, where and when the accent is placed.
 * Now about the indefinite article, there are many cases where the use of it or not makes no difference, as in χρειαζόμαστε υδραυλικό and χρειαζόμαστε έναν υδραυλικό ("we need a plumber"). Anyway, I wrote what Babiniotis says in his grammar about the indefinite article since I checked his grammar when writing this section. I just provided a source; if you feel it is problematic I have no reason to defend it with zeal! Dimboukas (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Uhm, sorry, that distinction is indeed quite clear: accent itself, in the sense of the spoken feature of marking a syllable with extra weight (through loudness, intonation or length), is a crucial part of the phonological organization of a language, and as such belongs into the phonology article. The accent in the sense of the little stroke over a letter is a different thing – even though the primary function of the latter is to indicate the former, that correspondence is not a perfect one-to-one thing. For instance the difference between a simple "του γάβγησε" and "ο σκύλος τού γάβγησε" is not one of phonology (the του is pronounced exactly the same in both), but merely an arbitrary convention of orthographic distinction. That doesn't really belong in the grammar article either, but in an orthography article. BTW, I agree with Macrakis about the indefinite article issue too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics of the Balkan linguistic union ; indirect objects in genitive; nouns
This section reads ''The merger of the dative and the genitive case. In Greek, indirect objects are expressed partly through genitive forms of nouns or pronouns, and partly through a periphrasis consisting of the preposition σε ([se], 'to') and the accusative.'' but as far I as I can say only when personal pronouns are used they are in genitive(in Northern dialects accusative);with nouns it's always the prepositional form.Does anybody here know of a dialect or idiolect or whatever that uses the genitive for nouns in indirect objects????Or perhaps it used to be also used but it has now vanished due to the ambiguity it causes??I'm commenting here now, having just arrived from commenting in the Balkan sprachbund talk page about exactly the same thing. Έδωσα της Μαρίας το βιβλίο just doesn't sound normal-right if της Μαρίας is supposed to be the indirect object... Thanatos|talk 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Holton/Mackridge/Philippaki-Warburton, §1.1.1.4 and §2.4.3.1 do have examples of this type ("Ο Γιάννης έδωσε της Μαίρης ένα ωραίο βραχιόλι"; "Το έδωσε της Κατερίνας"), although they also note that the alternative with "σε"+acc. is more common. My personal suspicion is that such examples might actually be more frequent when you have them combined with clitic doubling and a preposed object (where the σε periphrasis would conflict with the clitic), e.g. "του Γιάννη του το είπα"; "του άλλου του το χαρίζεις"; "του μπαμπά μου του αρέσει μόνο ο καναπές" etc. (these latter examples are Google-verified ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other quick Google finds:
 * "Μαροῦλα, φωνάζει ἡ Ἀγγέλικα, ἄναψ' ἕνα φῶς καὶ δός το τοῦ Μάστορα νὰ κοιτάξῃ"
 * "δωσ' τα της Χρυσώς, την αφήνω ξεκρέμαστη με δυο μωρά παιδιά"
 * "έτσι φίλε πες τα της της πουστάρας"
 * "«Πες τα της Έλσης» είπε ο Healthy πρόεδρος απευθυνόμενος στον jet set πρόεδρο Χριστόφια"
 * "Στο τέλος του πούλησα του φίλου μου το δικό μου"
 * "Τώρα του Γιώργου του φταίνε τα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ"
 * "του Γιώργου του την έφεραν οι νομικοί του"
 * "Μάλιστα της Ελένης της έκανε εντύπωση"
 * "Της μητέρας μου της άρεσε πολύ"
 * "σιγά μην του έδωσε του γιου του και το Tοyota Celica."
 * "δώσε του κόσμου γέλιο"
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I of course have to agree with the occurence, in fact abundance, of the latter but is this not a special case of the pronoun in genitive(which then makes the noun to be in genitive)???But even if one consider this a real case of a indirect object pronoun in genitive,not all indirect objects are in genitive as would one understand reading this or the other article at face value!On the other hand I just can't accept the former citations(Edit:on google examples added by you in the meantime likewise other than the noun+pronoun ones) although thinking about it gets me into cognitive dissonance;it seems so wrong nevertheless a image comes to mind in which someone uses it in such a way...Don't know, I'm lost... :) (Μ'αρέσει που συζητάμε στα αγγλικά για τα ελληνικά... :D ) P.S.Let's look at it from another pov: is it proper, is it formal in present day grammars? Or is it only in "loose" colloquial speech? Thanatos|talk 16:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not all of these