# μας, not εμείς



## OssianX

In a poem which mentions that "Τις βαλίτσες μας / τις είχαν κλέψει απ' τ' ασανσέρ του ξενοδοχείου," the last lines say that there was so much noise in the hotel "που οι αστυνομικοί … θάταν ολότελα αδύνατο ν' ανακαλύψουν πως μας είχαν κλεμμένους."  

Edmund Keeley translates the last clause, "that we were stolen property."  Obviously Keeley knows Greek infinitely better than I do, but doesn't his version require εμείς rather than μας?  Could μας instead be a genitive (serving as dative) meaning that the effect was on us?  Wouldn't the subject of είχαν κλεμμένους, then, be the suitcases?  (So: "unable to discover that they'd been stolen from us," or "that we'd been robbed.")

(The whole poem is puzzling: that last sentence is prefaced by Κ' ευτυχώς, a counterintuitive comment on the inability of the police to learn that we were robbed.  Maybe the "we" are in hiding and don't want to attract official attention at all?)

Thanks for any light on this murky problem.


----------



## shawnee

Is there not room for double entendre here OssianX? 
Eg. 'robbed of meaning or other....'


----------



## maraki35605

I didn't understand totally your question, but I think the problem is not with μας. The problem is with κλεμμένους.
If I wanted to correct, I would say Οι αστυνομικοί θα 'ταν αδύνατο να ανακαλύψουν ότι μας είχαν κλέψει.


----------



## elliest_5

OssianX said:


> "που οι αστυνομικοί … θάταν ολότελα αδύνατο ν' ανακαλύψουν πως μας είχαν κλεμμένους."
> 
> Edmund Keeley translates the last clause, "that we were stolen property."  Obviously Keeley knows Greek infinitely better than I do, but doesn't his version require εμείς rather than μας?  Could μας instead be a genitive (serving as dative) meaning that the effect was on us?  Wouldn't the subject of είχαν κλεμμένους, then, be the suitcases?  (So: "unable to discover that they'd been stolen from us," or "that we'd been robbed.")



As shawnee and maraki correctly noticed, there is "something" about the formation of the sentence "μας είχαν κλεμμένους" which is not very natural and does not lead to one single explanation. Obviously the poet here intentionally creates an ambiguous environment. 

Ιf he wanted to express "we had our property stolen from us" he would have said "μας είχαν κλέψει", so (what I think he tries to do here) he keeps the structural basis of what we would have expected him to say, following from what he had said earlier (that our baggages were stolen --> we had our baggage stolen --> *μας είχαν*...<κλέψει τις βαλίτσες>) and he completes the structure with something rather unexpected, the passive participle "κλεμμένους", which is clearly ambiguous here: either "we had <our property> stolen" or "we had been stolen <ourselves>" . Obviously the former reading is the "superficial" one, which ties in with the earlier statement (about the baggages being stolen) and the latter is the one that is more subtly intended (and probably has various symbolic connotations). 

Now, Keeley's attempt is alright in the sense that although he resolves the ambiguous reading, he still finds a way to retain the connection with the previous, more literal, statement through the words "stolen property". If, however you wanted to retain the ambiguity you would have to find an equally ambiguous structure in English...I don't know if "we had been stolen" would do, what do you think?


----------



## OssianX

I think that is (as usual) a very fine and thoughtful analysis.

I don't know that any equivalent ambiguous structure is available in English at all, though I'll keep thinking.  "We had been stolen" and "we had been robbed" are pretty direct opposites.  (Or almost: there's that line by the Beatles:
     And so I quit the p'lice department
     And got myself a steady job
     But though she tried her best to help me
     She could steal but she could not rob
--which I suppose means that she didn't mind appropriating property but her conscience balked when she considered the victim--you steal something, but you rob someone.)

I suppose I could go off in another direction, such as "they could never get us for stolen goods," as in the crime of "receiving stolen goods" . . . but I'm getting very far away from the poem.  I can tell this one is going to keep bothering me.  Many thanks for the excellent help in worrying about it!


