# translating the Modern Greek infinitive



## wonderment

Χαίρετε,

It would be so nice if someone could help me translate the sentence below. I’m curious to see how one translates the infinitive in modern Greek (which doesn’t have a separate form for the infinitive but uses the subjunctive instead). 

Here’s the sentence with lots of infinitives (the original is in Italian, my translation follows): 

E sera. Esausta al pensiero di tutte le cose che avrebbe dovuto fare e non e riuscita a fare, o no ha fatto il tempo a fare, o si e dimenticata di fare, o non gli e andato di fare, Roma si accinge a godersi il meritato riposo dopo un'altra giornata di frenetica inattivita.
--Antonio Amurri, Dimmi di Zi.

It’s evening. Exhausted from the thought of all the things that she ought to have done and did not manage to do, or did not make the time to do, or forgot to do, or was not going to do, Roma is about to enjoy a well-deserved rest after another day of frenetic inactivity. 

Ευχαριστώ, να είστε καλά


----------



## Spectre scolaire

> E sera. Esausta al pensiero di tutte le cose che avrebbe dovuto fare e non *è* riuscita a fare, o no ha fatto il tempo a fare, o si *è* dimenticata di fare, o non gli *è* andato di fare, Roma si accinge a godersi il meritato riposo dopo un'altra giornata di frenetica inattivit*à*.
> --Antonio Amurri, Dimmi di Zi.


 I don’t really see the thrill...

All in red would be translated with *να κάνει*, and the verb in blue with *ν’απολαύσει* - the subject being “she” except for the last one where “Rome” is subject. 
 ​


----------



## Kevman

Γεια σου wonderment,

Whew, there are uses of the English infinitive that are more complicated to translate into Greek, but not this one!   All of these infinitives are conveniently 'subjugated' by other verbs, so the subjunctive is appropriate.

Here's my (possibly clumsy) stab at translating your English version:
 Βραδιάζει.  Εξαντλημέμη από τη σκέψη όλων των πραγμάτων που έπρεπε άλλα δεν κατάφερε να κάνει, ή δεν βρήκε το χρόνο να κάνει, ή ξέχασε να κάνει, ή δεν επρόκειτο να κάνει, η Ρώμη είναι έτοιμη να απολαύσει μια καλοδικαιουμένη ανάπαυση ύστερα από κι άλλη μέρα έξαλλης αδράνειας.


_EDIT--_Ack, I'm too slow!  Spectre beat me!


----------



## balgior

Kevman said:


> ... η Ρώμη είναι έτοιμη να απολαύσει μια *καλοδικαιουμένη* ανάπαυση ύστερα από κι άλλη μέρα έξαλλης αδράνειας.



Γειά σας!

Δεν νομίζω να υπάρχει τέτοια λέξη Kev! Αν, παρόλα αυτά, προσπαθείς να δημιουργήσεις μία, όπως συχνά γίνεται, αυτή θα ήταν καλο-δικαι*ού*μενη! (Συνήθως η '-' μπαίνει ώστε να φαίνεται ότι εσκεμμένα έχει δημιουργηθεί μια ανύπαρκτη σύνθετη λέξη. Και στα ...Εγγλέζικα το ίδιο δε γίνεται; ) Η συγκεκριμένη "ακούγεται" λίγο περίεργα πάντως...


----------



## Vagabond

Το καλοδικαιούμενη κι εμένα μου ακούγεται κάπως περίεργο, έχω την αίσθηση ότι είναι άλλό ένα από τα κλασσικά μη-μεταφράσιμα (που ανάθεμα την ώρα, γκρρρ). 

Θα το μετέφραζα "την ανάπαυση/ξεκούραση που δικαιούται/που της αξίζει". Επίσης, αν Roma = η αθλητική ομάδα (που μάλλον έτσι είναι, για να παραμένει Roma και όχι Rome στο αγγλικό), τότε Ρόμα και στα ελληνικά.


----------



## wonderment

Many thanks everyone for your help, especially Kevman's complete translation--I really appreciate it. 



balgior said:


> Δεν νομίζω να υπάρχει τέτοια λέξη Kev! Αν, παρόλα αυτά, προσπαθείς να δημιουργήσεις μία, όπως συχνά γίνεται, αυτή θα ήταν καλο-δικαιούμενη! (Συνήθως η '-' μπαίνει ώστε να φαίνεται ότι εσκεμμένα έχει δημιουργηθεί μια ανύπαρκτη σύνθετη λέξη. Και στα ...Εγγλέζικα το ίδιο δε γίνεται; ) Η συγκεκριμένη "ακούγεται" λίγο περίεργα πάντως...



