# γκρεμίζομαι



## OssianX

This is another of those passive vs crypto-reflexive questions, I think.  My dictionary says that γκρεμίζο means "demolish" while γκρεμιίζομαι means "crumble" or "collapse."  But when a character in a poem speaks of "τα γκρεμισμένα σπίτια" and of others "που πρόκειται να γκρεμιστούν," is it possible to tell whether he means "demolished" or "collapsed"?

It makes a difference in the poem.  "Demolished" comments on how things change too fast, people are in a heedless rush of progress, and so on.  "Collapsed" (or "crumbling," as in γκρεμισμένοι πύργοι) comments on how all things pass away no matter what people do.  Two different attitudes, both entirely plausible for the old man who's speaking.

If I follow the dictionary, I note that both instances are passive (therefore "collapsed") -- though one is passive only in the slightly dodgy way of being a passive past participle.  Maybe the other instance is the decisive one: does γκρεμίζομαι always mean "collapse" (which is what I'm calling a crypto-reflexive), or can it also be a true passive, "be demolished"?  If both are possible, is there any way to decide?  (Any way, that is, except through context -- and here, as often in poems, the words are creating the context at least as much as being defined by it.)

I've run into this elsewhere, and I'm still confused.  Can ντύνομαι mean either "to undress" or "to be undressed (by somebody)"?  Does only context decide, or am I missing something in the grammar?


----------



## figolfin

When we say γκρεμίζω or γκρεμίζομαι it has to do with buildings, whether its active: "They demolish the bridge - Γκρεμίζουν τη γέφυρα" or passive: "The houses are being demolished - Τα σπίτια γκρεμίζονται". 

Collapse, mainly has to do with emotional break down, and it's translated with καταρρέω, λιποθυμώ.

So when the poet says Τα σπίτια που γκρεμίστηκαν and Τα σπίτια που πρόκειται να γκρεμιστούν, he talks about the houses that are already demolished and the houses that are going to be demolished.

The only time that you'll find γκρεμίζομαι in reference to a human being is when someone throws himself off a bluff, e.g.: Theseus' father threw himself off the bluff - Ο πατέρας του Θησέα γκρεμίστηκε

As for the second one, ντύνομαι (passive voice) means get dressed, while γδύνομαι (passive voice) means get undressed. "To undress" (somebody) is: γδύνω (κάποιον) - (active voice).

To be undressed (by somebody), though it's passive, in greek we mainly use active voice: somebody is undressing me - κάποιος με γδύνει.


----------



## elliest_5

You are (both) right that γκρεμίζομαι might or might not have an agent. So, γκρεμισμένος can be either demolished (by some agent) or collapsed (on its own, in the sense that you call crypto-reflexive, which in syntax is called anticausative ). 

You might be interested to know that this second (anticausative) meaning is  also expressed by the active form of the verb "Το σπίτι γκρέμισε", although much less frequently. And also, what figolfin pointed out is true, that "γκρεμίζομαι" can be used for a person who falls (by his own fault or will) - usually off a high place (a cliff, a ladder etc).

So the way you interpret γκρεμισμένα depends on the context. If there is a salient agent in the context (the owners of the house who want to built a new one, the city council, the enemies during a war etc) then it is "demolished" if not - if it can be the case that they collapsed due to earthquakes or just due to being very old, then you should choose another verb that does not imply an (immediate) agent...


----------



## OssianX

Very interesting.  Thanks for "anticausative," elliest_5, which I didn't know.  If I understand your point, the absence of a known agent (as in the poem) pushes the verb toward "collapse" and away from "demolish."  I don't think you're quite saying it's decisive: "The houses are going to be demolished" is still a plausible reading, though "are going to collapse/crumble" is a little _more_ plausible.  Is that right?

figolfin: Thanks.  Sorry -- I confused things by using the wrong word!  I meant γδύνομαι.


----------



## elliest_5

OssianX said:


> I don't think you're quite saying it's decisive: "The houses are going to be demolished" is still a plausible reading, though "are going to collapse/crumble" is a little _more_ plausible.  Is that right?


Well I think that the second clause should be translated like the first one since they 're certainly connected in the poem (they form one single concept like "houses that have/are going to collapse(d)"). And since a poem is usually talking about more abstract events (and there are no city councils, demolishing companies or enemies with bombs in the story) I would say that the anticausative reading is the most plausible for both


----------



## OssianX

Great, thank you.  I feel more justified in different from Edmund Keeley (this is one of the few poems from this book that have been translated before), who says "demolished."  That's why I've hesitated so much.  But if he comes to me and complains I'll send him to you, elliest_5.


----------



## OssianX

Just a footnote on your anticausatives, elliest_5:  I noticed recently that Greek has no verb for one meaning of the English "drop," so "I dropped the priceless crystal vase!" becomes "The priceless crystal vase fell from me!" (or even, "The priceless crystal vase fell--and it happened to me!")

It's wonderful how different languages make us take responsibility for different things.  English infinitives and unattached present participles let you say things like "It's time to fire some people" or "killing the bottle," without specifying who does the firing or the killing.


----------



## spyroware

Off topic but..



OssianX said:


> noticed recently that Greek has no verb for one meaning of  the English "drop," so "I dropped the priceless crystal vase!" becomes  "The priceless crystal vase fell from me!" (or even, "The priceless  crystal vase fell--and it happened to me!")
> 
> It's wonderful how different languages make us take responsibility for  different things.



In the Greek phrase "μου έπεσε το βάζο", that is as you said the closest it can get to "I dropped the vase", "μου" has nothing to do with responsibility. We can assume that, yes, most likely I'm clumsy and I dropped it, but say maybe an inconsiderate person pushed me and it just fell off my hands. What it really is a case of ethical dative, a relic of actually, since grammatically it's obselete in modern Greek but syntactically is well alive through the genitives μου/σου. The correct translation as such is "To my dismay, the vase dropped" - no responsibility implied, just that I got bummed out about it.

God, I miss classic languages. ^^


----------

