# Clauses introduced by ότι vs. πως



## panettonea

GACG has an extensive section on complement clauses, but it isn't that well organized, thus leaving the reader with a lot of questions.   Here's mine:  In a complement clause introduced by ότι, can πως always be substituted without changing the meaning, and vice versa?  If not, can someone please provide some examples of exceptions?

Actually, let me add some clarification.  In another section, the book mentions that ότι can also have the meaning "although," just like αν και, μολονότι, και που, etc., in what it calls _adversative_ clauses as opposed to complement clauses. But my question here concerns only the latter.


----------



## Perseas

In most cases they are interchangeable but "ότι" is for sure more common and more formal than "πως". 
In the following example after "το" I would use only "ότι" : _το *ότι* (πως)δε μιλάω δε σημαίνει ότι δεν έχω και άποψη._ 



panettonea said:


> In another section, the book mentions that ότι can also have the meaning "although," just like αν και, μολονότι, και που, etc., in what it calls _adversative_ clauses as opposed to complement clauses. But my question here concerns only the latter.


Do you mean the presence of "ότι" in e.g. "μολον*ότι*" or "παρόλον *ότι*", because I cannot think of anything else. They both mean "αν και" (=although), and "παρόλον ότι" reminds me of "despite the fact that".


----------



## Tassos

Perseas said:


> In the following example after "το" I would use only "ότι" : _το *ότι* (πως)δε μιλάω δε σημαίνει ότι δεν έχω και άποψη._



A general rule is that *ότι* _cannot_ be replaced by *πως* when it means "the fact that" (το γεγονός ότι). We can say that in these situations the expression is elliptical, as the word γεγονός is most of the times omitted in oral speech. The strange thing is that when the full expression _is_ used you may hear πως replacing ότι! For example:

(a) Το ότι ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (the best way to say it)
(b) Το γεγονός ότι ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (not so frequent in oral speech, but fully acceptable)
(c) Το γεγονός πως ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (not so frequent as the first or the second , but acceptable)
(b) Το πως ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (not only it cannot replace (a), depending on the intonation it can also mean something completely different)


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> In most cases they are interchangeable but "ότι" is for sure more common and more formal than "πως".
> In the following example after "το" I would use only "ότι" : _το *ότι* (πως)δε μιλάω δε σημαίνει ότι δεν έχω και άποψη._



Thanks.  Do you mean both instances of ότι in the sentence, or just the first?  If so, what is the reason?  Incidentally, does the και at the end of the sentence mean "also" or "too"?



> Do you mean the presence of "ότι" in e.g. "μολον*ότι*" or "παρόλον *ότι*", because I cannot think of anything else. They both mean "αν και" (=although), and "παρόλον ότι" reminds me of "despite the fact that".



Actually, no.  Here's the entire sentence from the book--see how you interpret it:

_Adversative clauses are subordinate indicative clauses typically introduced by αν και, 'although, even though', or less frequently by ενώ, παρά το ότι, παρ' ότι, παρ' όλο που, παρ' όλον ότι, μολονότι, παρά το γεγονός, και που, ότι 'in spite of the fact that'._

I punctuated the sentence above exactly as given in the book (notice, for instance, that we would use double-quotes in the U.S. ), even though it's rather confusing.  So, the sentence implies that ότι itself can have the same force as the others.  Do you agree?


----------



## panettonea

Tassos said:


> A general rule is that *ότι* _cannot_ be replaced by *πως* when it means "the fact that" (το γεγονός ότι).



Thanks.



> We can say that in these situations the expression is elliptical, as the word γεγονός is most of the times omitted in oral speech. The strange thing is that when the full expression _is_ used you may hear πως replacing ότι!



Who ever said that rules for language usage are consistent?  



> (a) Το ότι ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (the best way to say it)
> (b) Το γεγονός ότι ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (not so frequent in oral speech, but fully acceptable)
> (c) Το γεγονός πως ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ. (not so frequent as the first or the second , but acceptable)
> (b) Το πως ήρθες με ευχαρίστησε πολύ.



Those are very helpful.



> depending on the intonation it can also mean something completely different)



What, such as _I'd like to go out for a pizza_?


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Thanks.  Do you mean both instances of ότι in the sentence, or just the first?  If so, what is the reason?  Incidentally, does the και at the end of the sentence mean "also" or "too"?


I mean only the first. Tassos explains it. Yes, as for "και", I see it this way.




panettonea said:


> So, the sentence implies that ότι itself can have the same force as the others.  Do you agree?