----------



## orthophron

> μας είχαν κλεμμένους


Hi! When I read this post a song came to mind : "μ' έχεις μαγεμένο" (= με έχεις μαγεύσει). It seems to me that we have forgotten the alternative way of forming the Greek Active Present/Past Perfect: έχω/είχα+παθητική μετοχή.
"κλέβω" means either "steal" or "rob" 
"μας είχαν κλεμμένους" is equivalent to "μας είχαν κλέψει" (they had robbed us).
Παρακείμενος


----------



## OssianX

orthophron, I would _love_ to believe that this "much less common way of forming perfect tenses" was in the back of my mind!  In my 12-year-old copy of the Holton, Mackridge, Philippaki-Warburton grammar, I see that I marked a section (III, 1.6.9, Alternative Perfect Constructions) which includes this sequence of examples:

"""
(2a)   Έγραφα το γράμμα                I wrote the letter
(2b)   Έχω γράψει το γράμμα          I have written the letter
(2c)   Έχω γραμμένο το γράμμα       I have written the letter
(2d)   Το γράμμα είναι γραμμένο      The letter is written
We can interpret the progression from (2a) to (2d) as follows: (2a) I performed the action of writing the letter, (2b) I wrote the letter and this past action carries on being relevant now, (2c) I performed the action of writing and as a result the letter is now written, and (2d) the letter is written and it does not matter who did the writing.
"""

It sounds as though I'd be justified, then, in differing from Keeley and translating the end of the poem as saying that we had been robbed (not stolen).  Hurray! if that's right; it feels more straightforward, which here seems appropriate.

That leaves one small question in my mind: is μας accusative or genitive?  I realize that usually the direct object of κλέβω is the thing stolen, while the person robbed is either indirect object (μου) or in a phrase (από…).  But if the clause doesn't name any thing-stolen, can the person-robbed become the object?  My guess is not: κλέψαν τον φίλο [μου] would be understood as "they stole (abducted) my friend," not "they robbed my friend."

I am even more grateful to this list than usual!


----------



## orthophron

> That leaves one small question in my mind: is μας accusative or genitive? I realize that usually the direct object of κλέβω is the thing stolen, while the person robbed is either indirect object (μου) or in a phrase (από…). But if the clause doesn't name any thing-stolen, can the person-robbed become the object? My guess is not: κλέψαν τον φίλο [μου] would be understood as "they stole (abducted) my friend," not "they robbed my friend."


 On the contrary, when we say "κλέψαν το φίλο μου" we mean "they robbed my friend".
Από το Λεξικό Νεοελληνικής κλέβω 1α : ... _τον έκλεψαν, διέρρηξαν το σπίτι του._


----------



## OssianX

Oh!  (My Oxford Learner's doesn't make that clear; thanks.)  Λοιπόν, my question still stands: is μας the object of "είχαν κλεμμένους," or a genitive-serving-as-dative?  Maybe it's impossible to tell, and maybe it doesn't make any difference.  And yet if I thought it were accusative I might translate, "that they'd robbed us," while if it were genitive I might be more inclined toward "that we'd been robbed," de-emphasizing the unknown "they."  Or am I wrong about that shade of difference?

Sorry to keep prolonging this thread!


----------



## orthophron

You 're right to ask, OssianX. Although I don't know the whole story, I think "κλέβω" here has the meaning of ληστεύω (rob) and "μας" is the object (accusative).

"μου έχουν κλέψει τα χρήματα"
Modern Greek Grammar considers "μου" _έμμεσο αντικείμενο της προέλευσης_. In the sentence "μου έχουν τελειώσει τα χρήματα", instead, it considers "μου" _γενική αντιχαριστική _(genitive serving as dative, as you say).

Below are some more examples of the alternative Parakeimenos you may come across in future. 

transitive verb with one object
το 'χω διαβασμέν*ο* / το 'χω διαβασμέν*α* (I have read it)
έχω ειπωμέν*α* την αλήθεια (I have told the truth)

transitive verb with a "σε" prepositional object
του έχω μιλημέν*α* (I have talked to him)

transitive verb with two objects
σας έχω ειπωμέν*α*/ειπωμέν*η* την ιστορία (I have told you the story)
σας έχω ειπωμέν*α* να είστε φρόνιμοι (I have told you to be quiet)

Surprised?  Improper use or not, it is a fact.