examples are of the topicalization-plus-clitic-doubling type ("της Μαρίας της έδωσα..."). In the list above, numbers 1, 2, 4 and 11 don't have clitic doubling; they are just normal indirect object constructions. – In any case, the sentence in that section is not really intended to provide a full account of when you use which; it's just the general typological statement that both genitives and prepositional phrases somehow play a role in coding indirect-object relations. Of course, if we had a more extensive syntax section, we could add a lot more about the details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote:"(Edit:on google examples added by you in the meantime likewise other than the noun+pronoun ones)" Just gone through my ancient ,from my school days (hadn't opened this for ages :) ), Συντακτικό ΟΕΔΒ and although it usually transforms pronouns to prepositional nouns, it also presents cases with the indirect object nouns in genitive.I just can't stomach it...It somehow doesn't seem formal, correct or proper...It's so ambiguous!!!! :) Thanatos|talk 16:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really judge the stylistic nuances, not being a native speaker myself :-). I have a slight hunch that there may be something partly involving a conservative register of dimotiki, and partly a register of modern colloquialism. But in any case, formality of style is not really the point here; what matters for the section in question is that these structures exist (and have existed for a while; one example is from a rare demotic text from 1634: "πούλησα του πνευματικού της Ορθοκωστάς ελιές ρίζες 4 στα Σπήλια"), and that their presence is part of a systematic phenomenon related to the Balkan area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange, always thought you were Greek... :) Anyway, now that apart from the mental dissonance I've found such examples in official grammar books I can't argue with this, although god knows I want to!!! ;-) Thanatos|talk 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly never use the dative in modern Greek in this way myself nor does anyone that I know (my family has been teaching Greek for generations, since the mid-19th C). You would not find such use in newspapers or magazines. Whenever used (rarely) it would sound graphic, as do all the cited examples. The use in the genitive is common only in pronouns, such as δως μου rather than δως μοι. I would even question if the Dative has gone out of use, as it is claimed. Here is an example: τη Σπαρτει τη Δευτέρα Μαρτίου (Classical Dative). Compare with the Modern Greek: Στη Σπαρτη τη Δευτέρα Μαρτίου, strangely considered to be Accusative, when the Accusative should have been Στην Σπάρτην την Δευτέραν Μαρτίου. The Genitive Της Σπάρτης της Δευτέρας Μαρτίου is never used in place of the Dative. Just so that this does not seem an isolated example: Τω Ναυπλίω τη Τρίτη Απριλίου (Classical Dative). Compare it with the Modern Greek Στο Ναύπλιο την Τρίτη Απριλίου - a mix of Accusative (articles) and Dative (nouns and adjectives). Pure Accusative would have been Στο Ναύπλιον την Τρίτην Απριλίου. The Genitive Του Ναυπλίου της Τρίτης Απριλίου just does not make sense. Now it could be said that Modern Greeks use the Accusative with the n dropped, but that is how the Dative is formed in most cases. The orthography is inconsequential for the pronunciation and has been so since probably classical times, as omega was pronounced similarly to omicron (or the same, in some dialects there was no distinction) and EI, HI,and H were pronounced similarly or the same again since classical times and again were not often discriminated in some dialects, e.g. the letter H was used for all three. So Σπαρτει, Σπαρτηι and Σπαρτη have been pronounced indistinguishably for a very long time - just using one spelling or another is not enough of an argument to back a claim that the Dative or the Accusative have become extinct. It would be just as easily claimed that the Accusative has become extinct since most nouns and adjectives in the Modern Accusative are pronounced as in the Dative. Skamnelis (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there's rather a lot here to respond to (and, I'm afraid, rather a lot of logical errors), but I can't do justice to all of it within a brief talkpage post – I'll just have to ask you to read the scholarly literature on the topic, which I can assure you does treat the issue along the lines sketched out in the article. There's really no shortage of academic coverage of it out there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only making one point. How would one say (εν, παρά) τη Σπαρτει τη Δευτέρα Μαρτίου in Modern Greek? Is it not in the Dative? Could the Genitive be used? Skamnelis (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