(Kevman, you’re coining odd-sounding words?) In English we also hyphenate compound words (often adjectives), not to show that it’s a compound word (native speakers can readily tell if a word is a compound or not) but rather to avoid ambiguity. People will argue over whether or not to hyphenate compound adjectives like “big city” or even “well deserved,” but it’s better to hyphenate. Here’s why: a “big city guy” is a large guy from a city. A “big-city guy” is a guy from a large city, and the hyphen is essential to pull the two words together to make one adjective.


Back to the topic at hand, the infinitive in modern Greek:

she ought to have done and did not manage to do
έπρεπε άλλα δεν κατάφερε να κάνει

May I ask for a more literal translation of this sentence? 

-----
Edit _add_: ooops...I just realized this is an unhelpful example because *κάνω* looks the same in the present and aorist subjunctive (and I need the distinction for questions that may come up). Let’s change *κάνω* to *διασκεδάζω*: She ought to have enjoyed herself but did not manage to enjoy herself.


----------



## ireney

Ummm I think that doesn't help either 

Θα έπρεπε να έχει διασκεδάσει αλλά δεν κατάφερε να διασκεδάσει.

I'll just add a motto in the beginning to cover all infinitives: "Man must enjoy himself" . Ο άνθρωπος, πρέπει να διασκεδάζει (man here used as "human" now that I think about it).


----------



## balgior

I still can't get what confuses you about the infinitive, wonderment! Or what you are trying to make clear. Is it me or...?


----------



## wonderment

ireney said:


> Θα έπρεπε να έχει διασκεδάσει αλλά δεν κατάφερε να διασκεδάσει.
> I'll just add a motto in the beginning to cover all infinitives: "Man must enjoy himself" . Ο άνθρωπος, πρέπει να διασκεδάζει (man here used as "human" now that I think about it).


Excellent. Thank you, Irene!  

έπρεπε is not helpful either because it’s really used as an impersonal verb; let’s try θέλει (she wants)  Are the following sentences correct?

θέλει να διασκεδάσει = she wants to enjoy herself (once and for all: aorist subjunctive) 
θέλει να διασκεδάζει = she wants to enjoy herself (continuous: present subjunctive)

ήθελα να διασκεδάσει = she wanted to enjoy herself (once and for all: aorist subjunctive) 
ήθελα να διασκεδάζει  = she wanted to enjoy herself (continuous: present subjunctive)

Θα ήθελα να έχει διασκεδάσει = she wanted to have enjoyed herself (completed: perfect subjunctive) ?? 

I’m confused by the last example. I’m not even sure I translated it correctly. να έχει διασκεδάσει = perfect subjunctive, yes? If so it would make a lot of sense. But then what is the function of Θα?

And adding to the confusion are some sentences I saw in another thread also dealing with the infinitive (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=754786):



> I wanted to have written = Ήθελα να είχα γράψει.





> So for the verb "γράφω" would be "Θα ήθελα να έγραφα" or "να είχα γράψει"



 Are these sentences correct? 

Aaaack...please help if you can. Thanks very much.


----------



## Kevman

wonderment said:


> ήθελα *ήθελε* να διασκεδάσει = she wanted to enjoy herself (once and for all: aorist subjunctive)
> ήθελα *ήθελε* να διασκεδάζει  = she wanted to enjoy herself (continuous: present subjunctive)
> 
> Θα ήθελα *ήθελε* να έχει διασκεδάσει = she wanted *would like* to have enjoyed herself (completed: perfect subjunctive) ??
> 
> I’m confused by the last example. I’m not even sure I translated it correctly. να έχει διασκεδάσει = perfect subjunctive, yes? If so it would make a lot of sense. But then what is the function of Θα?


_ Θα_ is more of a conditional mood marker, especially when paired with a past-tense verb form (but if you think about it, the future tense in general is a sort of irrealis mood, since it hasn't come to pass yet, so _θα_ is a sort of mood marker there, too).  You've got the subjunctive/infinitive part right, though.

