# Don't understand 'Conjugation of Auxiliary verb Είμαι' chart



## chrislols

Hi! I'm learning Greek through a Greek school book and as I get into higher up lessons it has a little chart and it says 



               I AM

(εγώ)*                            είμαι        I am
(εσύ)                              είσαι        you are
(αυτός, αυτή, αυτό)           είναι         he, she, it is

(εμείς)                           είμαστε      we are
(εσείς)                           είστε         you are
(αυτοί, αυτές, αυτά)         είναι          they are

* The personal pronoun is used only when we wish to express emphasis or contrast.

Example:
 Εγώ είμαι καλός, εσύ είσαι κακός. I am good, you are bad (contrast).

Εσύ διαβάζεις πολύ. You study a lot (emphasis).


I've learned the 6 words from the first part of the chart, but not the last 6, but I don't understand when or how I'm suppose to use either one or the other or both. Can somebody please give me some guidance on what this is telling me?

Thanks alot!


----------



## GreekNative

Hello Chrislols,

could you please be more specific on what you've learnt and what you haven't, and what exactly you have difficulty with?


----------



## NotNow

More specifically, which six words have you learned?  The pronouns or the verbs?


----------



## chrislols

Okay, what I'm trying to say is.

I know what the following words mean:

εγώ -Ι, 
είμαι - I am, 
εσύ - you, 
είσαι -you are,
 αυτός,- he
αυτή, - she
αυτό - it
είναι - it is

But I don't understand why it shows one word in parenthesis and the other words not.
I also don't understand what the other words mean and when we're suppose to use them.

 (εμείς)                           είμαστε      we are
 (εσείς)                           είστε         you are
 (αυτοί, αυτές, αυτά)         είναι          they are

Why does it show some words in parenthesis and some not. When do I use εγώ, when do I use είμαι when do I use both? When do I use εσύ, when do I use είσαι, when do I use both?

And the others I listed below which I don't know, when do I use one or the other or both, and what do they mean?


----------



## winegrower

What you've got to do is to read the grammar rules in more depth ! I mean there's a sentence here which explains everything:* *The personal pronoun is used only when we wish to express emphasis or contrast.
*This meens that in Greek, the auxiliary verb "είμαι", more often than not, is*  not* preceded by a personal pronounce (unlike in english) and the p.p is used only when you need to put emphasis or show contrast.
Εγώ=I, Είμαι=am (*not* *I* *am*, just meaning I am). Repeat: in Greek you don't need to always put I before am. You just say είμαι and I is implied. The same goes for είσαι, είναι etc. OK?


----------



## brian

Hi, Greek in this sense is considered a null subject language. That wiki should help you understand a little better how it works.


----------



## ireney

While the two previous posts must do the job, I can't pass an opportunity to butcher English for a good cause 

Let's say you want to say that you are smart.
Είμαι έξυπνη, What you are saying, translates verbatim as "am smart". There's no "I" written in the sentence.

Let's say you want to say to me that I am smart (thanks by the way )
Είσαι έξυπνη, are smart.

By the type of  "to be" that you use, it is easy to understand who you refer to (yourself, me, someone else). Therefore there's no reason for the personal pronoun (I, you, he, etc)

Now let's say you want to tell me that you are smart but I am not.

_I_ am smart (and you are not).
_Εγώ_ είμαι έξυπνη (κι εσύ δεν είσαι).


"I" and "you" are included to put emphasis on who is smart. 
The reason they are put in parenthesis in your book is to show that they are not necessary and that Greeks, when they want to say "I am", "you are" etc, will usually just say "am", "are" etc.
The same goes for all the verbs. 
You may notice for instance that in translations from English, someone may put the pronoun in parenthesis.

Example:
Question: How do I translate in Greek "We are the champions"?

Answer: (Εμείς) είμαστε πρωταθλητές. Since, in this case, I want to translate "we" (it's there in the orginal sentence), I do translate it, but I put it in parenthesis, to show that in Greek we wouldn't put it there in most cases.


