# Na question



## Raakajaska

Hello
My question is about NA without a verb. I understand that it shouldn't even be possible, and NA would always requires a verb?
*να το καλύτερο πορτραίτο του που αργότερα κατάφερα να 
κάνω.
Context:LingQ

I assume NA functions here as something like "Let´s" in english.
like "I jump into action, later creating the best portrait I could" or "I´m off to later creating..."?







*


----------



## velisarius

_*Να* _is used when we are inviting someone to look at something, i.e. we are showing them something or pointing it out to them:

_Here is/that is/this is the best/better portrait of him that I managed to do later on.

Να το σπίτι μου! - (_Look,) that's my house.


----------



## Raakajaska

velisarius said:


> _*Να* _is used when we are inviting someone to look at something, i.e. we are showing them something or pointing it out to them:
> 
> _Here is/that is/this is the best/better portrait of him that I managed to do later on.
> 
> Να το σπίτι μου! - (_Look,) that's my house.


 
that explains. thanks


----------



## bearded

velisarius said:


> _Να το σπίτι μου! - (_Look,) that's my house.


What is the declension case after Να?  I suppose accusative (I think I heard ''na ton philo mou'').


----------



## dmtrs

_Να_ is a word that cannot be inflected. Ιt's used as an exclamation word.
In the phrase that velisarius uses, I'd translate it _There! that's my house!_ instead of _(Look,) that's my house_.
It is used like _ecco!_ in Italian, I think.


----------



## velisarius

Since it can be used to draw someone's attention, I added an optional _(Look)_.



bearded said:


> What is the declension case after Να?  I suppose accusative (I think I heard ''na ton philo mou'').




«_Νατος_, _νάτος_, ο Τσίπρας ο σκαφάτος» 
_Νατονε, έρχεται.
Να τη, τη φίλη σου.
Να τους, έρχονται! 
Να με, εδώ είμαι._

Wait for a native speaker to give an in-depth answer.


----------



## Perseas

After this "να" (Etymology 2) you can use nominative, accusative or even genitive: _Να η δικηγόρος! / Να τη η δικηγόρος! / Να σου η δικηγόρος!_
My French is very poor but I think you can translate it sometimes as _voilà._


----------



## dmtrs

velisarius said:


> Since it can be used to draw someone's attention, I added an optional _(Look)_.



Your translation is fine, of course, velisarius. I added a different one to show that Nα does not have to be a word that's inflected.



velisarius said:


> «_Νατος_, _νάτος_, ο Τσίπρας ο σκαφάτος»
> _Νατονε, έρχεται.
> Να τη, τη φίλη σου.
> Να τους, έρχονται!
> Να με, εδώ είμαι._



What I had misunderstood is the fact that bearded asked for the case of the word _following _Nα.
Normally it is in nominative: _Να ο Τσίπρας, Να ο φίλος μου / η φίλη μου / το σπίτι μου._
Sometimes we say just:
Να τος! / Να τη! / Να το! / Nα με! / Να σε! (The last two are sometimes misspelled as Να 'μαι! Να 'σαι! as if the second word was the verb είμαι.)
Even if the words are sometimes written as one (_νάτος_), they are always meant to be two.
The second word is in fact the short form of the personal pronoun in accusative form.
Sometimes instead _Να ο Τσίπρας! _we say _Να τος ο Τσίπρας! _Τhe two phrases have the same meaning (_There! It's Tsipras! or Look! It's Tsipras_) with the second one being pleonastic (the word _τος _is in fact redundant). In this case we use the short form of the personal pronoun in accusative and the noun in nominative.

The rest of your examples, therefore, mean:
There he is! He's coming. (_Να τον[ε], έρχεται.)_
There! It's your friend. (_Να τη, *η *φίλη σου.)_
There they come!
_Να με, εδώ είμαι! _This is also pleonastic; something I would translate as _Here! Here I am._ ( or _Ta-da! Here I am! _more freely, or just _Here I am!_.)

(I'm crossposting with someone.)


----------



## dmtrs

Perseas said:


> Να σου η δικηγόρος!



Perseas added another option.
The genitive there indicates either the person who is emotionally involved or, as just a figure of speech used in a narration, the person to whom the speaker is addressing his/her words in order to capture or sustain his/her attention.