Is your question more about the aorist-vs.-continuous nature of the Greek subjunctive when translating an infinitive that isn't marked for those options?  Because I think you seem to have the hang of it.


P.S.  Sorry about the _kalodikaioumeni_; that word gave me a bit of trouble, and I'm a little bit glad that no one has whipped out a simpler translation.  Of course I placed the accent wrong for a participle derived from a deponent verb, and I didn't realize I could have used a hyphen just like in English (also I've been reading more Kazantzakis again lately, and sometimes he seems to jam καλο and κατα onto words willy-nilly!).


----------



## wonderment

Kevman said:


> _Θα_ is more of a conditional mood marker, especially when paired with a past-tense verb form...Is your question more about the aorist-vs.-continuous nature of the Greek subjunctive when translating an infinitive that isn't marked for those options?



Thank you, Kevman, for the corrections. It’s now clearer to me that there are three ‘infinitives’ in modern Greek (present, aorist, and perfect) corresponding to three aspects (continuous, once and for all, completed), and that the perfect infinitive is used only with the conditional introduced by Θα.

ήθελε να διασκεδάζει = she wanted to enjoy herself...throughout life (continuous action: present subjunctive)
ήθελε να διασκεδάσει = she wanted to enjoy herself...the party last night (a one time event: aorist subjunctive) 
Θα ήθελε να έχει διασκεδάσει = she would like to have enjoyed herself (completed action: perfect subjunctive)

What remains confusing are these sentences, presented as correct answers to some questions I saw in another thread here:



> I wanted to have written = Ήθελα να είχα γράψει.





> So for the verb "γράφω" would be "Θα ήθελα να έγραφα" or "να είχα γράψει"



As far as I know να is a subjunctive marker. So I’m wondering what the imperfect (έγραφα) and pluperfect (είχα γράψει) indicative are doing here after να?


----------



## Kevman

wonderment said:


> there are three ‘infinitives’ in modern Greek (present, aorist, and perfect) corresponding to three aspects (continuous, once and for all, completed), and that the perfect infinitive is used only with the conditional introduced by Θα.


I'm not sure whether the terminology "infinitive" here is a handy trick that helps you understand, or if it's just complicating the issue.  It's kind of one of the major points of flexibility in Modern Greek, over languages which use infinitive forms in these situations, that the Modern Greek subjugated verb is 'finitive,' that is, fully conjugateable for person, number and aspect, independently of the main verb.

The _θα_ in our conditional example here is not required by the perfect aspect.  Ήθελε να έχει διασκεδάσει = _She wanted to have enjoyed herself_ would be the non-conditional (indicative) version of that sentence.



wonderment said:


> As far as I know να is a subjunctive marker. So I’m wondering what the imperfect (έγραφα) and pluperfect (είχα γράψει) indicative are doing here after να?


The short answer is that they aren't indicative.  The particle _να_ makes them subjunctive.  I believe the point of that other thread (in which I got out of my depth in a hurry) was that when a subjunctive verb is marked for past _tense_ it is part of a more complicated mood construction, and _that_ may involve the _θα_.


----------



## wonderment

Kevman said:


> I'm not sure whether the terminology "infinitive" here is a handy trick that helps you understand, or if it's just complicating the issue.


If I seem to muddle the issue for you, I’m sorry. I’m really just trying to clarify things for myself. Translating between Greek and another language, we cannot avoid dealing with the concept of the infinitive. While modern Greek has lost the infinitive proper, it still has the subjunctive form which can play that role. 



> It's kind of one of the major points of flexibility in Modern Greek, over languages which use infinitive forms in these situations, that the Modern Greek subjugated verb is 'finitive,' that is, fully conjugateable for person, number and aspect, independently of the main verb.


This simply is not true of the modern Greek ‘infinitive’. The person and number of the verb in the subjunctive clause must agree with that of the main verb. 



> The _θα_ in our conditional example here is not required by the perfect aspect.  Ήθελε να έχει διασκεδάσει = _She wanted to have enjoyed herself_ would be the non-conditional (indicative) version of that sentence.


If so, that clarifies things even more for me. There are three ‘infinitives’ in modern Greek (present, aorist, and perfect) corresponding to three aspects (continuous, once and for all, completed).

