# Παρακαλώ



## eupeithes

Today, I had a discussion with my Greek teacher concerning the sentence τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ.

My teacher says that τον λογαριασμό is the direct object of παρακαλώ.

I say that τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ is short for δώσε μου τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ / παρακαλώ να μου δώσεις τον λογαριασμό (or another verb like φέρω), in which τον λογαριασμό is the direct object of the verb δίνω.

However, the fact that τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ is short for δώσε μου τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ / παρακαλώ να μου δώσεις τον λογαριασμό (or another verb like φέρω) doesn’t mean that τον λογαριασμό becomes a direct object with παρακαλώ in the sentence τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ.

Who can enlighten us?


----------



## sotos

Unable to analyse scholastic matters of greek grammar, but I thing the verb "parakalo" has as object a secondary sentence like "give me this", or "do this for me" etc.


----------



## Perseas

In "Τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ!", "τον λογαριασμό" is not the object of "παρακαλώ".
I think it's like in English: "May I have the bill, please?" or "The bill, please!"

In other structures:
"Σας παρακαλώ, μου φέρνετε τον λογαριασμό;": the object  of "παρακαλώ" is "Σας" and the objects of "φέρνετε" are "μου" (indirect object) & "τον λογαριασμό" (direct object").
"Σας παρακαλώ να μου φέρετε τον λογαριασμό!": the objects of "παρακαλώ" are 1)"Σας" & 2)the  clause "να μου φέρετε τον λογαριασμό".



eupeithes said:


> However, the fact that τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ is short for δώσε μου τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ / παρακαλώ να μου δώσεις τον λογαριασμό (or another verb like φέρω)


Or "(Θα ήθελα) τον λογαριασμό, (σας) παρακαλώ!"


----------



## eupeithes

Thanks or you reply. So actually you agree with me?


----------



## Perseas

eupeithes said:


> So actually you agree with me?


Yes.


Perseas said:


> In "Τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ!", "τον λογαριασμό" is not the object of "παρακαλώ".


----------



## dmtrs

I totally agree with what's been posted above by Perseas.
If _τον λογαριασμό_ was to be the object of the verb _παρακαλώ_, it would be a second object, and the need for a dependent clause that sotos mentions would make the whole phrase to be something like: 
_Παρακαλώ τον λογαριασμό να μην είναι πολύ μεγάλος_
-something one would not normally say.
_Παρακαλώ το σερβιτόρο να μου φέρει το λογαριασμό_ would be a valid phrase, as any sentence where _παρακαλώ _has a person as an second object apart from the dependent clause.


----------



## eupeithes

Thank you. You are confirming what I already thought.


----------



## Αγγελος

Unlike ζητώ, which takes the thing requested as a direct object and the person it is requested from as an indirect object,
(του ζήτησα τον λογαριασμό = I asked him for the bill)
παρακαλώ _only _takes a direct object, which is the person asked, while the favour sought is expressed as a να-clause
(τον παρακάλεσα να φέρει τον λογαριασμό = I asked him to bring the bill)
As for "τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ", you are absolutely right; an imperative such as φέρε is understood.


----------



## eupeithes

Thank you for you response.

You wrote: 
παρακαλώ _only _takes a direct object,

shouldn’t that be indirect object?


----------



## Αγγελος

Come to think about it, you may well be right. I think the traditional definition is that if a verb takes one object only, that object is considered to be direct object; if it takes one accusative object and one in a different case, the accusative one is direct and the other one indirect; and if it takes a double accusative, as in τον έμαθα σκάκι = I taught him chess, the object denoting a thing is direct and the object denoting a person is indirect. So if you assimilate the να-clause to an accusative of thing, then the accusative of person in τον παρακάλεσα να... will be an indirect object.

At any rate, what I meant was that παρακαλώ _only _takes an accusative of person (and a να-clause) as objects, while its synonym ζητώ takes an accusative of thing _or_ a να-clause and a genitive/dative of person: του ζήτησα λίγο ψωμί -- του ζήτησα να μου δώσει λίγο ψωμί.