έχω να
Is "έχω να" a special construct? My example from a song Νότης Σφακιανάκης/Θέλω να σε ξαναδώ, a line says "και από τότε έχω να σε δώ". Is this some sort of implied negation? How is this supposed to translate to english? --Itaj Sherman (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence you cite can be translated as "and I haven't seen you since then". "να (σε) δω" is actually not an indicative, but the subjunctive (aorist) form of the irregular verb "βλέπω" ('see'), so the syntax of "να" is quite regular. [Ah, I guess you figured that one out for yourself. :-) ] As for the rest, yes, you guessed correctly, "έχω να" + V has a special constructional meaning, and yes, it implies negation. While literally you could gloss it as "I have to do X", in this type of contexts with a time adverbial it actually means "I haven't done X [since ...]". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Sabine Iatridou, 2006, "A Free-Choice Item Hidden in Verbal Morphology", Glossologia 17: 11-43, (pre-pub version available []). I think Giannakidou has some more recent discussion somewhere as well, but don't have time to try to track it down right now... Mundart (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible mistake
In the section titled 'verbs', it is said that θα is a contraction of θέλω να, 'want to', while previously in the article it was said to be the contraction of θέλει να. I believe θέλει να is the correct one, as in literally "it (nature) wants that it happens that...". --~hb2007 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hb2007 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; from what I remember reading I think you are probably right. Details can probably be found in Joseph, Brian D. (2003). “Morphologization from Syntax”. In Joseph & Janda (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, p. 472–492. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick look at Babiniotis's dictionary says it is from θέλω να. It sounds more natural to me too, however I can't insist as I haven't checked any other source. Dimboukas (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't it be a contraction of both (and all other conjugations depending on the subject). θέλω να κάνω -> (εγώ) θα κάνω; θέλεις να κάνεις -> θα κάνεις. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for the topic "Verb"
On "verb", please, turn the part where's written "...future particle θα (historically derived from the verb θέλω, 'want')..." for this: "...future particle θα (a contraction of θέλω να, 'want to')..." I put in italic and bold to help. Hope you like it. Thank you for reading and making a better Wikipedia for all of us, simple readers. Have a nice day. 189.25.98.228 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion is you're right so I changed it. Dimboukas (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, a beginner like me will be asking for more info then :) What exactly means "historically"? Because the meaning of modern "θέλω να" is just like "want to" in english, which is different from the meaning of modern "θα". So is it that at some period "θέλω να" non-contracted was used for both the meaning of regular future and the meaning of "want to", or that the meaning of "want to" is a newer change in the language?
 * While we're at it, that paragraph also talks about θα+ used as inferential. Now I know some linguistics but I'm not a professional. So as this inferential article talks about a general mood, and does specify a few languages' but not Greek, it is not enough for me to be sure I understand how it is used in Greek. So I don't know how explicit you want to be in this article, but extending that explanation would help me. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * About θα, it's a process of grammaticalization. "Want to" is the earlier meansing, and yes, there must have been a stage where both meanings existed side by side (we call that "layering" in grammaticalization studies). Think of it as similar to the way "going to" behaves in English today. There is the original meaning, as in "I'm going to Paris", and the grammaticalized future meaning "He is going to fail", and possibly some borderline cases where the two meanings overlap or the one sort of still "shines through" in the other (as in "I'm going to meet him", which may imply both that I have a plan for the future and that I'm physically moving somewhere.) On the other hand, once you have a contracted form (as in "I'm gonna do it"), the link between the two meanings is broken and you are left only with the new grammatical meaning. This paper will give you more than you ever wanted to know about the precise details.
 * About the "inferential", maybe yes, we might want to explain that a bit more. It's meant to refer to the use type where "θα" + past tense (or perfect) means something like "probably" or "certainly", as in "Θα το έχει ήδη κάνει" ('he has certainly done it already'). Or in:
 * ''Έτσι σοφός που έγινες, με τόση πείρα,"
 * ''Ήδη θα το κατάλαβες η Ιθάκες τι σημαίνουν"
 * ("With all that wisdom you've gained, and all that experience,
 * surely you've understood by now what Ithacas mean.")
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