"ότι" does not function separately in those cases: _παρ' όλον ότι, μολονότι,_ _παρά το ότι, παρ' ότι_. You should see "παρ' όλον ότι" (etc.) as a unit.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> I mean only the first. Tassos explains it. Yes, as for "και", I see it this way.



Thanks.



> "ότι" does not function separately in those cases: _παρ' όλον ότι, μολονότι,_ _παρά το ότι, παρ' ότι_. You should see "παρ' όλον ότι" (etc.) as a unit.



Huh?  In that sentence I included above from the book, the authors list 10 conjunctions, and the last 9 are grouped together, separated only by commas.   I see them all as units.  How else can you interpret that sentence?  Why would ότι be tacked onto the end of that group, separated by a comma, if the authors didn't mean that it could be used alone just like the others?

Or do you think the authors made a mistake in that sentence?  (It's certainly possible--I'm just asking the question.)  I suppose another interpretation of that sentence could be that *...και που, ότι...* means that και could be followed by either που or ότι to come up with such a conjunction, but I don't know enough Greek to be able to evaluate that possibility.  

In fact, when I think of και ότι, Ι think of this:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...219189CECB83FA13C7CF155CBA28D&selectedIndex=2


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Huh?  In that sentence I included above from the book, the authors list 10 conjunctions, and the last 9 are grouped together, separated only by commas.   I see them all as units.  How else can you interpret that sentence?  Why would ότι be tacked onto the end of that group, separated by a comma, if the authors didn't mean that it could be used alone just like the others?
> 
> Or do you think the authors made a mistake in that sentence?  (It's certainly possible--I'm just asking the question.)  I suppose another interpretation of that sentence could be that *...και που, ότι...* means that και could be followed by either που or ότι to come up with such a conjunction, but I don't know enough Greek to be able to evaluate that possibility.


Oh, I think I see now what you are referring to ;  this "ότι" in bold: _μολονότι, παρά το γεγονός, και που, *ότι* 'in spite of the fact that'._ I think there are some problems here. First, it should be _παρά το γεγονός ότι_, which indeed means _in spite of the fact that._ I can't understand why they insert "και που" there_. _It should be like this:_...__μολονότι, και που, παρά το γεγονός ότι__ 'in spite of the fact that'.
_


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> Oh, I think I see now what you are referring to ;  this "ότι" in bold: _μολονότι, παρά το γεγονός, και που, *ότι* 'in spite of the fact that'._



I realized afterward that you probably did not initially see the _ότι_ at the very end.



> I think there are some problems here. First, it should be _παρά το γεγονός ότι_, which indeed means _in spite of the fact that._ I can't understand why they insert "και που" there_. _It should be like this:_...__μολονότι, και που, παρά το γεγονός ότι__ 'in spite of the fact that'._



Thanks.  So you're basically saying that the sentence has some serious issues.  Well, that wouldn't be the first time--the book is pretty sloppy in many regards.  But still, for the sentence to be rearranged as you state, that is just sad on the authors' part.    Το έκαναν θάλασσα!!!  Μπα!!!

To paraphrase Judge Judy (a U.S. TV personality), this is what someone needs to say to the authors:

_If you call that commitment to accuracy, you oughta be committed!!! _


----------



## panettonea

Now this is interesting.  GACG first came out in 1997.  Then in 2003, the authors published a different grammar:  _Greek:  An Essential Grammar_ (which is _not_ a condensed version of the previous book).  Then in 2012, they published the second edition of GACG, which is the one I have.  There's an interesting evolution here concerning the clauses we're discussing:

1) In the 1997 version, the authors consider clauses introduced by "although," etc., to be concessive clauses, not adversative clauses.  And they get the _παρά το γεγονός ότι _right in that version, but don't include as many alternatives.

2) In GAEG, they again get _παρά το γεγονός ότι_ right.  And again they call such clauses concessive, but they add another conjunction to the list:  *μ΄όλο που*.  (Is that a valid conjunction, or did they just make that up?  )

3) In the 2012 version of GACG, they expand the list of conjunctions and now refer to the clauses as _adversative_.  And somehow they decided to insert και που in the middle of _παρά το γεγονός ότι_.    But oddly enough, they did not include _μ΄όλο που_ in the latest list.  I wonder why?

ETA:  Ι just discovered that GAEG can be downloaded off the Internet for free, but it's probably not authorized.  (I don't feel bad, because I wouldn't have bought the book anyway, since I already own GACG. )  If anybody wants the URL, please send me a PM.


----------