Other verbs with a similar meaning are constructed as follows:
διατάσσω or διατάζω _only _takes an accusative of person (and a να-clause) as objects: τον διέταξαν να βάψει τον τοίχο = they ordered him [a soldier] to paint the wall;
παραγγέλνω takes a genitive/dative of person and an accusative of thing or a να-clause: του παράγγειλαν ένα σακάκι = they ordered a jacket from him [a tailor], or του παράγγειλαν να τους μακρύνει το σακάκι = they ordered him to lengthen their coat;
λέω, in the sense of 'saying', takes a genitive/dative of person and an accusative of thing or an ότι-clause: του είπαν ένα παραμύθι = they told him a tale, or του είπαν ότι θα έρθουν αύριο = they said they were coming tomorrow; in the sense of 'ordering', it takes a genitive/dative of person and a να-clause: του είπαν να έρθει αύριο = they told him to come tomorrow.
επιτρέπω / απαγορεύω take a genitive/dative of person and an accusative of thing or a να-clause: του επέτρεψαν/απαγόρευσαν την έξοδο or  του επέτρεψαν/απαγόρευσαν να βγει έξω = they allowed/forbade him to go out; but αφήνω, in the sense of 'letting', takes an accusative of person and a να-clause: τον άφησαν να βγει. No one said Greek was easy...


----------



## ianis

eupeithes said:


> Thank you for you response.
> 
> You wrote:
> παρακαλώ _only _takes a direct object,
> 
> shouldn’t that be indirect object?


This means that in Greek it is possible for a transitive verb to have only an indirect object without at least an implicit, even if unmentioned, direct object?


----------



## dmtrs

No, no, ianis.
Eupeithes' response referred to this sentence:


Αγγελος said:


> παρακαλώ _only _takes a direct object, which is the person asked, while the favour sought is expressed as a να-clause


where there's (of course) mention of two objects.


----------



## ianis

Thank you dmtrs.
But when one applies that basic rule of the "what?" and the "who (received it)?" to παρακαλώ in the original sentence, which is which? Or doesn't it apply in this case?


----------



## eupeithes

I would say that παρακαλώ is not a transitive verb. Transitive verbs have direct objects. And παρακαλώ doesn’t. Only an indirect object in the accusative and a να-clause.


----------



## dmtrs

eupeithes said:


> I would say that παρακαλώ is not a transitive verb. Transitive verbs have direct objects. And παρακαλώ doesn’t. Only an indirect object in the accusative and a να-clause.



All verbs that have an object (or two) are transitive. Of course all transitive verbs have objects; if they have two, one is direct; in this case the direct object is the να-clause. Noun (subordinate) clauses function as objects most of the time.



ianis said:


> basic rule of the "what?" and the "who (received it)?"



Maybe it becomes clearer if you ask (in this and many other cases) "what?" and "whom?".


----------



## eupeithes

A criterion for transitive verbs is that they can be put in a passive mode; so they must have a direct object. I know not enough about modern Greek grammar to say if this is possible with παρακαλώ.

So, can the verb παρακαλώ be put in passive mode? In other words, can the να-clause be made the subject of the passive sentence?


----------



## ianis

Thank you dmtrs but in that case and if interpreting correctly everything being said the teacher might be right after all, τον λογαριασμό is the direct object, or not?


----------



## ianis

eupeithes said:


> A criterion for transitive verbs is that they can be put in a passive mode; so they must have a direct object. I know not enough about modern Greek grammar to say if this is possible with παρακαλώ.
> 
> So, can the verb παρακαλώ be put in passive mode? In other words, can the να-clause be made the subject of the passive sentence?



The Oxford Greek-English  Learner's Dictionary only identifies it as a transitive verb.


----------



## Αγγελος

παρακαλώ _can _be used in the passive voice: παρακαλείσθε να μη θορυβείτε μετά τις 10 μ.μ. = you are requested not to make noise after 10 pm.
This usage, however, is very formal and is probably a 19th-century imitation of the French phrase "vous êtes prié de..." Its grammatical subject is the _person_ requested. The να-clause cannot be turned into a subject: you have to say «διατυπώθηκε η παράκληση να...» = the request was made that...

With ζητώ, on the other hand, such a construction is perfectly possible: του ζητήθηκε να εμφανιστεί... = he was asked to appear...

There is a popular form παρακαλιέμαι, but it it just a more intensive synonym of παρακαλώ, meaning more or less "to  persistently beg whatever higher powers there be that something may (not) happen". Its grammatical subject is the person requesting.