πονάει / πονά
I'm quite new to Greek, so I might be misunderstanding something simple here.

The second conjugation table here states these as an option conjugation: αγαπώ, -άω αγαπάει, -ά αγαπούν(ε), -άν(ε)

It is not clearly explained in the article when the different options are used. Is it a difference between dialects or written/spoken language? Is it just totally random choice?

I've seen a conjugation of πονώ as πονά in songs. e.g. Notis Sfakianakis / εvα γράμμα "άδεια καρδιά άδεια κλαδιά τoυ φθιvoπώρoυ η βροχή πως με πονά" now it is a conjugation of πονώ, ain't?

also the following frase from the song Δυνατά Δυνατά: "Κι αναμμένο πετά σπίρτο η γη στον ουρανό". So isn't that a conjugation of πετώ? --Itaj Sherman (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, πετ(α)ω and πον(α)ω are in the same class as αγαπ(α)ω, so you'll find the same kind of variation in them. It's more or less free stylistic variation. I guess if we were to try to describe exhaustively the factors that govern it (in parts stylistic, in parts probably geographic/dialectal, partly just a matter of fitting the rhymes) it would get a bit too complicated, so I'd suggest we just contend ourselves with stating that both forms exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

meaning of "και", unlike "and"
The prepositions' list says "και" is english "and", wiktionary says the same. I've seen some uses of "και" which are almost, but not quite, entirely unlike "and". I just learned a little greek from lyrics of songs by Notis Sfakianakis. So maybe this is just so in written language or lyrical, but I would like to know what the word "και" means here (equivalently how would it translate to english). It seems to me that in some places maybe it does mean "and" but is positioned in a place where, grammaticaly, "and" could not be positioned in english. In many other places is seems to mean "that" or something else.

All these lyrics samples are from Notis Sfakianakis albums:


 * θέλω να ζήσω τώρα αλλιώς (the song name)
 * άναψε βαρύ τσιγάρο άναψε
 * η μοίρα και με πέταξε σε τούτη εδώ την άκρη


 * Τι να μου πεις και συ
 * τι να μου πεις και συ
 * τι να μου πεις και συ
 * χάλασα για μια νύχτα
 * όλη μου τη ζωή
 * τι να μου πεις και συ
 * what is that? some sort of stressing the subject?


 * άκουσέ με καλά
 * νόμιζα πως μ΄αγαπούσες
 * έκανα ό,τι ζητούσες
 * έπεφτα και μέσα στη φωτιά
 * is this supposed to mean "κι έπεφτα μέσα στη φωτιά" like "and I fell into the fire"?


 * μη με ρωτάτε
 * μη με ρωτάτε να σας πώ γιατί πονάω
 * έτσι μ' αρέσει και κανέναν δεν ρωτάω
 * is this "and" or maybe "και κανέναν" means "anyone else".