να διασκεδάζει = to enjoy herself...throughout life (continuous action: present subjunctive)
να διασκεδάσει = to enjoy herself...at the party last night (a one time event: aorist subjunctive) 
να έχει διασκεδάσει = to have enjoyed herself (completed action: perfect subjunctive)

I now know that να + imperfect can be part of an optative/wish construction (not ‘infinitive’): ήθελα va έγραφα = I wished I could write

So if I’m not mistaken the sentence below should be “I wished I could have written”



> I wanted to have written = Ήθελα να είχα γράψει.



And "I wanted to have written" should be Ήθελα να έχω γράψει. The difference in grammatical construction is subtle, but in terms of meaning, I don't see a great difference. 



wonderment said:


> As far as I know να is a subjunctive marker. So I’m wondering what the imperfect (έγραφα) and pluperfect (είχα γράψει) indicative are doing here after να?





Kevman said:


> The short answer is that they aren't indicative. The particle _να_ makes them subjunctive.



I know now that, at least with να, they are part an optative construction. Thank you all the same, for your help along the way.


----------



## anthodocheio

wonderment said:


> I now know that να + imperfect can be part of an optative/wish construction (not ‘infinitive’): ήθελα va έγραφα = I wished I could write
> 
> So if I’m not mistaken the sentence below should be “I wished I could have written”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to have written = Ήθελα να είχα γράψει.
> 
> 
> 
> And "I wanted to have written" should be Ήθελα να έχω γράψει. The difference in grammatical construction is subtle, but in terms of meaning, I don't see a great difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *wonderment*
> As far as I know να is a subjunctive marker. So I’m wondering what the imperfect (έγραφα) and pluperfect (είχα γράψει) indicative are doing here after να?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kevman*
> The short answer is that they aren't indicative. The particle _να_ makes them subjunctive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know now that, at least with να, they are part an optative construction. Thank you all the same, for your help along the way.
Click to expand...

Wow! What a language! I'm glad I'm a native speaker...

So,
ήθελα vα έγραφα = I wanted to write (continuously in the past)
θα ήθελα να έγραφα = I would like to write (as above ^^)
I wish I could write = Θα ήθελα να μπορούσα να γράφω
I wished I could write = Ευχήθηκα να μπορούσα να γράφω

Ήθελα να είχα γράψει = I wanted to have written  = Ήθελα να έχω γράψει (the difference in meaning is even more subtle)
I wished I could have written = Ευχήθηκα να μπορούσα να είχα γράψει  (When??)
Θα ήθελα να είχα γράψει = I wish I'd have written / I'd like to have written


I hope they are correct... This confuses me too...


----------



## balgior

anthodocheio said:


> Ήθελα να είχα γράψει = I wanted to have written  = Ήθελα να έχω γράψει



Wonderment is that what confuses you?:

Ήθελα (I wanted at some period in the past) να *είχα* γράψει (to have written *before* that period) = I wanted that I *had* written (sorry for this bad-English example but...) = I wanted to have written

_Όταν ήμουν 14 ήθελα *να είχα* ήδη γράψει το πρώτο μου μυθιστόρημα.
When I was 14 I wanted *to have* already written my fist novel.
_
Ήθελα (at some period in the past) να έχω γράψει (to have written *by some time in the future / by now*) = I wanted to have written

_Όταν ήμουν 14 ήθελα μέχρι τα 18 *να έχω* γράψει το πρώτο μου μυθιστόρημα!
When I was 14 I wanted *to have* written my first novel by the time I get 18.
_


----------



## ireney

Wonderment, would it help if we made a connection between the Ancient Greek infinitive and its modern Greek equivalent way of expresssing it? And ancient/modern Greek subjunctive?


----------



## wonderment

balgior said:


> Ήθελα να είχα γράψει = I wanted to have written  = Ήθελα να έχω γράψει ...Wonderment is that what confuses you?:



yes, balgior, you understand! You just made me see something I didn't before (and my friend didn't address fully). The distinction that you've so clearly explained is, in English, a distinction between the perfect and pluperfect infinitive. 



> Ήθελα (I wanted at some period in the past) να είχα γράψει (to have written before that period) = I wanted that I had written (sorry for this bad-English example but...) = I wanted to have written
> 
> Όταν ήμουν 14 ήθελα να είχα ήδη γράψει το πρώτο μου μυθιστόρημα.
> When I was 14 I wanted to have already written my fist novel.