----------



## dmtrs

eupeithes said:


> A criterion for transitive verbs is that they can be put in a passive mode;


This is not correct. The verbs επεξεργάζομαι, χειρίζομαι etc. are transitive but cannot be put in passive mode (see an older thread about αποθετικά ρήματα). 



eupeithes said:


> So, can the verb παρακαλώ be put in passive mode? In other words, can the να-clause be made the subject of the passive sentence?


(Continuing Αγγελος' comments: ) The phrase "Παρακαλώ το σερβιτόρο να έρθει" can be put in passive mode: "Ο σερβιτόρος παρακλήθηκε να έρθει" just for the sake of example -it would be too formal. 
The fact that the indirect object is used as a subject in passive mode is indeed strange, but it can be explained somehow as in ancient Greek the person would be the direct object. In fact, in modern Greek the person is the indirect object when it can be expressed by a prepositional phrase, which is not the case here. After all, maybe το σερβιτόρο is the direct object (?).



ianis said:


> Thank you dmtrs but in that case and if interpreting correctly everything being said the teacher might be right after all, τον λογαριασμό is the direct object, or not?


Do not be confused again. Remember what Perseas wrote:


Perseas said:


> In "Τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ!", "τον λογαριασμό" is not the object of "παρακαλώ".
> I think it's like in English: "May I have the bill, please?" or "The bill, please!"
> [...]
> "Σας παρακαλώ, μου φέρνετε τον λογαριασμό;": the object of "παρακαλώ" is "Σας" and the objects of "φέρνετε" are "μου" (indirect object) & "τον λογαριασμό" (direct object").
> "Σας παρακαλώ να μου φέρετε τον λογαριασμό!": the objects of "παρακαλώ" are 1)"Σας" & 2)the clause "να μου φέρετε τον λογαριασμό".


----------



## ianis

dmtrs said:


> Do not be confused again. Remember what Perseas wrote:


The problem is that what I understood (or maybe misunderstood) from what Perseas wrote plus what has been written after is that in "τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ " "τον λογαριασμό" is short for what you call the "να-clause", so if the "να-clause" is the direct object of "παρακαλώ" then  "τον λογαριασμό" must be the direct object in this particular case.
As you probably noticed I'm confused by nature by these issues, so have a little patience please.


----------



## Perseas

dmtrs said:


> After all, maybe το σερβιτόρο is the direct object (?).


Hello, I think, yes.
I think that the subordinate clause is considered to be an accusative. Between two accusatives, the accusative that refers to the person (σερβιτόρο) is the direct object.


----------



## Perseas

ianis said:


> in "τον λογαριασμό, παρακαλώ " "τον λογαριασμό" is short for what you call the "να-clause", so if the "να-clause" is the direct object of "παρακαλώ" then  "τον λογαριασμό" must be the direct object in this particular case.


Παρακαλώ, τον λογαριασμό! = Παρακαλώ, (φέρε) τον λογαριασμό! --> Two main clauses divided with a comma ("Παρακαλώ" & "φέρε τον λογαριασμό").
Παρακαλώ να μου φέρεις τον λογαριασμό! --> Α main clause ("Παρακαλώ") and a noun clause which is the object of "Παρακαλώ".
Παρακαλώ τον λογαριασμό! (ie without a comma) would not make any sense, because the right structure is "παρακαλώ + accusative of person": Σε παρακαλώ! 
(It's like the verb "ask" mentioned above by Άγγελος. Like "I ask a person something", so "παρακαλώ a person ... It's not logic to say "παρακαλώ"  to a thing).


----------



## ianis

Perseas said:


> Παρακαλώ, τον λογαριασμό! = Παρακαλώ, (φέρε) τον λογαριασμό! --> Two main clauses divided with a comma ("Παρακαλώ" & "φέρε τον λογαριασμό").
> Παρακαλώ να μου φέρεις τον λογαριασμό! --> Α main clause ("Παρακαλώ") and a noun clause which is the object of "Παρακαλώ".
> Παρακαλώ τον λογαριασμό! (ie without a comma) would not make any sense, because the right structure is "παρακαλώ + accusative of person": Σε παρακαλώ!