----------



## elliest_5

OssianX said:


> Oh!  (My Oxford Learner's doesn't make that clear; thanks.)  Λοιπόν, my question still stands: is μας the object of "είχαν κλεμμένους," or a genitive-serving-as-dative?  Maybe it's impossible to tell, and maybe it doesn't make any difference.  And yet if I thought it were accusative I might translate, "that they'd robbed us," while if it were genitive I might be more inclined toward "that we'd been robbed," de-emphasizing the unknown "they."  Or am I wrong about that shade of difference?
> 
> Sorry to keep prolonging this thread!



How you interpret "μας" depends on how you interpret "κλεμμένους".

All possible ambiguity here stems from the ambiguity of the form "με (or σε/τον/μας/σας/τους) κλέβουν" which means that someone (unknown subject) is either 

[a] stealing me/you...us i.e. we are the *objects* of the act of stealing (imagine that I am Helen of Troy for example and when Paris is taking me away I am shouting "βοήθεια! με κλέβουν <από το Μενέλαο>)

or

* stealing FROM me/you...us, i.e. we are the ones who suffer a loss caused by the act of stealing (so, in the Helen of Troy example, it would be Menelaos' turn to shout "βοήθεια! με κλέβουν!" as in "they're stealing Helen from me")

Now the ambiguity of this construction can be inherited by the passive structure "έχω (κάποιον/κάτι) κλεμμένο". The first "clue" we look for when we have this structure is, of course, whether what appears as the subject of the participle is animate (a person) or inanimate (an object). When it is a "thing" it is obvious that the interpretation is "something that has been stolen <by someone>". However, when what appears at the same position is a person (like in your poem) the ambiguity still holds and you need further indications as to how to interpret it.

So, to sum up:

"Τον πίνακα τον έχουν κλεμμένο" = the inherent ambiguity of the structure disappears, since we are talking about an object

"Τον Κώστα τον έχουν κλεμμένο" = the inherent ambiguity still holds and we need more information such as "...και ζητάνε λύτρα από τους γονείς του για να τον αφήσουν" (so someone "stole"/kidnapped Kostas)   or alternatively "...και πρέπει να καταθέσει μήνυση στην αστυνομία μήπως και ξαναβρεί ποτέ το αυτοκίνητό του" (so, someone stole from Kostas <his car>)

We must note that it is far more natural and normal to use an inanimate object (=no ambiguity) in this construction than to use a person in the same position and that is what makes the construction "μας είχαν κλεμμένους" a bit weird and definitely difficult to disambiguate and interpret.

Finally, as far as your syntactic question is concerned, it follows from the ambiguity of "μας κλέβουν", which I described, that in this particular construction "μας" is either the object or the sufferer (because of) the action. Now the passive participle structure is certainly trickier I think (as to what to consider "μας" syntactically) but what you need to retain here is that at least the semantic ambiguity still holds...




Edit: wow, absolutely simultaneous posting with orthophron! I think each of us addresses another issue though, so I hope we're both helpful *


----------



## OssianX

(Long pause while digesting all this.)  Thank you both (and all).  I can't say I've solved the problem, but I sure am better equipped than I was!


----------



## orthophron

OssianX said:


> Λοιπόν, my question still stands: is μας the object of "είχαν κλεμμένους," or a genitive-serving-as-dative?


The only possibility that "μας" might be genitive rests on the presence of 
(a) a noun (to serve as object) of masculine gender (to agree with κλεμμένους) e.g.: 
μας είχαν κλεμμένους τους θησαυρούς = they had stolen the treasures from us
or (b) a substituted pronoun in weak form:
μας τους είχαν κλεμμένους = they had stolen them from us.
Else, "μας είχαν κλεμμένους" alone, doesn't admit an explanation other than = they had stolen (kidnapped) us or robbed us (μας is accusative; the object).


