# Η Ελενίτσα τώρα βουρεί και ντύνεται μόνη της



## panettonea

In the phrase above, what is the purpose of και?  Is it something like the "and" in the English expression "try and"?  Example:  "I'll try and do it."  Strictly speaking, that's not correct English, but it's very common.


----------



## velisarius

"Μπορεί και ντύνεται μόνη της". With "και" it emphasises that she can do it. With "να" it means "she may be able to" or "she is allowed to". An alternative is "Ξέρει να ντύνεται μόνη της.

Perseas of course explains it much better and more accurately below.


----------



## Perseas

"και" sometimes introduces dependent clauses. In this sentence (post 1) "και" can be replaced by "να":"Η Ελένη τώρα μπορεί να ντύνεται μόνη της".
Οther examples: "Ο καιρός αρχίζει και/να γίνεται καλύτερος", "Τον άκουσα και/που μιλούσε για το ατύχημά του". (Of course, "μπορώ να" can have the meanings that velisarius referred to.)


----------



## panettonea

velisarius said:


> "Μπορεί και ντύνεται μόνη της". With "και" it emphasises that she can do it. With "να" it means "she may be able to" or "she is allowed to"..



OK, thanks.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> "και" sometimes introduces dependent clauses.



Thanks--that explains it.



> "Τον άκουσα *και/που *μιλούσε για το ατύχημά του".



Did you mean *και/να* there?


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> "Τον άκουσα *και/που *μιλούσε για το ατύχημά του".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean *και/να* there?
Click to expand...

No. "Τον άκουσα *και/που **μιλούσε* για το ατύχημά του" = "Τον άκουσα *να μιλάει* για το ατύχημά του"


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> No. "Τον άκουσα *και/που **μιλούσε* για το ατύχημά του" = "Τον άκουσα *να μιλάει* για το ατύχημά του"



OK, Perseas, you've got some 'splainin' to do.    Why are the two equivalent, and what is the significance of the imperfect indicative here?  (It doesn't appear to be subjunctive.)  Is the first sentence something like, "I heard him and he was talking about his accident"?


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Why are the two equivalent, ...



Cf. "I heared that he was talking about..." and "I heard him talking...". (I hope both make sense.)
Some verbs like_ βλέπω, λέω, πείθω, φαντάζομαι,ακούω_ etc can be followed by either _ότι/πως/που clause_ (ειδική πρόταση) or _να_ _clause_ (βουλητική πρόταση). E.g. _τον είδα που έπαιζε=τον είδα να παίζει_ (same meaning). However, _με έπεισε ότι έχει δίκιο_ cannot become _*με έπεισε να έχει δίκιο_. _Με έπεισε να πάω μαζί του_ is OK, but the meaning is different.
_να -clauses_ (βουλητικές προτάσεις) have their verb usually in present subjunctive or aorist subjunctive: _μπορείς να μου εξηγήσεις_ (_εξηγήσεις_: aorist subjunctive)




panettonea said:


> ...and what is the significance of the imperfect indicative here?  (It doesn't appear to be subjunctive.)


You 're right: it's imperfect because "speaking" took place continuously in the past. 




panettonea said:


> Is the first sentence something like, "I heard him and he was talking about his accident"?


This version "τον άκουσα και..." is not very common. I think it's more like  "I heard that he was talking". It seems to me that in English there are 2  independent clauses, whereas in Greek the second is subordinate.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> Cf. "I heared that he was talking about..." and "I heard him talking...". (I hope both make sense.)



Yes, but the meaning is a bit different--the first example is obviously less direct, and the direct object is an entire clause.  Anyway, with those two examples, I think I understand exactly what you're saying now.  Thank you.  BTW, I'm just curious--do you teach Greek in Greece?  



> However, _με έπεισε ότι έχει δίκιο_ cannot become _*με έπεισε να έχει δίκιο_.  _Με έπεισε να πάω μαζί του_ is OK, but the meaning is different.



That's interesting.  I have an _American Heritage_ dictionary from the early '80s, and it states that "convince" should not be used in the following sense:  "He convinced me to go," but rather "He convinced me that I should go."  However, recent editions of the dictionary have dropped that rule, and the second example is actually very common in English today.  English is definitely a lot more permissive than it used to be.  



> _να -clauses_ (βουλητικές προτάσεις) have their verb usually in present subjunctive or aorist subjunctive: _μπορείς να μου εξηγήσεις_ (_εξηγήσεις_: aorist subjunctive)



My book uses different terminology here (as do other books as well), but I understand what you're saying.  Personally, I like the terms "continuous" and "simple" best.  



> This version "τον άκουσα και..." is not very common. I think it's more like  "I heard that he was talking". It seems to me that in English there are 2  independent clauses, whereas in Greek the second is subordinate.



Yes, _and_ can never be a subordinating conjunction in English.


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Yes, but the meaning is a bit different--the first example is obviously less direct, and the direct object is an entire clause.  Anyway, with those two examples, I think I understand exactly what you're saying now.  Thank you.  BTW, I'm just curious--do you teach Greek in Greece?


 Yes, you 're right, the first one is less direct but the meanings are similar. As for the question, yes I do.




panettonea said:


> My book uses different terminology here (as do other books as well), but I understand what you're saying.  Personally, I like the terms "continuous" and "simple" best.


 I don't know the official translation of Greek grammar terms into English, I just wanted to make myself understood. I also like the terms of your book. 




panettonea said:


> Yes, _and_ can never be a subordinating conjunction in English.


Nor can "και" in formal Greek.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> Yes, you 're right, the first one is less direct but the meanings are similar.



Overall, yes, but in the first example, the action in the subordinate clause could have preceded the action in the main clause by who-knows-how-long, whereas the actions are going on at the same time in the second example.  



> As for the question, yes I do.



I'm not surprised.    At what level?




> I don't know the official translation of Greek grammar terms into English, I just wanted to make myself understood. I also like the terms of your book.



That's good.  My book is kind of strange, using the term "gerund" for what is usually called a "participle" in other books, listing the cases in order of nom., acc., gen. instead of nom., gen., acc., etc.  But overall it's very good.  Just for fun, you might want to pick up a copy of either version (English or Greek) if you don't already have it.   It's called:  _Greek:  A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language_.



> Nor can "και" in formal Greek.



Oh, so we're referring to _informal_ Greek here with the use of *και*, huh?  Got it.


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Overall, yes, but in the first example, the action in the subordinate clause could have preceded the action in the main clause by who-knows-how-long, whereas the actions are going on at the same time in the second example.


 I see. In Greek the actions are going on at the same time in both examples. 


Secondary level.
Thanks for the book you recommended me!


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> I see. In Greek the actions are going on at the same time in both examples.



I guess the reason is that in "Τον άκουσα και/που μιλούσε για το ατύχημά του," _Τον_ seems to be a direct object (or something similar) of _άκουσα_.  However, in "I heard that he was talking about," the direct object of _heard_ is the entire clause that follows it.  Now, if you said, "I heard him, and he was talking about," then the actions would be going on at the same time.  So maybe the latter expression, although awkward, is closer to the Greek.  



> Secondary level.



Hope your students behave well.  



> Thanks for the book you recommended me!



You're welcome.  I don't know how easy it is to find in Greece, but I imagine it shouldn't be that hard.


----------

