# Proper Noun with Definite Article



## Flaminius

Hello forum,

I have long been wanting to ask this question and finally I chanced upon an example I can understand in another section of the fora.



ireney said:


> Ο μεν Γιώργος πήγε αριστερά, ο δε Κώστας δεξιά.
> Και ο Γιώργος και ο Κώστας πήγαν αριστερά.
> 
> 
> (In English I'd translate them as "George (on the one hand) went left, Kostas on the other hand went right" and "Both George and Kostas went left")



Is it common in Greek for a proper noun to be accompanied by a definite article as in sentences above?  If articleless construction is possible, what are the differences?


----------



## shannenms

Flaminius said:


> Hello forum,
> 
> I have long been wanting to ask this question and finally I chanced upon an example I can understand in another section of the fora.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it common in Greek for a proper noun to be accompanied by a definite article as in sentences above? If articleless construction is possible, what are the differences?


 
There are lots of it in Anabasis, where Kuros was at times accompanied by a definite article, e.g. Anabasis, 1.1.3, 1.1.8,....


----------



## Tetina

Hello.
Do you mean if it is common in Greek to say "Ο Γιώργος", "Η Αθηνά", "Το Λουξεμβούργο" ? 
In matter of fact *it is not correct* to put proper nouns *without* definite articles!
I know that the translation in english is "The George", "The Athina", "The Luxembourg" and in this aspect you consider it wrong, but let's say it's a grammatical difference.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello Tetina,

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to know.  Thank you.   Let me double-check.  A proper noun is always accompanied by a definite article?  Is is always so regardless of case (_ptosis_) and other conditions how the noun is used in a sentence?


----------



## Tetina

Flaminius said:


> Hello Tetina,
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you. Let me double-check. A proper noun is always accompanied by a definite article? Is is always so regardless of case (_ptosis_) and other conditions how the noun is used in a sentence?


 
The rule is that a proper none is accompanied by a definite article regardless of _ptosis_. It doesn't come to my mind a grammatical case that this doesn't happen ...
If I or somebody else think of such a case we will post it.

Examples: 
*Ο* Γιώργος διαβάζει.
Το σπίτι *του* Γιώργου είναι *στην* Αθήνα. 
Είδα *τον* Γιώργο χτες.

*Also this could be considered one the difficulties of Greek language. For every word you must know its gender so you put the correct definite article.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Tetina, you should have gone one case further . The definite article is not used with the vocative:

Έλα 'δω, Γιώργο
Come here, George

(The situation in Ancient Greek, as shannenms noticed, is more complicated, and I don't understand it completely, but very roughly speaking, proper nouns are treated much like normal nouns for when to use the article.)


----------



## Flaminius

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> [V]ery roughly speaking, proper nouns are treated much like normal nouns for when to use the article.


So, even more roughly, the difference between _ho Aristoteles_ and _Aristoteles_ was "this, no other than Aristoteles" and "someone by the name Aristoteles"?  Whatever the difference was, I wonder what constructions in Modern Greek maintains, if at all, this difference.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Flaminius said:


> So, even more roughly, the difference between _ho Aristoteles_ and _Aristoteles_ was "this, no other than Aristoteles" and "someone by the name Aristoteles"?


Somewhat, but that distinction is probably too sharp. Smyth's grammar says



> 1136. Names of _persons_ and _places_ are individual and therefore omit the article unless previously mentioned or specially marked as well known


And he has a good example from the Anabasis:

τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτῶν, τοὺς παρὰ Κλέαρχον ἀπελθόντας, εἴα Κῦρος τὸν Κλέαρχον ἔχειν
their soldiers who seceded to Clearchus, Cyrus allowed Clearchus to retain

where there's no article with the first mention of both names but the second mention of Clearchus gets the article, because he's already been mentioned in the context. But none of the names are being used in an indefinite sense -- it's not some Cyrus, but the Cyrus that everyone will know. To be honest, I find it a very strange usage.



> Whatever the difference was, I wonder what constructions in Modern Greek maintains, if at all, this difference.


Well, Greek, like English, can treat proper nouns as if they were common nouns:

κάποιος Γιώργος 'some George' or 'a certain George'
Γιώργηδες 'people named George', lit. 'Georges'
μια Αθήνα ζωντανή 'a living Athens'

I also realized another place you don't use the definite article in constructions about what someone is named:

με λένε Γιώργο 'my name is George', lit. 'they call me George'


----------



## Outsider

If it's anything like Portuguese, then using the definite article implies that the speaker and/or the addressee are acquainted with the person in some way. Either because they know them personally, or because they can otherwise identify the person. It's a mark of familiarity.