----------



## Αγγελος

Note that this stressed να is a different word from the verbal particle να and it normally takes the nominative when followed by a noun (Να ο Γιάννης!) but _may _take the accusative when followed by a 3d person personal pronoun (Να τος! as well as Να τον!) and _must _ do so with the 1st person singular (Να με = Here I am). [It is hardly ever used with the 2nd person, and in the 1st person plural we usually say Να ΄μαστε, leading one to suspect that even Να με may in fact be Να 'μαι = να είμαι.]
A more archaic equivalent is ιδού, very often used in the Bible; it is usually translated 'lo' or 'behold' in English.


----------



## bearded

Αγγελος said:


> we usually say Να ΄μαστε, leading one to suspect that even Να με may in fact be Να 'μαι = να είμαι.]


Very interesting (and do you think the suspicion is justified?). Incidentally, Να ΄μαστε sounds very similar to an Indian greeting (namasté) .


----------



## Astrix

Raakajaska said:


> that explains. thanks


Notice this, when "να" is used like "there it is" it properly takes an accent, "νά", the same is true for other words, for example ως=like but ώς=up to.


----------



## dmtrs

Astrix said:


> Notice this, when "να" is used like "there it is" it properly takes an accent, "νά", the same is true for other words, for example ως=like but ώς=up to.


 Although this tends to become almost common practice, there's no such rule in Grammar. Accents are used in monotoniko only if there's an ambiguity in meaning, not to differentiate between words that look the same but cannot confuse the reader.


----------



## Astrix

dmtrs said:


> Although this tends to become almost common practice, there's no such rule in Grammar. Accents are used in monotoniko only if there's an ambiguity in meaning, not to differentiate between words that look the same but cannot confuse the reader.


According to Fytrakis (1993) this is not even the case, concerning mono-syllable words, it says only about "που,πως" and the cases of pronouns that attract the accent from the next word(εγκλητικά).

so here what would you do?

να πάμε να παίξουμε

either comma or accent in the case you mean, "there it is, let's go to play"

I personally inherit features from the polytonic system due to the official ridicule of the language for political or personal purposes or even woke modernization.


----------



## Perseas

Astrix said:


> ως=like but ώς=up to.


Babiniotis agrees with that, but not the "official" Grammar, as dmtrs said.



Astrix said:


> so here what would you do?
> 
> να πάμε να παίξουμε
> 
> either comma or accent in the case you mean, "there it is, let's go to play"


I'd put a comma, no accent, or something (exclamation mark) that would indicate that "να" is not part of the verbal form "να πάμε".


----------



## dmtrs

Astrix said:


> so here what would you do?
> να πάμε να παίξουμε


I agree with Perseas; a comma or exclamation mark is necessary -nothing more.



Astrix said:


> According to Fytrakis (1993) this is not even the case, concerning mono-syllable words, it says only about "που,πως" and the cases of pronouns that attract the accent from the next word(εγκλητικά).


That's what I meant, but I chose to write the intention of the rule, not cite the rule itself.
(And there's also η/ή -we share the same Fytrakis edition.)


----------



## dmtrs

Astrix said:


> I personally inherit features from the polytonic system due to the official ridicule of the language for political or personal purposes or even woke modernization.



There are "political or personal purposes" on both sides, if you ask me. Language *is* a political issue -not only in Greece, I believe.
Everyone makes his own choices*, that's for sure; we all kind of follow our own rules and no one can force us to do otherwise; but when we explain or teach things, we have to be clear of what the rule is and, that done, express our reservations if we wish -at least that's what I believe.

*And even the experts' choices change from time to time; Babiniotis, who was mentioned by Perseas, has changed his mind quite a few times about his own choices during the past 20 years.


----------



## Astrix

dmtrs said:


> There are "political or personal purposes" on both sides, if you ask me. Language *is* a political issue -not only in Greece, I believe.
> Everyone makes his own choices*, that's for sure; we all kind of follow our own rules and no one can force us to do otherwise; but when we explain or teach things, we have to be clear of what the rule is and, that done, express our reservations if we wish -at least that's what I believe.
> 
> *And even the experts' choices change from time to time; Babiniotis, who was mentioned by Perseas, has changed his mind quite a few times about his own choices during the past 20 years.


Yes, the point I made is that the rule is most of the cases made by politicians like the change from the polytonic to monotonic, just in a night from 50 people present in the parliament. No academia, nothing.

So I always ask who made the rule and why, in what context etc.

I mostly stick on the arguments and not on the expertise, most of Babiniotis' etymologies for example are  speculations inherited by his teacher as I have heard him saying on the TV, like why we should write αβγά, αφτιά instead of αυγά,αυτιά.

The speculations and the personal choices should be stated clearly when expressing a position.


