# aπάγω vs απαγάγω



## Helleno File

My copy of _Ρήματα της Νέας Ελληνικής _gives απαγάγω as an alternative "στον απλό προφορικό λόγο" in the present. Aorist = only απήγαγα. Aorist passive = ?? απήχτηκα

Does that seem right? Any other comments on useage...?


----------



## Perseas

One can use the learned passive aorist form "απήχθην", albeit very formal.
"απήχθηκα" is another form you can see in grammars, though not so common.
"απήχτηκα" isn't a standard form to me to be mentioned in a grammar book.
But, in my opinion, the most common way to express the passive aorist meaning is by using the periphrasis "Με απήγαγε/με απήγαγαν" e.t.c.


----------



## sotos

απήχτηκα sounds awkward.


----------



## Helleno File

Thanks for comments on the aorist . Any thoughts about απαγάγω as a form in its own right?


----------



## sotos

I think it is grammatically wrong as present tense, but it is used. I can't imagine εισαγάγω, διαγάγω etc in present t.


----------



## Helleno File

sotos said:


> I think it is grammatically wrong as present tense, but it is used. I can't imagine εισαγάγω, διαγάγω etc in present t.


Presumably απαγάγω is a back formation from απήγαγα...??


----------



## Perseas

Helleno File said:


> Presumably απαγάγω is a back formation from απήγαγα...??


The form "απαγάγω" exists, but:

The verb "άγω" has two stems in active voice, the present stem (αγ-) and the aorist stem (αγαγ-).
The present tense should be formed by its own stem: (απ)*άγ*-ω. Thus grammatically "(απ)*αγάγ*ω" as present tense is wrong.
Despite of that "απαγάγω" may be used "στον απλό προφορικό λόγο" in the present, as you wrote in #1.
In standard Greek it's wrong.

Also, speaking of aspects:
The present stem signifies that an action is ongoing or repeated, e.g. θα/να/ας απ*άγ*ω  (not common)
The aorist stem on the other hand signifies that an action is complete or a single whole., e.g. θα/να/ας απ*αγάγ*ω  (very common)

To sum up: Both forms "απάγω" & "απαγάγω" exist, but comparatively the second one is so common, that in simple spoken Greek it can replace the first one, even when that would be wrong.


----------



## ioanell

Helleno File said:


> Presumably απαγάγω is a back formation from απήγαγα...??



You are right! A back, but bad formation from απήγαγα. “Aπαγάγω” as present tense instead of απάγω, εισαγάγω as present tense instead of εισάγω, εξαγάγω as present tense instead of εξάγω and all the compound verbs with άγω which are used this way are really bad Greek, but unfortunately used widely even by educated people.

The form “(να) απαγάγω” is the aorist (past) tense of the subjunctive mood, describing an action which is seen as a single action to be completed once and for all at a time later than the time of the verb of the main clause preceding it. E.g. Η σπείρα αποφάσισε *να απαγάγει* (=να πάρει [και να κρύψει] παρά τη θέλησή του) τον πρόεδρο της Χ εταιρείας (=the gang decided to kidnap the chairman of the X company).

To understand the abnormality of this widely used “ back formation” tense, let ‘s see this; while “απάγω=kidnap” means in plain language “*κλέβω *(meaning here>), *παίρνω* παρά τη θέλησή του (κάποιον και τον κρύβω)”, “(να) απαγάγω”, as subjunctive, means “(να)* κλέψω*=(να) *πάρω* παρά τη θέλησή του (κάποιον και να τον κρύψω)”. So, when someone says “Σχεδόν κάθε μέρα συμμορίες σε όλον τον κόσμο *απαγάγουν* επιχειρηματίες = Gangs all over the world kidnap businessmen almost every day”, is like saying “Σχεδόν κάθε μέρα συμμορίες σε όλον τον κόσμο *κλέψουν* / *πάρουν* (bad Greek) κλπ επιχειρηματίες” instead of the correct “Σχεδόν κάθε μέρα συμμορίες σε όλον τον κόσμο *απάγουν *(=κλέβουν/παίρνουν παρά τη θέλησή τους…) επιχειρηματίες”.  