In that case, we would say: I wanted to have had written. (pluperfect infinitive) = Ήθελα να είχα γράψει



> Ήθελα (at some period in the past) να έχω γράψει (to have written by some time in the future / by now) = I wanted to have written
> 
> Όταν ήμουν 14 ήθελα μέχρι τα 18 να έχω γράψει το πρώτο μου μυθιστόρημα!
> When I was 14 I wanted to have written my first novel by the time I am 18.



Yes. I wanted to have written. (perfect infinitive) =  Ήθελα να έχω γράψει     
(I think this is it--but let me check with my friend just to be sure.)


----------



## Kevman

wonderment said:


> If I seem to muddle the issue for you, I’m sorry. I’m really just trying to clarify things for myself. Translating between Greek and another language, we cannot avoid dealing with the concept of the infinitive. While modern Greek has lost the infinitive proper, it still has the subjunctive form which can play that role.


Whatever helps one understand is good, so if it works for you by all means carry on.  Just be aware that although Modern Greek uses a finite verb where Ancient Greek (and Modern English, et al.) use an infinitive one, there are other verb forms in Modern Greek that are technically infinitive (in that they don't get conjugated), such as the active present participle (e.g., διασκεδάζοντας) and the 'participle' used with έχω to create the perfect tenses (e.g., διασκεδάσει).  (I guess what I'm saying is that there may come a time when you must differentiate between your "concept of the infinitive" and the other non-finite verb forms which a given language may put to other uses.)



wonderment said:


> The person and number of the verb in the subjunctive clause must agree with that of the main verb.


Not in Modern Greek!  You can totally say things like Θέλω να φύγουν = _I want them to leave_.



wonderment said:


> I now know that να + imperfect can be part of an optative/wish construction (not ‘infinitive’): ήθελα va έγραφα = I wished I could write


Ah, of course!  What a great way to explain it to a student of Ancient Greek!   I wonder if that continues to hold true if the main verb isn't θέλω, though....



wonderment said:


> What happens is this: when you (Karen) say "she wanted" in English, you imagine that this person is expressing a wish now.


You know what?  That English interpretation didn't even occur to me (in fact I'm not even sure I understand it!).  The whole time I have been thinking ήθελε = _she wanted (in the past)_.  Admittedly, though, Ήθελε να έχει διασκεδάσει = _She wanted to have enjoyed herself_ is more of a literal translation to illustrate the tenses than a particularly natural English sentence.


----------



## lentulax

As a learner (to a regrettably modest level) I would like to comment at perhaps unwelcome length on this question of infinitives , since the discussion in this thread (fascinating and learned though it is) illustrates for me the great problems in learning Modern Greek (certainly in the UK) : that there is no agreed vocabulary of grammatical terms (different books use different terms for the same thing , and often the same terms with different meanings) ; that many of the terms are those used to describe Ancient Greek , and are not appropriate to Modern Greek and have still less relevance to English usage ; and that what is basically very simple is made much more difficult (to the extent that wonderment , for instance , can say "we would say : 'I wanted to have had written'" - a form which on reflection I think he'll agree does not exist in English). Terms like 'aorist' and 'subjunctive' lead to enormous confusion (see thread passim) - the term 'subjunctive' simply confuses the English learner who from experience of Latin , French etc. expects the subjunctive to involve a separate set of verb-endings and to have quite different uses ; kevman corrects wonderment , who called them indicative , by pointing out that verbs after na are subjunctive - but what does it matter , since the form of the verb is unaffected ! Standard verb tables list the aorist indicative as πήγα , telling us it's the English simple past , and then gives the aorist subjunctive as να πάω - what help is that to understand θέλω να πάω , especially when the tense listed as Future II is identical to the aorist subjunctive (exchanging θα for να) , and the laboriously listed subjunctive forms of the present are identical (apart from να) to the indicative , as are those of the past perfect and pluperfect, and Future I is identical with the Present (plus θα)  - that way madness lies ! Isn't it , practically , far simpler to start by alerting the English learner to the crucial fact that the Greek verb has two stems , for the Continuous (durative , etc.) or Punctual (once-and-for-all, etc .- whatever names you want to give them - you all know what I mean) - with the proviso that the present tense only has the Continuous form except after να [don't explode - see later].

