# Είναι κανείς που να μπορεί να ζει, χωρίς ο θάνατος να...



## panettonea

Here's the complete phrase:

_Είναι κανείς που να μπορεί να ζει, χωρίς ο θάνατος να τονε φτάνει;_  (from the "TGVD" version of the Bible)

1) Is _που να μπορεί_ to be translated as "who can"?  Why is _να_ used here at all?

2) Why are the verbs in the continuous form?  Can't you live only once, and have death overtake you once?  

Compare with the Filos version:

_Ποιος άνθρωπος θα ζήσει, και δεν θα δει θάνατο;_


----------



## Perseas

1) I would translate it as: _Is there anybody who can live..._ (My English though is not excellent).
This "να" is indicative of the subjunctive mood (υποτακτική έγκλιση). SM presents the action or the event as something wanted or expected. So the desire for "someone who can live..." shows in a stronger, more intesive way with the presence of  "να". That's how I see it and I 'd like also to add that "Είναι κανείς που να μπορεί" sounds better to me than "Είναι κανείς που μπορεί". However the second is not wrong.

2) It's just a matter of style. The verbs in continuous froms present life as a continuity, which can be interrupted at any time by death.


----------



## Eltheza

Perseas - re 1) What a great answer! Thank you very much indeed! Also, thanks to _panettonea_ for a great question! I have wondered about that *να *in similar constructions for over 20 years!!! Your explanation has cleared everything up! 

When I come across such enlightening answers, I copy and paste and save as a Word document! Thanks again!


----------



## Perseas

Thank you very much, Eltheza. It was not an easy answer for me, since "που" and "να" have many roles in Greek grammar and language. I' ve also made some thoughts more on this matter, which I would like to share.
 I 'd like to add to my previous answer that this "που να" , when is synonym to "ώστε να" <<"so that" in English ?>>, it introduces relative result clauses (αναφορικές αποτελεσματικές προτάσεις), which are a combination of relative and result clauses. And probably this is the case here. Of course, they are in the subjunctive mode. Example:

_Είναι κανείς (*τόσο* ...), *που να* μπορεί να ζει, χωρίς ο θάνατος να τονε φτάνει;_
Is there anybody (*so* ...), *that* can live, ...


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> 1) I would translate it as: _Is there anybody who can live..._ (My English though is not excellent).



That makes sense.  For a non-native speaker, I would say your English is excellent.  Personally, I think the best translations are often non-literal.  IOW, I think the best paraphrase here would be something like "Can anybody live without being overtaken by death?"



> This "να" is indicative of the subjunctive mood (υποτακτική έγκλιση). SM presents the action or the event as something wanted or expected. So the desire for "someone who can live..." shows in a stronger, more intesive way with the presence of  "να".



Thanks.  So in this case _να_ doesn't really have the connotation of _should_, I guess.



> That's how I see it and I 'd like also to add that "Είναι κανείς που να μπορεί" sounds better to me than "Είναι κανείς που μπορεί". However the second is not wrong.



OK.



> The verbs in continuous froms present life as a continuity, which can be interrupted at any time by death.



I can see that for life, but death?  It seems kind of strange to see the event of death as continuous.


----------



## panettonea

Eltheza said:


> Also, thanks to _panettonea_ for a great question!



No problem, Eltheza.  I'll try and see if I can come up with a few more.  



> I copy and paste and save as a Word document! Thanks again!



I imagine your Word document has gotten pretty hefty by now.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> I 'd like to add to my previous answer that this "που να" , when is synonym to "ώστε να" <<"so that" in English ?>>, it introduces relative result clauses (αναφορικές αποτελεσματικές προτάσεις), which are a combination of relative and result clauses. And probably this is the case here. Of course, they are in the subjunctive mode. Example:
> 
> _Είναι κανείς (*τόσο* ...), *που να* μπορεί να ζει, χωρίς ο θάνατος να τονε φτάνει;_
> Is there anybody (*so* ...), *that* can live, ...



