# Aorist of the verb παρέχω



## Hlias89

Hi everyone!
I've come across the verb παρέχω and I'm not quite sure about its right aorist form... I've found different versions :
παρείχα (παρείχες, παρείχε...), which is imperfect and used as simple past too, but also the form παρέσχε and παρέσχεσαν exist.  
Trying to find out the complete conjugation of the latter form (if it exists and it is used), I found this:  "παρέσχον,παρέσχες, παρέσχε, παρέσχομεν, παρέσχετε, παρέσχον"
which is again slightly different and I guess it might be the Ancient Greek one. 
So...which is the correct one? 
Thank you all for your help!


----------



## Perseas

In Modern Greek it's "παρείχα".
cf. έχω --> είχα


----------



## StartlePixie

Hello! "παρέσχον,παρέσχες, παρέσχε, παρέσχομεν, παρέσχετε, παρέσχον" is indeed Ancient Greek. 

Like Perseas already said, the correct form in modern Greek is παρείχα:


Παρείχα, παρείχες, παρείχε, παρείχαμε, παρείχατε, παρείχαν. 


Good luck!


----------



## Hlias89

Ok! Thank you all! I imagined so, but I found this in a dictionary online: 
"[Λεξικό Τριανταφυλλίδη]* παρέχω * _[paréxo] *-ομαι* Ρ πρτ. παρείχα, αόρ. γ' πρόσ. παρέσχε, παρέσχεσαν, απαρέμφ. παράσχει, παθ. αόρ. παρασχέθηκα, απαρέμφ. παρασχεθεί_  ..."
and I also tried to google the" παρέσχε" form and I found it used in some articles in the news and sites..so, what is it? A kind of archaism maybe? Or is it used just in fixed expressions or something? 
And the simple future is "θα παράσχω, Θα παράσχεις...", isn't it?


----------



## StartlePixie

Hlias89 said:


> Ok! Thank you all! I imagined so, but I found this in a dictionary online:
> "[Λεξικό Τριανταφυλλίδη]* παρέχω * _[paréxo] *-ομαι* Ρ πρτ. παρείχα, αόρ. γ' πρόσ. παρέσχε, παρέσχεσαν, απαρέμφ. παράσχει, παθ. αόρ. παρασχέθηκα, απαρέμφ. παρασχεθεί_  ..."
> and I also tried to google the" παρέσχε" form and I found it used in some articles in the news and sites..so, what is it? A kind of archaism maybe? Or is it used just in fixed expressions or something?
> And the simple future is "θα παράσχω, Θα παράσχεις...", isn't it?




This is a very good point. Triantafillidis is presenting "παρείχα" as the Παρατατικός, which is indeed correct. The form he uses for the Αόριστος is also correct - in Ancient Greek. In modern Greek we use the same form for Αόριστος and Παρατατικός. No modern Greek will be able to understand what you are talking about if you use the Αόριστος proposed by the dictionary (which by all means may be academically correct). Here are two examples of the everyday use of the verb: 

- Η βουλή της Ρώμης *παρείχε* ψήφο εμπιστοσύνης  (the Parliament of Rome gave a vote of confidence)
- Κατά την περσινή χρονιά, ο σύλλογός μας *παρείχε *βοήθεια καθημερινά σε χιλιάδες άπορες οικογένειες (During last year, our association was providing help on a daily basis to thousands of deprived families)

However, the Αόριστος of the passive voice (παράσχομαι) is "παρασχέθηκα" and the Παρατατικός is "παρασχόμουν". Therefore, the passive voice managed to maintain two distinct forms for Αόριστος and Παρατατικός.


----------



## Acestor

I believe that *παρέσχε* (for third-person singular Aorist) is quite common and everyone understands it. Here are lots of newspaper examples:

https://www.google.gr/search?q="παρ...imerini.gr+OR+site:efsyn.gr+OR+site:ethnos.gr


----------



## StartlePixie

You are right, the term does exist. But I still think that it is a bit too sophisticated and I do not believe that many native speakers would use it spontaneously.


----------



## Acestor

Oh no, not spontaneously. It's more likely they would ignite spontaneously.


----------



## StartlePixie

If I use the word "intuitively", will you agree with my argument?

And Greeks will one day ignite spontaneously and join the Elohims anyway...


----------



## Acestor

I actually have agreed with your argument. I was not criticising your use of the adverb.


----------



## ireney

Whoa there! It's true that most Greeks would use παρείχε instead of παρέσχε. However it is not true to say that it's really all that sophisticated. Nor that most Greeks wouldn't understand it.


----------



## StartlePixie

Oh sorry. That's the problem with written communication: you tend to miss the joke even when it's staring you in the face .


----------



## StartlePixie

Ireney: I think they would, if you put it into context. But as I said previously, I think they wouldn't use it in an everyday conversation. They would most likely just use "παρείχε" instead. As for the other forms of the verb in Aorist, I don't think they would be used at all.


----------



## Perseas

Hlias89 said:


> Ok! Thank you all! I imagined so, but I found this in a dictionary online:
> "[Λεξικό Τριανταφυλλίδη]* παρέχω * _[paréxo] *-ομαι* Ρ πρτ. παρείχα, αόρ. γ' πρόσ. παρέσχε, παρέσχεσαν, απαρέμφ. παράσχει, παθ. αόρ. παρασχέθηκα, απαρέμφ. παρασχεθεί_  ..."
> and I also tried to google the" παρέσχε" form and I found it used in some articles in the news and sites..so, what is it? A kind of archaism maybe? Or is it used just in fixed expressions or something?
> And the simple future is "θα παράσχω, Θα παράσχεις...", isn't it?


