# another particle problem?



## OssianX

Though I *think* I understand all but the beginning, here's the whole sentence (or fragment, rather):  "Αυτά που μας πήραν, και τα χρόνια περάσαν, και πια δεν παίρνονται πίσω·"  Is "μας" simply the object, as it appears?

"These things that took us [received us?], and the years passed, and no longer are they taken back"--it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Yet again, am I missing something basic, or is it just the tricky language of a poem?  Could the first clause possibly be, "These things that they took from us"--perhaps that "dative" usage that ireney mentioned in an earlier post?  I guess there's no way to tell whether "μας" is accusative, or genitive-acting-as-dative, is there?


----------



## Δημήτρης

It's safe to translate "μας πηραν" as "they took from us" (although it could be "these that took us", it doesn't seem to fit) but I can't understand what "και πια δεν παίρνονται πίσω" is supposed to mean.


----------



## ireney

I'd translate the second part as "and cannot be taken back" (they took "these" from us and the years passed and now we cannot take "these" back -"these" used both times on purpose to differentiate between them who did the taking and the things or whatever they took)


----------



## OssianX

Thanks, Δημήτρη (did I get it right this time?) and ireney.  That helps a lot.


----------



## Δημήτρης

> I'd translate the second part as "and cannot be taken back"





> "και πια δεν παίρνονται πίσω"


Still, the use of passive voice here is odd.


----------



## OssianX

Δημήτρης said:


> Still, the use of passive voice here is odd.



Why?  Maybe I'm being too much influenced by English, in which the passive ("be taken back") seems natural here.  (Of course who would do the taking-back isn't clear, but that's a feature of the whole sentence.)


----------



## Δημήτρης

OssianX said:


> Why?  Maybe I'm being too much influenced by English, in which the passive ("be taken back") seems natural here.  (Of course who would do the taking-back isn't clear, but that's a feature of the whole sentence.)


Well, it's just one of these cases that simply sounds odd (at least to *me*). I would use a different verb:
"και πια δεν γυρίζουν πίσω" or
"και πια δεν έρχονται πίσω" 			 		
Sure, this defeats another feature of the sentence, the use of only 2 verbs, παίρνω και περνώ (that, surprisingly, are pronounced almost the same).


----------



## ireney

I agree and disagree at the same time 
The passive voice of "παίρνω" is not used all too often. Usually we turn the sentence around in order to use the active voice, something like "δεν μπορούμε να τα πάρουμε πίσω", which is of course impossible in a poem really.
On the other hand, it is a valid form of the verb and, additionally, all the other alternative wordings will change, albeit in some cases slightly, the meaning.
"Δεν γυρίζουν πίσω" for instance means that these things won't come back. It's less "active" on our part, it doesn't emphasize our inability to take them back. Same with "έρχομαι". Active voice on the other hand over-emphasizes our role in getting (or not getting) them back and puts "them" and their "return" in second place.
Sorry if I'm obscure, I can't concentrate with a stuffed nose (grumble, grumble, grumble).
Plus there's what Δημήτρης mentioned, the similarity of the two verbs.


----------



## OssianX

Hm.  Interesting!

For now (I'm just trying to get a rough translation of all the poems in this book), I'm using, "They took these things from us, and the years passed, and no longer /
are they to be taken back;"  It's very clumsy, but I like the ambiguity (in English) of the "are to be," which might mean "can't be" or "won't be" or "shouldn't properly be."

Thanks again, all; it's good to know where there are real ambiguities, rather than just the traces of my ignorance.


----------



## Δημήτρης

> I agree and disagree at the same time
> The passive voice of "παίρνω" is not used all too often. Usually we turn the sentence around in order to use the active voice, something like "δεν μπορούμε να τα πάρουμε πίσω", which is of course impossible in a poem really.
> On the other hand, it is a valid form of the verb and, additionally, all the other alternative wordings will change, albeit in some cases slightly, the meaning.
> "Δεν γυρίζουν πίσω" for instance means that these things won't come back. It's less "active" on our part, it doesn't emphasize our inability to take them back. Same with "έρχομαι". Active voice on the other hand over-emphasizes our role in getting (or not getting) them back and puts "them" and their "return" in second place.
> Sorry if I'm obscure, I can't concentrate with a stuffed nose (grumble, grumble, grumble).
> Plus there's what Δημήτρης mentioned, the similarity of the two verbs.


The sentence is grammatically correct, no doubt about it. And since it's a poem it's better for me not to mess around with the creator's words...

But generally speaking, usually only "decisions" or "strict measures" _παίρνονται_.

PS. "..., but are not to be taken back"? Does this works in english? Never used it but I've seen it a few times.


----------



## OssianX

Δημήτρης said:


> PS. "..., but are not to be taken back"? Does this works in english? Never used it but I've seen it a few times.



"…is not to be" isn't really conversational English, but it's at least recognizable to native speakers.  This construction with the infinitive, like the "ablative absolute" ("all other lovers being estranged or dead," to quote Yeats again, meaning approximately "because all other lovers are estranged or dead"), isn't native to English, but imported from Latin.  But it's pretty thoroughly domesticated.  If not commonly spoken, it's very commonly understood. Samuel Johnson said of the death of Cordelia in _King Lear_ (or was it the blinding of Gloucester?), "It is not to be borne": no one can tolerate it; no one should have to tolerate it; no one should be able to tolerate it.


----------