I think I understand what you're saying here, but I think "such as" or "such that" would make more sense here.


----------



## panettonea

I found an explanation in a book I have as well, which supports what you're saying, Perseas.  It's under the heading "Relative clauses":

_It is possible, though not as common, to find relative clauses that do not make positive assertions, such as negatives, interrogatives, imperatives, suggestions, requests, etc., introduced by either _ο οποίος_ or _που_ followed by the subjunctive mood, as in the following sentences....

_Πρέπει να βρούμε ξεναγό ο οποίος/που να μιλάει σουηδικά_....
_
Ξέρεις άνθρωπο ο οποίος/που να μην λέει ποτέ του ψέματα;

That sort of echoes the way it works in French too--the verb would generally change to the subjective mood in such a case.  Incidentally, in that second sentence, is _του_ a possessive--i.e., "who never says his lies"?


----------



## Annamaria55

panettonea said:


> Here's the complete phrase:
> 
> _Είναι κανείς που να μπορεί να ζει, χωρίς ο θάνατος να τονε φτάνει;_  (from the "TGVD" version of the Bible)
> 
> 1) Is _που να μπορεί_ to be translated as "who can"?  Why is _να_ used here at all?
> 
> 2) Why are the verbs in the continuous form?  Can't you live only once, and have death overtake you once?
> 
> Compare with the Filos version:
> 
> _Ποιος άνθρωπος θα ζήσει, και δεν θα δει θάνατο;_


Has ever been anyone who could live and maybe ever being touched by death itself?


----------



## Annamaria55

panettonea said:


> I found an explanation in a book I have as well, which supports what you're saying, Perseas.  It's under the heading "Relative clauses":
> 
> _It is possible, though not as common, to find relative clauses that do not make positive assertions, such as negatives, interrogatives, imperatives, suggestions, requests, etc., introduced by either _ο οποίος_ or _που_ followed by the subjunctive mood, as in the following sentences....
> _
> Πρέπει να βρούμε ξεναγό ο οποίος/που να μιλάει σουηδικά_....
> _
> Ξέρεις άνθρωπο ο οποίος/που να μην λέει ποτέ του ψέματα;
> 
> That sort of echoes the way it works in French too--the verb would generally change to the subjective mood in such a case.  Incidentally, in that second sentence, is _του_ a possessive--i.e., "who never says his lies"?


Have you ever known anyone who surely would ever lie even once during his whole lifetime?


----------



## jcot05

> Ξέρεις άνθρωπο ο οποίος/που να μην λέει ποτέ του ψέματα;
> 
> That sort of echoes the way it works in French too--the verb would generally change to the subjective mood in such a case. Incidentally, in that second sentence, is _του_ a possessive--i.e., "who never says his lies"?



I'd say it's a personal pronoun acting as an indirect object, but then, the meaning of the sentence doesn't make quite a lot of sense to me... Are you sure the sentence wasn't "να μην λέει ποτέ *σ*ου ψέματα;" 
If it were a possessive, I think that -the lies being identified - it would be necessary to add an article : "τα ψέματά του". But I can't be sure.

And you're right, your 2 examples tranlsate directly into french, using the subjonctive mood.


----------



## Perseas

jcot05 said:


> I'd say it's a personal pronoun acting as an indirect object, but then, the meaning of the sentence doesn't make quite a lot of sense to me...
> Are you sure the sentence wasn't "να μην λέει ποτέ *σ*ου ψέματα;"


"...ποτέ *του*" is correct. It means "ποτέ (στη ζωή) *του*" = "never in *his* life".
"Έχεις πει ποτέ *σου* ψέματα;" means "Ηave you ever told lies in *your* life?".
Τhis is different:"... * σου* λέει ψέματα..." --> "... tells lies to *you*".

In this thread there is a similar discussion. (Please note mostly posts #2 and #8)
Ξέρεις άνθρωπο που να μην λέει ποτέ του ψέματα;
*
*


----------