----------



## OssianX

Let me see if I can sum this up correctly.  I'll put it in terms of the the translation problem:
1. κλέβω is inherently ambiguous (steal, rob) in a way that no English verb quite matches.
2. κλεμμένους is an unusual passive in this context, but though that may point up the obscurity of the clause it doesn't do anything to disambiguate it; it agrees in gender and number with μας, not with βαλίτσες, confirming that it's we who have been stolen/robbed.
3. είχαν has no explicit subject (unless it's αστινομικοι -- which I doubt very much).
4. So we don't know who performed the stealing and we don't know who/what was stolen; we do know on whom it was performed (μας), or if possibly it was performed on the suitcases we know whom it affected (μας); for a small saving grace, we do know that _we_ didn't do any stealing.

Maybe it's desperation in the face of all this, but I'm seriously contemplating using:
       "that we'd been plundered."
I know this turns the syntax around.  But it's about the only verb that _can_ take as its object either the thing stolen ("hardwood plundered from rainforests") or the entity it's stolen from ("mahogany loggers plunder the rainforest").  And it's a little unusual, which I could claim mimics the unusual choice of κλεμμένους instead of κλέψει.  It's not _quite_ the only verb: there's "poach," but that refers too specifically to an image of illegal game-hunting; and there's "take" ("we got taken" = "we got cheated," "our bags were taken" = "someone stole our bags"), but "that we'd been taken" feels too general.  I can't think of any others.


----------



## elliest_5

OssianX said:


> Let me see if I can sum this up correctly.  I'll put it in terms of the the translation problem:
> 1. κλέβω is inherently ambiguous (steal, rob) in a way that no English verb quite matches.
> 2. κλεμμένους is an unusual passive in this context, but though that may point up the obscurity of the clause it doesn't do anything to disambiguate it; it agrees in gender and number with μας, not with βαλίτσες, confirming that it's we who have been stolen/robbed.
> 3. είχαν has no explicit subject (unless it's αστινομικοι -- which I doubt very much).
> 4. So we don't know who performed the stealing and we don't know who/what was stolen; we do know on whom it was performed (μας), or if possibly it was performed on the suitcases we know whom it affected (μας); for a small saving grace, we do know that _we_ didn't do any stealing.



  Well done!! You perfectly summed up all of our comments and attempts to analyse the example! 



OssianX said:


> Maybe it's desperation in the face of all this, but I'm seriously contemplating using:
> "that we'd been plundered."
> I know this turns the syntax around.  But it's about the only verb that _can_ take as its object either the thing stolen ("hardwood plundered from rainforests") or the entity it's stolen from ("mahogany loggers plunder the rainforest").  And it's a little unusual, which I could claim mimics the unusual choice of κλεμμένους instead of κλέψει.  It's not _quite_ the only verb: there's "poach," but that refers too specifically to an image of illegal game-hunting; and there's "take" ("we got taken" = "we got cheated," "our bags were taken" = "someone stole our bags"), but "that we'd been taken" feels too general.  I can't think of any others.


"Plundered" is fine, but I think it's meaning is a bit too strong. Actually, "taken" sounds as a very good solution to me...



orthophron said:


> The only possibility that "μας" might be genitive rests on the presence of
> (a) a noun (to serve as object) of masculine gender (to agree with κλεμμένους) e.g.:
> μας είχαν κλεμμένους τους θησαυρούς = they had stolen the treasures from us
> or (b) a substituted pronoun in weak form:
> μας τους είχαν κλεμμένους = they had stolen them from us.


In the cases you mention, "μας" would be a morphological accusative serving as a dative which denotes the person who suffers the concequences of the action (δοτική αντιχαριστική)


----------



## orthophron

OssianX said:


> Let me see if I can sum this up correctly. I'll put it in terms of the the translation problem:
> 1. κλέβω is inherently ambiguous (steal, rob) in a way that no English verb quite matches.
> 2. κλεμμένους is an unusual passive in this context, but though that may point up the obscurity of the clause it doesn't do anything to disambiguate it; it agrees in gender and number with μας, not with βαλίτσες, confirming that it's we who have been stolen/robbed.
> 3. είχαν has no explicit subject (unless it's αστινομικοι -- which I doubt very much).
> 4. So we don't know who performed the stealing and we don't know who/what was stolen; we do know on whom it was performed (μας), or if possibly it was performed on the suitcases we know whom it affected (μας); for a small saving grace, we do know that _we_ didn't do any stealing.
> 
> Maybe it's desperation in the face of all this, but I'm seriously contemplating using:
> "that we'd been plundered."
> I know this turns the syntax around. But it's about the only verb that _can_ take as its object either the thing stolen ("hardwood plundered from rainforests") or the entity it's stolen from ("mahogany loggers plunder the rainforest"). And it's a little unusual, which I could claim mimics the unusual choice of κλεμμένους instead of κλέψει. It's not _quite_ the only verb: there's "poach," but that refers too specifically to an image of illegal game-hunting; and there's "take" ("we got taken" = "we got cheated," "our bags were taken" = "someone stole our bags"), but "that we'd been taken" feels too general. I can't think of any others.