Understood. And thank you!


----------



## eupeithes

dmtrs said:


> This is not correct. The verbs επεξεργάζομαι, χειρίζομαι etc. are transitive but cannot be put in passive mode (see an older thread about αποθετικά ρήματα).
> 
> 
> (Continuing Αγγελος' comments: ) The phrase "Παρακαλώ το σερβιτόρο να έρθει" can be put in passive mode: "Ο σερβιτόρος παρακλήθηκε να έρθει" just for the sake of example -it would be too formal.
> The fact that the indirect object is used as a subject in passive mode is indeed strange, but it can be explained somehow as in ancient Greek the person would be the direct object. In fact, in modern Greek the person is the indirect object when it can be expressed by a prepositional phrase, which is not the case here. After all, maybe το σερβιτόρο is the direct object (?).
> 
> 
> Do not be confused again. Remember what Perseas wrote:



Again, I do not have much knowledge of modern Greek grammar. But the examples you give, are they actually in the passive voice or rather in the middle voice (which has the same endings?)?
 
The word Transitive means that a verb can put in the passive voice (Latin transire = to pass into).


In ancient Greek, it is not uncommon that verba rogandi have twee objects in the accusative: 1 x direct, 1 x indirect. The same goes for Latin.
 
ἑρωτάω
αἰτέω
rogo
 
They all have two objects in the accusative.


----------



## ianis

Aren't those verbs called "deponent" (the ones mentioned by dmtrs: "επεξεργάζομαι, χειρίζομαι etc". )?


----------



## eupeithes

I mean the same: medium tantum or deponens (not exactly the same, but nearly).


----------



## Perseas

eupeithes said:


> Again, I do not have much knowledge of modern Greek grammar. But the examples you give, are they actually in the passive voice or rather in the middle voice (which has the same endings?)?


If you mean the verbs "επεξεργάζομαι", "χειρίζομαι", dmtrs is right. They are transitive, because they take an object, so they are active in terms of their meaning, although in terms of morphology they are passive (ending -μαι).
Example:
(Active) --> Ο κεντρικός υπολογιστής επεξεργάζεται το αίτημά σας.

In order to  build a passive construction, you need to form a periphrasis, since the morphology of "επεξεργάζομαι" is already passive.
(Passive) --> Το αίτημά σας είναι αντικείμενο επεξεργασίας από τον κεντρικό υπολογιστή.



eupeithes said:


> They all have two objects in the accusative.


In that case, the accusative of the person is the direct object, which is used as the subject in the passive voice.

Examples:
(Active) -->(_Εγώ) ρωτώ *κάποιον* κάτι_. (*κάποιον* is the direct object, and κάτι is the indirect object)
(Passive) --> _*Κάποιος* ρωτήθηκε κάτι (από εμένα)._ ( In the passive, *κάποιον* is used as the subject (*Κάποιος*), and κάτι remains as it was)

(Active)-->* Με*_ ρώτησε αν θα βγω έξω._ (*Με* is the direct obj., and the noun clause (αν θα βγω έξω) ,an indirect question, is the indirect object)
(Passive)-->_*Εγώ* ρωτήθηκα αν θα βγω έξω._ (Ιn the passive, *Με* is used as the subject (*Εγώ*), and the noun clause remains as it was).


----------



## ianis

Was noticing that if translating παρακαλώ into "Do me a/the favor" it becomes real easy to understand, "do me a favor, give me the bill", "do me the favor of giving me the bill"; there is an expression with similar meaning and use in Portuguese (faça (o) favor).


----------



## eupeithes

I think most languages have expressions like this, derived from a verb, but having lost its grammatical function in the sentence.

please, bitte, alstublieft, s’i vous plait etc.


----------



## ianis

The problem of translating for the equivalent word/expression is that while it may give the best translation it does not give the meaning of the word and in this case the grammatical implications of it.


----------



## dmtrs

eupeithes said:


> The word Transitive means that a verb can put in the passive voice (Latin transire = to pass into).