"The George"... Which George? _That_ George, the one we know about, you know the one.​But it's not entirely like Portuguese. We wouldn't do that thing of first omitting, and then using the article, for the same name.


----------



## shannenms

modus.irrealis said:


> Somewhat, but that distinction is probably too sharp. Smyth's grammar says
> 
> And he has a good example from the Anabasis:
> 
> τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτῶν, τοὺς παρὰ Κλέαρχον ἀπελθόντας, εἴα Κῦρος τὸν Κλέαρχον ἔχειν
> their soldiers who seceded to Clearchus, Cyrus allowed Clearchus to retain
> 
> where there's no article with the first mention of both names but the second mention of Clearchus gets the article, because he's already been mentioned in the context. But none of the names are being used in an indefinite sense -- it's not some Cyrus, but the Cyrus that everyone will know. To be honest, I find it a very strange usage.


 
You are right about Smyth's grammar. My White's Greek Grammar doesn't like to make a rule to it, but says Proper Nouns sometimes take definite article, without clarifying the meaning.


----------



## wonderment

Hello, 

Smyth’s rule seems strange to me, too; it can’t be applied with any consistency. One has only to look at the opening of Xenophon’s Anabasis (which has lots of names) to see that there is no discernible rule in Ancient Greek for the use of the definite article with a proper name; sometimes an article is used, sometimes not, indiscriminately it seems. But if you detect a regular rule, please let me know. 

Here’s the link to the Greek text along with the English translation: http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/xenophon/anb1d10.htm

I also looked at the opening of Homer’s Iliad: http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0133
Smyth’s rule doesn’t work there either.

Γεια,


----------



## modus.irrealis

wonderment said:


> Here’s the link to the Greek text along with the English translation: http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/xenophon/anb1d10.htm


That's a good example to show whatever rule there is, it won't be simple -- but to be fair to Smyth, I don't think his aim is to be perfectly detailed but to give a general overview of how Greek works. It does seem he's right in saying that not having an article is the normal thing for proper nouns. It's his vague "previously mentioned" that's problematic for me. What I think he's trying to say is that you'll only see the article with a proper noun if it's the topic of a sentence but not when the name belongs to the new information although that requires much more precision as a statement before it could be tested.

With Homer, though, Smyth's rule doesn't work because Homer's poems represent a stage of Greek before the development of the definite article, or more precisely before the development of ὁ, ἡ, τό into the definite article.


----------



## wonderment

Oh modus.irrealis, you are ever fair-minded! Yes, it does seem that not having an article with the name is the norm. I was unpersuaded only by the "previously mentioned rule" (or as Outsider describes it: "But it's not entirely like Portuguese. We wouldn't do that thing of first omitting, and then using the article, for the same name." )

I didn't know that about Homer and the development of the definite article--thanks! All goes to show how easy it is to take language for granted until one is really forced to think about it.


----------



## anthodocheio

Flaminius said:


> So, even more roughly, the difference between _ho Aristoteles_ and _Aristoteles_ was "this, no other than Aristoteles" and "someone by the name Aristoteles"?


 
Well, let's see if I can give a satisfactory answer...
In modern Greek this is not happening. To say "someone with the name Aristoteles" you should say "κάποιος Αριστοτέλης". When you say "ο Αριστοτέλης" there is a specific Aristoteles to whom you refer.



> Whatever the difference was, I wonder what constructions in Modern Greek maintains, if at all, this difference.


 
As already has been said, names are treated like other nouns. So in each case (_ptosis_) is different.
Ο Αριστοτέλης
του Αριστοτέλη
τον Αριστοτέλη
- Αριστοτέλη

I hope that this is any helpful at all..


----------



## anthodocheio

modus.irrealis said:


> And he has a good example from the Anabasis:
> 
> τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτῶν, τοὺς παρὰ Κλέαρχον ἀπελθόντας, εἴα Κῦρος τὸν Κλέαρχον ἔχειν
> their soldiers who seceded to Clearchus, Cyrus allowed Clearchus to retain
> 
> where there's no article with the first mention of both names but the second mention of Clearchus gets the article, because he's already been mentioned in the context. But none of the names are being used in an indefinite sense -- it's not some Cyrus, but the Cyrus that everyone will know. To be honest, I find it a very strange usage.


 


Outsider said:


> But it's not entirely like Portuguese. We wouldn't do that thing of first omitting, and then using the article, for the same name.


 
This couldn't happen in modern Greek either, Outsider. That's for sure!


----------