A similar mistake takes place when someone, due to ignorance, is using the aorist (=simple past tense) of these compound with άγω verbs, a tense which means a single completed action or an action seen as such, instead of the Παρατατικός (=past continuous), which is the correct tense for rendering something taking place repeatedly or continuously over a period of time in the past, e.g. Η Ελλάδα για δέκα συνεχή χρόνια *εξήγαγε* (instead of the correct Παρατατικός tense *εξήγε*) σημαντικές ποσότητες βωξίτη και *εισήγαγε* (instead of the correct Παρατατικός tense *εισήγε*) μεγάλο αριθμό αυτοκινήτων (=e.g. Greece, for ten consecutive years, was exporting remarkable quantities of bauxite and importing large numbers of cars).

The non-continuous future tense “θα *απαγάγω” *is a correct formation.


----------



## Helleno File

Well... thank you Perseus and ioanell for such thoughtful and detailed comments.  

I suppose this also raises a wider and more controversial question of the nature of language change. My feeling is that as English is a less rule based language "ungrammatical" changes are more likely to become acceptable.  

The obvious example in English is "between you and I" which is almost universally said nowadays, despite many complaints.  Its "incorrectness" can be shown by its reverse "between I and you" which would cause an outbreak of laughter.  Interestingly it has been suggested that this excessive use of I was a reaction to criticism of people using "me" where I was the correct pronoun.  A bit like the famous "greengrocer's apostrophe".  There's a linguistic term for this process, which unfortunately I can't remember at the moment!  At the risk of getting myself into _big_ trouble is there a possibility that απαγάγω may be following this pattern, as Greeks have to learn to use the stem with reduplication, something which is part of more learned Greek??! 

On the general point, not all language change challenges existing language but some does. New vocabulary or grammatical forms, both of varying origin, may be seen as "incorrect" even though most of us believe language needs to change to adapt to new circumstances and needs.  Our response or even contribution to change is affected by variables such as age and education.  

Equally many language changes are short lived as fashions change or further change comes along.  Overall there seems to be some Darwinian sifting process of useage by which some language changes become socially acceptable and others not. Perhaps in a more rule based language such as Greek this is more difficult, such as when απαγάγω becomes widely used as a present indicative but also continues to be the dependent form of απάγω. 

Who knows in 50 years time we Brits may be saying "between I and you".


----------



## ioanell

Helleno File said:


> I suppose this also raises a wider and more controversial question of the nature of language change.





Helleno File said:


> On the general point, not all language change challenges existing language but some does.





Helleno File said:


> Overall there seems to be some Darwinian sifting process of useage by which some language changes become socially acceptable and others not.



I agree with these views. Although it’s easy to ascertain whether a word or a structure is incorrect and linguistically mistaken, its massive use is a strong argument for a specific change to become final in a language. Maybe this is deterministic. As the Latin saying goes, “Usus norma loquendi”, that is “the useage is the rule for speaking”. But until such a change is generally accepted and becomes a norm of speaking, one is entitled to hold it as a mistake, if, of course, it is such. Besides, in the Greek reality, there‘s a strong belief that at least some of the ancient so-called “σχήματα λόγου=figures of speech” regarding the place of the words and the grammatical and syntactical  agreement between them were simply speech mistakes which, because of their frequency among the people and their use even by writers, were finally characterised as figures of speech, mainly by Alexandrian scholars.


----------



## dmtrs

I'd like to add myself to those who agree with your views, Helleno File and ioanell.
A vast number of words in modern Greek are examples of this evolutionary process; from άνδρας/άντρας-γυναίκα-παιδί to θέτω-λέω-κάθομαι.
Of course there are word forms that we can all agree that are 'wrong' -today, because (as Helleno File noted, who knows what tomorrow may bring...).
And there's also a 'grey area' where the 'mistake' has become so common that, despite the fact that it still can be recognized as such, seems to be gaining 'public acceptance' day by day. One of these cases is, in my opinion, _απαγάγω _as a present tense verb; another -even more widely accepted- is _θέτομαι_; and, I believe, the day Kavafy's _επέστρεφε_ will not be accepted merely by poetic licence is not that distant -along with _απέκρουσε_, _αμφέβαλλε_, _διέγραψε _or whatever.


----------



## Helleno File

Thanks for wise words, ioanell and dmtrs. 

The one thing the Greek language has, probably more than any other, is an extremely long and clear pattern of evolution which puts modern language changes into a much bigger context. As, of course, is particularly well demonstrated by our learned contributors here.


----------