I believe you've got it wrong, eupeithes. I quote from wikipedia:

_A *transitive verb* is a verb that accepts one or more objects. This contrasts with intransitive verbs, which do not have objects. Transitivity is traditionally thought a global property of a clause, by which activity is transferred from an agent to a patient.[1]
Transitive verbs can be classified by the number of objects they require. Verbs that accept only two arguments, a subject and a single direct object, are monotransitive. Verbs that accept two objects, a direct object and an indirect object, are ditransitive,[2] or less commonly bitransitive.[3] An example of a ditransitive verb in English is the verb to give, which may feature a subject, an indirect object, and a direct object: John gave Mary the book._



eupeithes said:


> In ancient Greek, it is not uncommon that verba rogandi have twee objects in the accusative: 1 x direct, 1 x indirect.



This is true for both ancient and modern Greek, and not only for verbs of question.
In fact, in ancient Greek the two objects can be in genitive+accusative, dative+accusative, genitive+dative or accusative+accusative; the direct one is the underlined, while in two accusatives, as Perseas wrote, the direct object is the one that indicates a person (or might be replaced by one that does).
Βασιλεύς ἤκουσε _ταῦτα Τισσαφέρνους._
T_αῦτα_ συνεβοῦλευσεν Περικλῆς _Ἀθηναίοις_.
Mεταδίδοτε _τῶν ἀγαθῶν τοῖς φίλοις._
Κάτων ἐδίδασκεν _τὸν υἱὸν μουσικήν._



eupeithes said:


> the examples you give, are they actually in the passive voice or rather in the middle voice



Although Perseas made this clear, I would like to add that, in terminology, there is not such a thing as _passive voice_ in ancient Greek, or _middle voice_ in modern Greek. It's easy to confuse _voice_ with _mode_; many Greeks do, too.


----------



## eupeithes

ianis said:


> The problem of translating for the equivalent word/expression is that while it may give the best translation it does not give the meaning of the word and in this case the grammatical implications of it.



Yes, I understand. But my point is that all these  words/expressions have lost there grammatical functions. They are written after the comma and therefore have no complements. They live a solitary existence.


----------



## eupeithes

dmtrs said:


> I believe you've got it wrong, eupeithes. I quote from wikipedia:
> 
> _A *transitive verb* is a verb that accepts one or more objects. This contrasts with intransitive verbs, which do not have objects. Transitivity is traditionally thought a global property of a clause, by which activity is transferred from an agent to a patient.[1]
> Transitive verbs can be classified by the number of objects they require. Verbs that accept only two arguments, a subject and a single direct object, are monotransitive. Verbs that accept two objects, a direct object and an indirect object, are ditransitive,[2] or less commonly bitransitive.[3] An example of a ditransitive verb in English is the verb to give, which may feature a subject, an indirect object, and a direct object: John gave Mary the book._
> 
> I think we mean the same here; in order to put something in the passive mode, the active sentence needs to have a direct object as patiens. when transferred to the passive sentence, the patiens becomes agens.


----------



## eupeithes

dmtrs said:


> Although Perseas made this clear, I would like to add that, in terminology, there is not such a thing as _passive voice_ in ancient Greek, or _middle voice_ in modern Greek. It's easy to confuse _voice_ with _mode_; many Greeks do, too.



I might not use the proper English terms, since I am Dutch and tried to translate some terminology to English.

By mode I mean indicative, optative conjunctive.

By voice I mean activum, medium, passivum. genus verbi, diathese


----------



## dmtrs

I might not use the proper English terms either, since I am Greek. 
 

But in ancient Greek medium voice means the verb ends in -μαι while active voice means the verb ends in -ω/-μι. 
In modern Greek passive voice means the verb ends in -μαι while active voice means the verb ends in -ω. Just that.
(Even Wikipedia messes up on this)

By 'mode' I do not mean 'mood' (indicative, imperative...) but the way that the subject 'behaves' according to the verb: acts (active mode -τρέχω, χτυπάω, επεξεργάζομαι...), receives the action of another (passive mode -πληροφορούμαι...), acts and receives the action at the same time (middle or medium mode -λούζομαι...) or just happens to be in a certain state (neutral mode -ευτυχώ, κοιμάμαι...).

English terms aside, the former (voice) in Greek is called _φωνή_, while the latter (mode) is called _διάθεση_.