----------



## dmtrs

We share the same principles, Astrix, but different information.



Astrix said:


> the change from the polytonic to monotonic, just in a night from 50 people present in the parliament


This is kind of an urban legend, If you want to really know what happened that night, see here:
Τα πρακτικά της συνεδρίασης του 1982 για το μονοτονικό: Η "αμαρτωλή" νύχτα
And for the history of the discussion about monotoniko:
Η κουρά του αβγού
(there are previous posts about the subject which continues on next posts also)

(I think we're getting a bit out of context in this thread...)
Anyway,
Happy New Year!


----------



## Astrix

dmtrs said:


> We share the same principles, Astrix, but different information.
> 
> 
> This is kind of an urban legend, If you want to really know what happened that night, see here:
> Τα πρακτικά της συνεδρίασης του 1982 για το μονοτονικό: Η "αμαρτωλή" νύχτα
> And for the history of the discussion about monotoniko:
> Η κουρά του αβγού
> (there are previous posts about the subject which continues on next posts also)
> 
> (I think we're getting a bit out of context in this thread...)
> Anyway,
> Happy New Year!


Happy New Year!!!


----------



## Apollodorus

An αλφαβητάριο (primer) from 1956 – 1974 has:

*“Νά ὁ πατέρας, ἡ Λόλα, ὁ Μίμης, ἡ Ἔλλη, ἡ Ἄννα, ἡ γιαγιὰ κι ἡ μητέρα”.*

I’m assuming that να + nominative in the third person was considered correct at the time, e.g., *να τος *= *να *[εδώ/εκεί είναι αυ]*τός *(“there/here he is”).

And _Greek: An Essential Grammar _(2016) by Holton, Mackridge and Philippaki-Warburton also has "*να τoς!*"


----------



## Αγγελος

It was correct then and is correct now. In fact, with a _noun_, only the nominative is correct: you couldn't say *να τον πατέρα etc.
(The ancient equivalent ιδού also takes the nominative: ιδού η Ρόδος, ιδού και το πήδημα)
With a third person enclitic pronoun, both nominative (να τος, να τοι) and accusative (να τον, να τους) are correct.
Whether a first or second person enclitic pronoun can be used with να is debatable. We do say (and often write) να με, but I strongly suspect it should really be να 'μαι, as the plural is only να 'μαστε! On the other hand, with a stressed pronoun we say να κι εγώ (which usually means 'take one from me, too!')


----------



## Apollodorus

What I meant is, maybe the nominative form “να τος” was/should be considered the correct one.

Logically speaking, if (a) we start with the nominative, e.g., “να o πατέρας” and (b) the origin of “να τος” is “να εδώ/εκεί είναι αυτός”, then (c) it would make sense to continue with the nominative form, i.e., να τος, τη, το (singular), and να τοι, τες, τα (plural).

I was thinking that from a Greek learner’s perspective, this would eliminate having to choose between two options (“να τος” versus “να τον”), which can be a bit confusing (maybe even for some native speakers).

BTW, if you can’t say “να τον πατέρα”, could you say something like “να τον, o πατέρας”? And is an exclamation mark used (as in English), or is it normally left out?


----------



## Αγγελος

Apollodorus said:


> What I meant is, maybe the nominative form “να τος” was/should be considered the correct one.
> 
> Logically speaking, if (a) we start with the nominative, e.g., “να o πατέρας” and (b) the origin of “να τος” is “να εδώ/εκεί είναι αυτός”, then (c) it would make sense to continue with the nominative form, i.e., να τος, τη, το (singular), and να τοι, τες, τα (plural).
> 
> I was thinking that from a Greek learner’s perspective, this would eliminate having to choose between two options (“να τος” versus “να τον”), which can be a bit confusing (maybe even for some native speakers).
> 
> BTW, if you can’t say “να τον πατέρα”, could you say something like “να τον, o πατέρας”? And is an exclamation mark used (as in English), or is it normally left out?


"Logically speaking", as you say, yes, να τος would better make sense than να τον. But language isn't always logical! And the fact is that both να τος and να τον are commonly used, and neither construction sounds odd, provincial or substandard.

And even more surprisingly, yes, you can perfectly well say “να τον, o πατέρας”!

As for using the exclamation mark, yes, you most likely would use it in a dialogue or a lively narration, but you can also omit it, if you don't mean to raise your voice. For instance in a scientific essay you might expound a theory, then point out a phenomenon it doesn't explain, and add Να η κυριότερη δυσκολία, without adding an exclamation mark.


----------