It is true that "παρέσχε" & "παρέσχεσαν" are sometimes used, but in elevated style (e.g. in political discourse, newspaper articles). Of course, "παρείχε" & "παρείχαν" are the most common types.

Yes, "θα παράσχω, θα παράσχεις... " is future and is used quite often (it is for sure more common than "παρέσχε" ). Its grammatical aspect is simple, whereas the aspect of the future "θα παρέχω, θα παρέχεις..." is progressive. The progressive type though tends to displace the simple type (which is also considered to be "elevated style").


----------



## Hlias89

Thank you all!  So it's just a matter of style and even a difference between written language and speech! But...then, could the other persons of the "παρέσχε" and "παρέσχεσαν" conjugation be also found? Potentially at least...or is it considered a mistake? I mean, if someone would like to maintain a more formal/sophisticated style in his writing and the first person for example is needed, should the "παρείχα" form be used instead?


----------



## Perseas

Hlias89 said:


> Thank you all!  So it's just a matter of style and even a difference between written language and speech! But...then, could the other persons of the "παρέσχε" and "παρέσχεσαν" conjugation be also found?


Not in Demotic Greek.


Hlias89 said:


> Potentially at least...or is it considered a mistake? I mean, if someone would like to maintain a more formal/sophisticated style in his writing and the first person for example is needed, should the "παρείχα" form be used instead?


I wouldn't expect to meet "παρέσχον" or "παρέσχες" or "παρέσχομεν" or "παρέσχετε" in a text of Demotic Greek, not even in a formal style.

Apart from the above: Note that you can meet the following forms of the aorist of the verb "κατέχω" : "κατέσχεσα, κατέσχεσες, κατέσχεσε, κατασχέσαμε, κατασχέσατε, κατεσχεσαν" which derive from the ancient aorist "κατέσχον, κατέσχες..etc. But this does not apply to "παρέχω" (except for "παρέσχεσαν" which we have already mentioned above).


----------



## Αγγελος

Perseas, I think you are making an already complicated situation even more complicated with your explanations.
Κατέχω means "I have in my possession" and as such it has no aorist, any more than έχω has.
"κατέσχον, κατέσχες, κατέσχε..." is of course  the _ancient _aorist of κατέχω -- but when it was re-introduced into the language via καθαρεύουσα, it did so in the very specific meaning of "legally seize". One can perfectly well say in the third person singular "η αστυνομία κατέσχε δύο πιστόλια και σαράντα σφαίρες", and the aorist subjunctive/future perfective "να/θα κατάσχω" rolls easily off any Greek's tongue in all numbers and persons. However, the aorist indicative does NOT, and people have created a new aorist  κατέσχεσα/κατέσχεσες/κατέσχεσε/κατασχέσαμε/κατασχέσατε/κατεσχεσαν, which purists will disapprove of and which isn't really used in writing. People have even created a new present indicative κατάσχω,  indistinguishable from the aorist subjunctive and quite widely used. Even a schoolteacher will say "κατάσχεται!" if he seizes, say, a slingshot in a schoolboy's hands.

The case of παρέχω is somewhat different, as it is not indispensable the way κατάσχω is. The aorist is παρέσχε in the 3d person singular and... is not really used in the other persons and numbers, because the 'correct' forms (παρέσχον, παρέσχομεν...) are simply too unwieldy. With the aorist subjunctive (να παράσχω...) and passive (παρασχέθηκα, να παρασχεθώ...) there is no problem, and all forms are regularly used.

Μετέχω or συμμετέχω is another verb that causes the average user problems. It is conjugated just like παρέχω, and just as with that verb, the aorist indicative is seldom used except in the 3d person singular. One will also hear the form συμμετέσχω, but all literate people agree it's wrong.


----------



## Perseas

Αγγελος said:


> Perseas, I think you are making an already complicated situation even more complicated with your explanations.
> Κατέχω means "I have in my possession" and as such it has no aorist, any more than έχω has.


You 're referring to the last paragraph of post #16. You 're right, it was an oversight of mine what I said about the aorist of "κατέχω".
More about "κατάσχω" and "κατέχω" here:http://ngradio.gr/keimena/glossika-rhmata-katasxw-katexw/




Αγγελος said:


> One will also hear the form συμμετέσχω


Do you mean συμμετάσχω?


----------



## Αγγελος

No, I do mean συμμετέσχω, as a frequent mistake for the present indicative. My only point in mentioning it was to reassure our non-native askers: they will be in good company if they confuse the various forms of the verbs derived from έχω (not to mention those derived  from άγω!)
My personal advice to non-native speakers (and even to hesitant native speakers  ) would be learn the 'correct' forms, but to use έδωσα or προσέφερα/πρόσφερα and έλαβα μέρος instead in the aorist indicative active!


----------



## Perseas

Αγγελος said:


> My personal advice to non-native speakers (and even to hesitant native speakers  ) would be learn the 'correct' forms, but to use έδωσα or προσέφερα/πρόσφερα and έλαβα μέρος instead in the aorist indicative active!


What would be the 'correct' forms of _έδωσα _or_ προσέφερα/πρόσφερα_ and _έλαβα μέρος_, Άγγελε, if I understood well?


----------



## Αγγελος

Perseas said:


> What would be the 'correct' forms of _έδωσα _or_ προσέφερα/πρόσφερα_ and _έλαβα μέρος_, Άγγελε, if I understood well?



Do I express myself _that _confusingly? All I meant was that ideally one should know and at least be able to recognize the 'correct' forms παρέσχον and συμμετέσχον, but that to be on the safe side one should avoid the aorist indicative of those verbs altogether and  use the suggested synonyms instead.


----------