----------



## eupeithes

dmtrs said:


> I might not use the proper English terms either, since I am Greek.
> 
> 
> But in ancient Greek medium voice means the verb ends in -μαι while active voice means the verb ends in -ω/-μι.
> In modern Greek passive voice means the verb ends in -μαι while active voice means the verb ends in -ω. Just that.
> (Even Wikipedia messes up on this)
> 
> Yes, that is what I meant in a previous post.
> 
> In ancient Greek the medium voice is also used for the present passive (medio-passivum).
> 
> λούομαι: I am washed
> 
> By 'mode' I do not mean 'mood' (indicative, imperative...) but the way that the subject 'behaves' according to the verb: acts (active mode -τρέχω, χτυπάω, επεξεργάζομαι...), receives the action of another (passive mode -πληροφορούμαι...), acts and receives the action at the same time (middle or medium mode -λούζομαι...) or just happens to be in a certain state (neutral mode -ευτυχώ, κοιμάμαι...).
> 
> Ah, I see. I always use the word MODUS, apparently wrongly translated by me with MODE.
> 
> English terms aside, the former (voice) in Greek is called _φωνή_, while the latter (mode) is called _διάθεση_.


----------



## eupeithes

English terms aside, the former (voice) in Greek is called _φωνή_, while the latter (mode) is called _διάθεση_.

In university, activum, medium, passivum was always called diathese. For mode, there was no word.


----------



## ianis

eupeithes said:


> Yes, I understand. But my point is that all these  words/expressions have lost there grammatical functions. They are written after the comma and therefore have no complements. They live a solitary existence.


I'm under the impression we are in agreement and that was the point of the comment.
Nevertheless the Portuguese expression "faça o favor", although "se faz favor" may fit better Kriarás definition of "με ταπεινό τρόπο" for "παρακαλώ" and is more commonly used in this situation, may be used in the same situations and interacts with the sentence in the same way, I believe, as "παρακαλώ" .


----------



## Perseas

eupeithes said:


> English terms aside, the former (voice) in Greek is called _φωνή_, while the latter (mode) is called _διάθεση_.
> 
> In university, activum, medium, passivum was always called diathese. For mode, there was no word.


Ιn Triandaffyllidis' Concise Modern Greek Grammar (English translation), _διάθεση_ is translated as _disposition_. Modern Greek has four _dispositions_: _active, passive, middle_ and _neutral_.

_Voice_ is a morphological category:
when the ending of the first person singular of the present indicative is -ω/ώ, then the verb belongs to the active voice (γράφω/τιμώ),
when the ending of the first person singular of the present indicative is -μαι, then the verb belongs to the passive voice (γράφομαι).

Modern Greek has three_ moods (εγκλίσεις): the indicative (οριστική), the subjunctive (υποτακτική) _and the_  imperative (προστακτική)_.


----------



## ianis

Perseas said:


> In other structures:
> "Σας παρακαλώ, μου φέρνετε τον λογαριασμό;": the object  of "παρακαλώ" is "Σας" and the objects of "φέρνετε" are "μου" (indirect object) & "τον λογαριασμό" (direct object").



Sorry, but there is still a doubt remaining. In the first clause of the above example "Σας" is the indirect object and the direct object is an implicit "something" or "a thing"?


----------



## Perseas

ianis said:


> Sorry, but there is still a doubt remaining. In the first clause of the above example "Σας" is the indirect object and the direct object is an implicit "something" or "a thing"?


"Σας παρακαλώ, μου φέρνετε τον λογαριασμό;"
In that example, "Σας" (the accusative indicating a person) is the direct object of "παρακαλώ". There's no other object.
If you wish to add "κάτι", then it would be "Σας παρακαλώ για κάτι". But "για κάτι" is not considered an object.

Το sum up, the verb "παρακαλώ" has two structures:
a. Παρακαλώ + acc. of a person (παρακαλώ κάποιον)
b. Παρακαλώ + acc. of a person + noun clause (παρακαλώ κάποιον να κάνει κάτι). In that case, the acc. of person is the direct object and the noun clause is the indirect one.
Of course, it can be used as an affirmative answer to a request: -Μπορώ να περάσω; - Παρακαλώ!


----------



## ianis

So in English it would have to mean something like "I request/call you" in order to the person addressed to answer the question "what?" and be the direct object?