Now , the infinitive (e.g. 'to swim' ; other unconjugated parts of the verb are called infinite , not infinitive) : whilst wonderment worries about the various forms of the Greek infinitive , isn't it far simpler to say that Modern (unlike Ancient) Greek simply does not have an infinitive : where we use a structure such as 'I want + present infinitive' Greek uses  'I want + να + finite verb in present tense ' , so 'I want to speak' = 'I want + να + I speak' , 'θέλω να μιλήσω' ; 'I want him to speak' = 'I want + na + he speaks' , 'θέλω να μιλήσει' . The form of the Greek verb after να depends on the choice between the Continuous and Punctual forms : θέλω να πάω , μού αρέσει να διαβάζω . (It is far simpler (however distant from Ancient Greek grammar) to treat the so-called aorist subjunctive as the Punctual Present - see later) . From this it is easy to derive 'I wanted to speak' - 'ήθελα να μιλήσω' ; 'I would like to speak' - 'θα ήθελα να μιλήσω' ; ; equally easy to derive equivalents of the English Perfect Infinitive : 'he wanted to have written' = 'he wanted + na + finite verb perfect tense' , 'ήθελε να έχει γράψει' ; the Greek form using the pluperfect tense after na is formed on the same model , but it does not correspond to the English pluperfect infinitive , because we don't have one - it is an alternative (determined by context , as balgior explained) for our perfect infinitive .

I suggested treating the 'aorist subjunctive' as the Punctual present - what is lost by this , at least for the learner ? The gain is that you then have a verb table which is extraordinarily simple to learn : two present tenses one using the Continuous , the other the Punctual stem , but with the same endings ; two future tenses , which are simply the two present tenses preceded by 'tha' ; two past tenses ,formed from the two stems but with identical endings (what less helpfully is called the imperfect and the aorist indicative !) ; compound tenses which exist in only one form , and take no effort at all to learn ,etc.  (Obviously there are exceptional cases to learn - e.g. Continuous present endings of verbs like μιλάω aren't the same as those of what I've called the Punctual Present - but they are for most verbs) .Had they been presented to me like this (with no mention of aspects , subjunctives , aorist , etc.) I am convinced that I could have learnt what little Greek I know in a tenth of the time .

As I said , I'm a relative beginner ; I'm quite prepared to be shot down in flames - as long as it's a reasoned execution !

Mike


----------



## wonderment

(Anthodocheio, thanks very much for the helpful examples in post #14    Kevman, re: post #19, you're right. The confusion about interpreting the perfect infinitive is my fault, bad-editing of two separate emails that dealt with similar sentences.)

So after all that hassle, all I really wanted was for somebody to give me the list bellow (which I put together with everyone's help). While Modern Greek does not have an infinitive proper, it does have subjunctive forms (not mood) to fill in the part. And it's all fairly straightforward. 

--------------------
In Modern Greek:

να διασκεδάζει = to enjoy herself...throughout life (continuous action: present subjunctive form) 
να διασκέδαζε = to enjoy herself...during the party last night (continous action in the past: imperfect subjunctive form)
να διασκεδάσει = to enjoy herself...at the party last night (a one time event: aorist subjunctive form) 
να έχει διασκεδάσει = to have enjoyed herself (completed action: perfect subjunctive form)
να είχε διασκεδάσει = to have had enjoyed herself (completed action in the past: pluperfect subjunctive form)

All these subjunctive forms are formed by να (marker of the subjunctive) + the appropriate indicative tense, e.g.:

present subjunctive = να + present indicative, imperfect subjunctive = να + imperfect indicative

There is of course one big exception: the aorist subjunctive is not formed in this way. It alone has its own distinctive form.  

----------
In English:

present infinitive: to enjoy oneself
perfect infinitive: to have enjoyed oneself
pluperfect infinitive: to have had enjoyed oneself or, to have already enjoyed oneself (Thanks again, balgior! )

(Yes, the pluperfect infinitive exists in English; rare does not mean non-existent. In place of ‘have had’, balgior’s ‘have already’ is much more elegant English; the added ‘already’ is absolutely crucial in order to distinguish between the perfect and pluperfect.)