 * αυτό θα πεί αγάπη
 * μπορώ να γίνω και Θεός
 * να κάνω το σκοτάδι φως
 * ποτέ να μην μου κλαίς


 * εσύ, η θάλασσα
 * μου λες δεν υπάρχει ούτε αύριο ούτε χθες
 * μόνο τώρα είναι όλα και στιγμές


 * χρεωμένη σ'έχω
 * την μαχαιριά που μου 'δωσες
 * πως να την πάρεις πίσω
 * πως να κολλήσεις τα κομμάτια της καρδιάς
 * χίλιες συγνώμες και να πείς
 * δεν φτάνουν για να σβύσω
 * όλο τον πόνο που σε μένανε χρωστάς
 * "and a thousand sorry that you would say"?


 * για μένα
 * ρώτησες τάχα τι να έχουν
 * τα μάτια μου κι είναι υγρά


 * μην συνεχίζεις
 * είχα πει πως θ' αράξω μαζί σου
 * είχες πει πως θ' αράξεις κι εσύ

--Itaj Sherman (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I know very little about Modern Greek, but in Ancient Greek καί means both "and" and "also" or "even". Would this work in the lyrics you give? — Eru·tuon 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems very possible that "even" explains quite a few of my examples above. Especially if it can be used before a noun inside the sentence, semantically like english "... and even N ...". Thanks for the help.
 * Other examples still require a different explanation. Do you know about the position of καί in Ancient Greek? Was it free to move with the subject of the sentence wherever it was located? Unlike for example English where "and" comes always at the beginning of the sentence or sub-sentence to which it refers. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Ancient Greek καί means "and", if it's a conjunction joining two clauses, two phrases, or two words, it occurs right between the two, or before the second element (α καί β "a and b"). If it means "even" or "also", it occurs right before the element it's emphasizing.


 * Ancient Greeks might not have made a sharp distinction between these two meanings of καί. Both uses have the word placed immediately before an element, and this element is joined to a preceding one or emphasized. They also had another word δέ that is sometimes translated "and", and frequently they used both together: if καί was used inside a clause, δέ would be used at the beginning of the clause, or the other way around. Thus α, β δὲ και γ "a, and b and c". (Not sure if this explanation will make sense to you without context, but oh well.)


