# θέλω in the past tense?



## stereos

I am learning modern Greek. I'm from Poland. Could you tell me what is the difference between:

ήθελα (Imperfect)

and

θέλησα (aorist)?

Both words mean "I wanted". So, is there any difference between them? Is there any most favourite form of the verb in the past?


----------



## Perseas

Hi and welcome!


In theory we use past tense to express an action  completed in the past and imperfect to express an action in progress in the past.

However the verb "θέλω" is a special case. "Ήθελα" is the most popular between both of them, in every case. That is ,  if you always use "ήθελα" (i.e. no "θέλησα") , there will be no problem at all, everything will be okay.

In addition, if you want to say for example "I would like a coffee", only the use of "ήθελα" would be correct: "Θα ήθελα ένα καφέ".


----------



## stereos

Perseas said:


> (...) if you want to say for example "I would like a coffee", only the use of "ήθελα" would be correct: "Θα ήθελα ένα καφέ".



thank you. So, as I can see the "ήθελα" word means "I'd like to do sth". I know. But I just wanted to know how could I say in Greek:

"I WANTED two months ago to go to the doctor".

So, it is a sentence regarding to the past. What word should I use: ήθελα (Imperfect) or θέλησα (Aorist)?


----------



## Perseas

stereos said:


> So, as I can see the "ήθελα" word means "I'd like to do sth".


No. "*I'd like* to do something" means "*Θα ήθελα* να κάνω κάτι", not just "*ήθελα* να κάνω κάτι".



> But I just wanted to know how could I say in Greek:
> 
> "I WANTED two months ago to go to the doctor".
> So, it is a sentence regarding to the past. What word should I use: ήθελα (Imperfect) or θέλησα (Aorist)?


 "Πριν από δύο μήνες *ήθελα* να πάω στο γιατρό." (You can also use "*θέλησα*" but "*ήθελα*" is more popular, as I wrote before.)


----------



## stereos

Thank you. Now it's clear for me.

And what about the word "*νομίζω*"? What form of the word should I use in the past if I want to say: "I just thought that he is a thief"?

νόμιζα (Imperfect) or νόμισα (Aorist)?


----------



## Tassos

Both forms are OK, but as before *νόμιζα* is used much more. For a literal translation *νόμιζα* is better i.e. "Απλά *νόμιζα* ότι είναι κλέφτης". If you want to use *νόμισα* you may say something like "Για λίγο, *νόμισα* ότι είναι κλέφτης" which translates like "For a while, I thought he is a thief", but even in a sentence like this again you may use the imperfect without a problem!!


----------



## stereos

So Imperfect is used more often than Aorist in Greek?


----------



## stereos

So Imperfect is used more often than Aorist in Greek?


----------



## stereos

So Imperfect is used more often than Aorist in Greek?


----------



## Crookshanks

Generally, there is a difference, the imperfect (παρατατικός) is a continuous tense, it stresses more the _duration_ of the action. In Greek, when you want to say "I wanted to go to the doctor two months ago", you tend to use the imperfect tense, "Πριν από δύο μήνες ήθελα να πάω στο γιατρό". In contrast, the simple past (Aorist/αόριστος) stresses the action itself and is usually shorter in duration. Saying "Πριν από δύο μήνες θέλησα να πάω στο γιατρό" implies that the duration of the "desire" to go to the doctor was short. The example with the doctor may not be the most appropriate one to explain, because there is a difference in the way of thinking between Greek and English so I can't make it look "natural" or give a reasonable explanation. But in general I'd say "Ήθελα να πάω στο γιατρό", and not "Θέλησα να πάω στο γιατρό". It is a matter of meaning, perhaps-I would only say "Θέλησα να κάνω κάτι..." when it is a desire that comes from deep within... for example "Θέλησα να δω τη μητέρα μου" -I wanted to see my mother- or "Θέλησα να φάω σοκολάτα" -(at a particular moment) I wanted (or craved/desired) to eat chocolate-.

I don't know if Imperfect is used more often than Aorist, that might be the case but it depends on the context. Ιn general, you use the aorist only for actions you want to stress out they had a small duration/are temporary.


----------



## Tassos

First, stereos I hope until now you figured out the correspondance of tenses between Greek and Polish, as Polish doesn't have an imperfect. I'm currently learning BCS (serbocroatian) and one of the most challenging things about the language is verb aspect (which we don't have in Greek in the same way as in a Slavic language). Given that the general idea is the same you might say that:

In Polish to convey the meaning of imperfect tense you put an imperfective verb in the past tense and to convey the meaning of the aorist you put a perfective verb in the past tense.
So *imperfective verb in the past tense in Polish = imperfect in Greek*
and *perfective verb in the past tense in Polish = aorist in Greek*
Still, as I learned from BCS this is not an exact science. It works for, I guess, 90% percent of the times, but if you want to add extra shades of meaning to an expression, it might not work (which means that for example sometimes an impefective verb in the past tense in BCS or Polish might translate as an *aorist verb* in Greek).

As Crookshanks said it depends on context, but in the cases you presented it depends also on the verb itself.
You picked two examples in which most of the times the Greek speaker will choose the imperfect over aorist and even over pluperfect (even if the theory that Crookshanks mentioned applies for these two verbs also). I don't know why this happens, but it happens! 
But that does not mean anything. Let's take another example, the verb *φαντάζομαι* (lit. to imagine but also to know, to think that). Let's take the following examples:
Το *φανταζόμουν* / Το *φαντάστηκα* / Το *είχα φανταστεί *(rough translation: I knew it)
Ποτέ δε *φανταζόμουν* ότι θα συνέβαινε κάτι τέτοιο / Ποτέ μου δε *φαντάστηκα* ότι θα συνέβαινε κάτι τέτοιο / Ποτέ δεν *είχα φανταστεί* ότι θα συνέβαινε κάτι τέτοιο (rough translation: I never thought that something like this could happen)
Here, the three sentences (one with the imperfect, one with the aorist and one with the pluperfect) in the spoken language at least, convey practically the same meaning!! That of course doesn't mean that imperfect, aorist and pluperfect are the same!!

So to conclude: let's say that like Polish 90% of the times the theory holds true and imperfect and aorist are different tenses used appropriately. There are exceptions which depend on the context, but also (and maybe here is a defference from Polish) on *THE VERB ITSELF*.


----------