--------
To translate:

English present infinitive:  (corresponds to the following, depending on context)
να διασκεδάζει = to enjoy herself...throughout life (continuous action: present subjunctive) 
να διασκέδαζε = to enjoy herself...during the party last night (continous action in the past: imperfect subjunctive)
να διασκεδάσει = to enjoy herself...at the party last night (a one time event: aorist subjunctive) 

English perfect infinitive:
να έχει διασκεδάσει = to have enjoyed herself (completed action: perfect subjunctive)

English pluperfect infinitive:
να είχε διασκεδάσει = to have had enjoyed herself (completed action in the past: pluperfect subjunctive)

---------
That’s all from me... It’s been fun... Ευχαριστώ, να είστε καλά


----------



## lentulax

wonderment;4301444In English:
 
present infinitive: to enjoy oneself
perfect infinitive: to have enjoyed oneself
pluperfect infinitive: to have had enjoyed oneself or said:


> does not exist[/b]
> I write > to write : present
> I have written > to have written : perfect
> I had written > ?? to had written?? Obviously not (though that would be the logical form) ; but why 'to have had written' ? If this form exists , then what is the pluperfect infinitive of the verb 'to have ? 'to have had had' ? The auxiliary sequence 'have had' forms no part of the verb 'to write' , nor of any other verb in the English language .
> The only infinitives in English are the Present and Perfect , in active and passive forms .
> In translating infinitives which exist in other languages , but not English , we have to construct forms such as 'he is going to (write)' to render the Latin Future infinitive ; but 'to be going to write' is *not *itself a future infinitive ; similarly the form 'to have written already' is not a pluperfect infinitive - it is a perfect infinitive (to have written) modified by the adverb 'already' . In the latter case , it is not even translating an infinitive ; the fact that similar forms in Greek in other tenses may be translated into English by infinitives is beside the point .
> 
> Mike


----------



## pulcinella

Vagabond said:


> Το καλοδικαιούμενη κι εμένα μου ακούγεται κάπως περίεργο, έχω την αίσθηση ότι είναι άλλό ένα από τα κλασσικά μη-μεταφράσιμα (που ανάθεμα την ώρα, γκρρρ).
> 
> Θα το μετέφραζα "την ανάπαυση/ξεκούραση που δικαιούται/που της αξίζει". Επίσης, αν Roma = η αθλητική ομάδα (που μάλλον έτσι είναι, για να παραμένει Roma και όχι Rome στο αγγλικό), τότε Ρόμα και στα ελληνικά.


Συμφωνω και με τις 2 προτασεις.

Επισης:
"o non gli *è* andato di fare"
θα το μετεφραζα απο τα ιταλικα (ειμαι ελληνιδα μα ζω στην Ιταλια)
"η που δεν ειχε διαθεση να κανει"


----------



## Twinmeister

There are supposed to be six infinitives in the English language based on the Latin six, three in each voice:

Present active: to write;
Present passive: to be written;
Future active: to be going to write;
Future passive: to be going to be written;
Perfect active: to have written;
Perfect passive: to have been written.

It's dubious though; any conjugation of a verb can seemingly be turned into a relative infinitive; "to have written"* could equally stand as a present causative-active infinitive, and then the idea throws open to every other periphrastic conjugation "to be about to write" as an English 'venir d'écrire' infinitive, or "to be able to write" as a present potential-active infinitive, or "to want to write" as a present volitive-active infinitive.

My perhaps excessively made point is that to accept that there is more than one infinitive in English (simple "to write") is to throw open the floodgates to all kinds of periphrastic infinitives, after which it would be impossible to say that even though we're allowing something as cumbersome as "to be going to be written" to be an infinitive, we can't allow the less cumbersome and equally as valid "to want to write".

As for a "pluperfect infinitive", there's no such possibility in English, however periphrastic we want to get. "to have had written" would be a perfect causative-active infinitive**, in that "I have had x written", "she has had x written" and so on all imply that the subject is the impetus behind the action but not it's agent. It has no other possible interpretation.

Also, hello everybody, new to the forum ^_^.

It also seems to me in edit that, with this proliferation of infinitives, any active transitive infinitive will not just have a passive counterpart, but also a reflexive infinitive: to write, to be written, to write itself - and so on...





* "to have written" as present causative-active infinitive, conjugated into present finite forms: I have (x) written; you have (x) written; he, she, it has (x) written; we have (x) written; you have (x) written; they have (x) written.
** "to have had written" as a perfect causative-active infinitive, conjugated into perfect finite forms: I have had (x) written; you have had (x) written... and so on...


----------