 * Let me know if this answers your question, and I also hope I'm getting this right. (There's a case where δέ could be used for "and", and καί could be used for "also".) — Eru·tuon 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Balkan Sprachbund
Many deviations of Modern Greek noun declensions from Koine are adoptions of forms found either in Latin or Italian. The Wikipedia article on Greek language states Italian and Venetian also as the main modern sources of foreign words other than Turkish. To what extent are some of the Balkan Sprachbund commonalities you have identified shared also with Italian? Are we talking about Latin and Italian influences by another name? Skamnelis (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "adoptions" from Latin or Italian in the domain of noun declensions; can you give examples? If you mean the general trend of reduction of the case system, that is a general, shared typological trend that affected Greek and Romance (and other Indo-European languages in Europe) in parallel, not an influence of one branch on the other. The Balkan commonalities, in contrast, are generally considered to be areal features characteristic of just the languages in that geographical area, and explained as the effect of some form of mutual influence across neighboring speech communities. (That doesn't exclude that some individual features may also have parallels in Romance languages further afield, e.g. clitic doubling, but for instance dative-genitive merger, infinitive loss and volitional futures are not really characteristic of non-Balkan Romance). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Grammatical adoptions from Latin: The Plural of πολίτης is formed as πολίτες, rather than πολίται, agreeing with the Latin 3rd declension rather than the Greek first declension rule, for example: civis - cives. Both Italian and Greek languages tend to loose the -m or -n at the end of Nominatives. Bellum - bello, καλόν - καλό. 2. Dative-Genitive and infinitives: As I have said also in the past, there is no Dative-Genitive merger except for isolated cases of bad grammar that have somehow been given official status by some Modern Greek grammarians such as Babiniotis, although rarely anyone uses them in practice, and with the only real exception being for personal pronouns in the Singular (not in the Plural) which is an exception to the rule rather than a general rule, as in all other cases (i.e. pronouns in the plural, adjectives and nouns) the Dative/Accusative is being used, not the Genitive (I have given some examples higher up). Infinitive: το να πεί (Modern Greek) instead of το ειπείν (Koine), and similar constructs in the infinitive are commonly used in Modern Greek. There are also uses of the older infinitive forms: εις το επανειδείν, καλό λέγειν, φύρδην μίγδην, φέρ'ειπείν, etc. Skamnelis (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Skamnelis, but at this point I'm going to stop responding to you. You have been raising many of these same objections for years now, and have consistently refused to take on board what the literature says. This is disruptive. Here on Wikipedia we're supposed to write articles reflecting what the academic literature says; if you don't like it, go take your objections elsewhere where people are interested in your (amateurish and ignorant) opinions. Wikipedia is not such a place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see what I have said that is amateurish or ignorant. I argued that some of the influences may be from Italian or Latin (I am not the first to argue that) and I pointed out some weaknesses to what is being stated. I did not accuse anyone else as being amateurish or ignorant. There are no more sources in the article than what I have not provided - but here are some to make my case: On the loss (or not) of infinitives, I quote from Ioannis Fykias and Konstantinos Sampanis (2011) Finite complementation in the synchrony and diachrony of Greek and in other Balkan languages: "A considerable number of classical Greek infinitive structures have been systematically replaced by ὅτι complement clauses. ἵνα structures have been analyzed in detail in a series of syntactic studies ...". On the questionable Genitive/Dative merger: Babiniotis (http://www.babiniotis.gr/wmt/webpages/index.php?lid=1&pid=20&apprec=45): "ήδη από τα χρόνια τής Αλεξανδρινής Κοινής άρχισε να αντικαθίσταται στη χρήση (στον προφορικό λόγο και σε πιο απλά κείμενα) πρώτα και κυρίως από την αιτιατική, αργότερα δε και από τη γενική [I draw your attention to και από]. Παραδείγματα : τοὺς παῖδας (αντί δοτικής : τοῖς παισί) χρήματα ἐδωρήσατο (Θεοφάνης)" κλπ. Then with reference to modern idioms: "Αντίθετα, στα νότια ιδιώματα (νησιά, Πελοπόννησος) επικράτησε με τα ρήματα που σήμαιναν «δίνω», «λέγω» κ.τ.ό. η χρήση τής γενικής στη θέση τής παλαιάς δοτικής". This is the same I have said: the Genitive has replaced the Dative for personal pronouns (only! and as Babiniotis says after these verbs and only in the South). Clitic doubling is shared with Italian, other morphology is shared with Italian, too, e.g. Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari (2016) A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: the view from Greek and Italian. In relation to the dropping of the final m and n respectively from Italian and Greek nouns and adjectives, I quote from Brian Newton (1963) The Grammatical Integration of Italian and Turkish Substantives into Modern Greek: "in its avoidance of final consonants (except for certain northern dialects such as Venetian) Italian stands near to Greek". There is some criticism of what is the Balkan Sprachbund, Brian D. Joseph (2008) On the Need for History in Doing Balkan Linguistics, and Victor A. Friedman (2011) The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics. Skamnelis (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the rest of what you say, but the ending of πολίτες looks like the third-declension ending; why do you think it derives from Latin instead? It is at least more parsimonious to propose that one Greek declension type borrowed from another Greek declension type, than from another language. — Eru·tuon 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Something missing
The article does not mention nouns that take a female form ending with -ήτρια such as φοιτήτρια, ποιήτρια --~hb2007 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hb2007 (talk • contribs)


 * It's true that the article doesn't mention the formation of feminine nouns in –τρια from masculine nouns in –της. However, the declension of ποιήτρια etc. is identical to θάλασσα. Dimboukas (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)