The good thing from your last example and the previous ones is that it seems to fit many of the uses of the Portuguese expression "faça favor" in that way it is easier to figure its uses. Although it doesn't have the same implications in terms of objects in the first situation.

Thank you very much for the explanation.


----------



## Perseas

Yes, I believe that the verb "to request" can successfully translate the verb "παρακαλώ".
Moreover, both constructions share the object of person and the subordinate clause: "παρακαλώ κάποιον να κάνει κάτι" & "I request somebody to do something". I hear sometimes the announcement "Παρακαλείσθε να μην καπνίζετε!" and then follows the English translation "You are kindly requested not to smoke!".  I am not sure about the English terminology, but I guess also in English the person addressed is the direct object.
You are welcome!


----------



## ianis

Thank you very much again Perseas. Ms. Μήτρού says in her TV Show that Greek language "χαρακτεριζεται από σαφήνεια και ακριβεια" but παρακαλώ was looking a bit of a shapeshifter untill now.


----------



## Αγγελος

In the matter of voice (φωνή) vs. diathesis:
In Latin there were two voices, active (_amare=_love_) _and passive (_amari_=be loved). Diathesis played no role in grammar. 
 In _Ancient _Greek there was a middle voice, that expressed a great many nuances, including reflexive (λούομαι=I wash myself), and a passive voice, mostly expressing the passive diathesis. Those two voices were formally distinguished in the future and aorist _only_; in the  other tenses they were identical. Thus, λούομαι meant both “I wash myself” and “I am being washed”, but in the aorist “I washed myself” would be ελουσάμην and “I was washed” would be ελούσθην. This is why the semantic category of diathesis entered grammar. 
In _modern _Greek the middle voice has completely disappeared. The passive voice (λούζομαι, aorist λούστηκα) is used in both the reflexive and the purely passive sense. Diathesis, as in Latin, plays no role in morphology. And, just as in Latin, there also exist déponent verbs, passive in form but without a corresponding active (έρχομαι, δέχομαι...), which can even be transitive (μεταχειρίζομαι = use, cf. Latin _utor_).


----------



## eupeithes

Αγγελος said:


> In the matter of voice (φωνή) vs. diathesis:
> In Latin there were two voices, active (_amare=_love_) _and passive (_amari_=be loved). Diathesis played no role in grammar.
> In _Ancient _Greek there was a middle voice, that expressed a great many nuances, including reflexive (λούομαι=I wash myself), and a passive voice, mostly expressing the passive diathesis. Those two voices were formally distinguished in the future and aorist _only_; in the  other tenses they were identical. Thus, λούομαι meant both “I wash myself” and “I am being washed”, but in the aorist “I washed myself” would be ελουσάμην and “I was washed” would be ελούσθην. This is why the semantic category of diathesis entered grammar.
> In _modern _Greek the middle voice has completely disappeared. The passive voice (λούζομαι, aorist λούστηκα) is used in both the reflexive and the purely passive sense. Diathesis, as in Latin, plays no role in morphology. And, just as in Latin, there also exist déponent verbs, passive in form but without a corresponding active (έρχομαι, δέχομαι...), which can even be transitive (μεταχειρίζομαι = use, cf. Latin _utor_).



Hello Aggelos, reading your post, the difference between diathese and voice still isn't clear to me. Are you saying that diathese pertains to the interpretation of voice (e.g. ancient Greek λούομαι > passive interpretation or reflexive interpretation)?

Again, I have always been taught that diathese, voice, genus verbi pertain all to the same morphological distinction of activum, medium, passivum.

A quick search on the internet gave me: Voice (grammar) - Wikipedia 

In grammar, the voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action (or state) that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.). When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice. *Voice is sometimes called diathesis.**[1]*


----------



## Astrix

eupeithes said:


> Hello Aggelos, reading your post, the difference between diathese and voice still isn't clear to me. Are you saying that diathese pertains to the interpretation of voice (e.g. ancient Greek λούομαι > passive interpretation or reflexive interpretation)?
> 
> Again, I have always been taught that diathese, voice, genus verbi pertain all to the same morphological distinction of activum, medium, passivum.
> 
> A quick search on the internet gave me: Voice (grammar) - Wikipedia
> 
> In grammar, the voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action (or state) that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.). When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice. *Voice is sometimes called diathesis.**[1]*


As someone has said , "if you want to learn Greek you first throw away the Grammar & Syntax book".