I feel happy. You know of course that, in Greek, the active form of 3rd plural with the subject missing is semantically equivalent to passive form where the agent is mostly omitted; that is we don't wish to emphasize on it. Besides, some verbs are hard to use in passive and this is why we prefer the active form.


Edit: _I should look for a software tool to signal me when elliest5 intervenes._


----------



## cougr

My two cents worth: How about "pilfered" as in "..... we had been pilfered".


----------



## OssianX

Though in my dialects the object of "pilfer" can only be the thing, not the person or institution stolen from, OED says you're right.  I guess, aside from not being used to the "we pilfered that factory" usage, my reservation is that the verb implies "small quantities," theft on a petty scale.  In the poem, we really don't know how to take the magnitude of it, and I think aren't supposed to.

But thanks!  Even in a language I've been speaking for well over half a century, there are always nooks and crannies left.  Which I'll take as soothing my fret over not learning Greek fast enough …


----------



## orthophron

> Originally Posted by *orthophron*
> The only possibility that "μας" might be genitive rests on the presence of
> (a) a noun (to serve as object) of masculine gender (to agree with κλεμμένους) e.g.:
> μας είχαν κλεμμένους τους θησαυρούς = they had stolen the treasures from us
> or (b) a substituted pronoun in weak form:
> μας τους είχαν κλεμμένους = they had stolen them from us.





elliest_5 said:


> In the cases you mention, "μας" would be a morphological accusative serving as a dative which denotes the person who suffers the concequences of the action (δοτική αντιχαριστική)


Well, you know, here it happens that he who is affected is directly the one they stole the property from. Let's simplify the sentence: "σου κλέβω τα χρήματα" (κλέβω τα χρήματα από σένα). To me it is syntactically similar to "σου ζητώ/δίνω βοήθεια" and I think "σου" is the indirect object.
It would be illustrative however to think of another meaning the sentence can have: "σου κλέβω χρήματα" can mean "κλέβω χρήματα για χάρη σου" (I steal for you; remember Oliver Twist) and "σου" is of course genitive serving as dative of advantage (χαριστική).


----------



## elliest_5

orthophron said:


> Well, you know, here it happens that he who is affected is directly the one they stole the property from. Let's simplify the sentence: "σου κλέβω τα χρήματα" (κλέβω τα χρήματα από σένα). To me it is syntactically similar to "σου ζητώ/δίνω βοήθεια" and I think "σου" is the indirect object.


hmmm...I'm not sure  So you're actually saying that the verb "κλέβω" is ditransitive, well I don't know, is it? Because for me "σου κλέβω" is not the same as "σου δίνω" (in the sense that stating "from whom" something is stolen is highly optional, unlike stating "to whom" something is given - compare "Ο Γιάννης έκλεψε ένα βιβλίο" vs "Ο Γιάννης έδωσε ένα βιβλίο" - in the second sentence there is something missing, while the first is fine) but then maybe in the syntactic analysis both "σου" can be considered as being in the same structural position?

[As for my comment on the "morphological case" of "μας", just forget it: I did not consider the fact that there's syncretism between genitive+accusative of the plural of weak personal pronouns - which means that there's actually only one form "μας" for both cases]

Edit: PS. On second thought, however, maybe my argument about the optionality of "σου" in the syntax of "κλέβω" is not that strong, because a verb may just have two different possible configurations one with a single object and one with double object (which is probably the case with "ζητάω", right?). Pfff...ditransitives and their syntax: always a mind-boggler


----------