----------



## Αγγελος

The way I understand thinggs, voice is m_orphological _category: it refers to whether the dictionary form of the verb ends in -o or -or in Latin, or in -ω (-μι) or -μαι in Greek. Diathesis is a semantic category : it concerns the.semantic relation of the subject to the verb, and more specifically whether the subject (I) does something to somebody/something (hit, cut...) or just does something (walk, whistle...) (II) does something to or for itself (shave, i.e. shave oneself, adjust...), (iii) undergoes something , has something done to I (be loved, be hit), or (IV) is in a state (sleep, lie...). [At least, those are the four voices traditionally recognized in Greek grammar. Other languages have other voices: Hungarian, e.g., recognizes a _factitive _voice (the king is having a new place built).
Of course, there is a loose correlation between voice and diathesis. Many verbs have an active voice form to express active diathesis (amor = αγαπώ = i love) and.a  corresponding passive voice form to express middle or passive diathesis (amor = αγαπώμαι =I am loved). But this is comparable to the correlation between grammatical gender and physical sex: nouns denoting male beings are usually masculine in gender, nouns denoting female beings are usually feminine (but _a Weib_ in German is neuter!), but it is far from true that sexless beings are always neuter or neuter nouns denote sexless beings.
The problem is that passive voice verbs had different forms in _Ancient _Greek in the future and aorist tense according  as they were of mjddle or passive diathesis: thus ιώμαι  ι meant “I heal” and also “I am healed”, but “I healed” was ιασάμην and “I was healed” was ιάθην. This is why diathesis made it into traditional Greek grammar.
In modern Greek, however, that distinction has completely disappeared. Πλύθηκα means both “I washed myself” and “I was washed”. There is thus no reason at all to mention diathesis in modern Greek. And passive voice verbs (those that end in -μαι) can be rtuly passive in meaning (σκοτώθηκε = je was killed), reflexive (ξυρίστηκα = I  shaved myself), neuter (κοιμάμαι = I sleep) or even active (έρχομαι = i come, κατεργάζομαι = i treat).


----------



## dmtrs

eupeithes said:


> Voice is sometimes called diathesis.


This is the root of all misunderstanding. It is totally wrong.



Αγγελος said:


> voice is m_orphological _category





Αγγελος said:


> Diathesis is a semantic category


Αγγελος says it all in two phrases.



Αγγελος said:


> There is [...] no reason at all to mention diathesis in modern Greek


Although this is true in most cases, there's a need to distinguish between active, passive or middle (but not neuter) diathesis when trying to switch between active and passive syntax, I think. It makes clear if such a transformation is possible and helps determine what the agent should be.


----------



## Αγγελος

I meant that there is no need to mention diathesis among the παρεπόμενα του ρήματος (voice, mode, tense, person and number), just as there is no need to mention sex in connection with nominal inflection. Of course; just as we mention ways of forming the feminine of nouns (change of ending, as with σκύλος/σκύλα, suffixation, as with βασιλιάς/βασίλισσα, etc.), so also we must mention that IF a verb exists in both voices, _usually_ the passive voice means that the grammatical subject undergoes the action expressed by the active form of the verb, which action may be performed by somebody/something else (τα ρούχα πλύθηκαν στο πλυντήριο) οr by the subject itself (πλένομαι κάθε πρωί). But this is only a tendency, not a rule: ζεσταίνομαι can mean "I warm myself" (κάθησε στο τζάκι να ζεσταθεί)  or "I get warm" (ζεστάθηκα πολύ στο λεωφορείο), but there is no *κρυώνομαι (though we do say δροσίζομαι!), and μαυρίζω means both 'to blacken' and 'to turn black', while μαυρίστηκε can only be used in the sense of receiving no or very few votes. The use of the passive voice in Greek is complicated enough without introducing the grammatical category of diathesis...


----------



## dmtrs

Αγγελος said:


> The use of the passive voice in Greek is complicated enough without introducing the grammatical category of diathesis...


I agree, Άγγελε.
What I meant is (basically) that it's impossible to explain the inability of deponent verbs to be transformed to passive syntax without mentioning diathesis.


----------