----------



## brian

Or you can think about it like this:

είμαι = I am
Εγώ είμαι = _I_ am 

In other words, you don't really think of "είμαι" as being simply "am," because that is incomplete. I know I'm stating the obvious, but it's also confusing to native speakers to think of είμαι, soy (Sp.), sum (Lat.), sono (It.), etc. as simply "am" because it kind of implies that (feels like) those words are incomplete, even if you say they aren't.

Obviously it boils down to a difference in language structure, but I would explain it like this:

είμαι means simply "I am" in its most basic and normal sense, whereas the addition of εγώ is like the addition of some kind of emphasis/change in intonation in English. This is because English, unlike other Indo-European languages, relies very heavily on intonation to express certain ideas. So (correct me if I'm wrong) you'd add εγώ in sentences like these:

_*I* didn't do it._
_They went to the party, but *I* just stayed home._

Both of these _I_'s take a higher pitch (and a stress) in English.

I hope that's not to confusing.  Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing.


----------



## chrislols

I thank you all for your help! I've been stuck on this but now it makes sense.

Ευχαριστώ!


----------



## Outsider

brian8733 said:


> Or you can think about it like this:
> 
> είμαι = I am
> Εγώ είμαι = _I_ am
> 
> In other words, you don't really think of "είμαι" as being simply "am," because that is incomplete. I know I'm stating the obvious, but *it's also confusing to native speakers* to think of είμαι, soy (Sp.), sum (Lat.), sono (It.), etc. as simply "am" because it kind of implies that (feels like) those words are incomplete, even if you say they aren't.


Native speakers of English, you mean.

Remember that, as Winegrower said, the pronoun is used for emphasis or contrast. It doesn't always denote emphasis, and suggesting so can be misleading.


----------



## brian

Outsider said:


> Native speakers of English, you mean.



Right, or of any language requiring an explicit subject. Sorry for leaving that out.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Remember that, as Winegrower said, the pronoun is used for emphasis or contrast. It doesn't always denote emphasis, and suggesting so can be misleading.



I didn't say just emphasis though  --



			
				brian8733 said:
			
		

> whereas the addition of εγώ is like the addition of *some kind of emphasis/change in intonation in English.* This is because English, unlike other Indo-European languages, relies very heavily on intonation to express certain ideas.



I didn't at all mean that pronoun use is limited to emphasis. Also, you'll see that my second example is an example of contrast.

My main point, in other words, was this: the use of a subject pronoun in Greek conveys some extra information just like change of intonation/stress does in English, whereas omission of the pronoun in Greek is just like normal intonation in English.


----------



## Outsider

I think your second set of example sentences could also involve emphasis. Especially since you say that the pronoun 'I' in each of them would be pronounced with a higher pitch, and more stress. Higher pitch and stress are ways to add emphasis. This is represented by writing in italics or boldface, as you did.


----------



## brian

Ok, then perhaps it depends on how you define "emphasis." It also might be linked to the fact that in English we _do_ emphasize/stress/give different intonation in all kinds of words, for all kinds of reasons.

Can you think of an example where _εγώ_ (or another subject pronoun) is used where _I_ in English would not be emphasized in some way??


----------



## Outsider

Suppose you have a neighbour with two children, a girl and a boy. You notice that the children have a new puppy, but you don't know whether the puppy belongs to the girl or the boy. If you ask your neighbour "Which of your children is the owner of the puppy: the boy or the girl?", you may get as a reply "He is" or "She is". The pronoun needs to be there, to clarify whether your neighbour means the boy or the girl.

(Of course this is a slightly clumsy example. Your neighbour could simply say the children's names. I couldn't think of a better example.)


----------



## ireney

Errr... in such a case actually, we'd go for just the pronoun and omit the verb


----------



## Outsider

Even so, then you are not using the pronoun for emphasis. What could you be emphasizing, when there's no verb in the sentence?


----------



## brian

Outsider said:
			
		

> Suppose you have a neighbour with two children, a girl and a boy. You notice that the children have a new puppy, but you don't know whether the puppy belongs to the girl or the boy. If you ask your neighbour "Which of your children is the owner of this puppy, the boy or the girl?", you may get as a reply "He is" or "She is". The pronoun needs to be there, to clarify whether your neighbour means the boy or the girl.



Hm.. but you see, even in that small sentence, "She is," there is a stress structure. Consider these three sentences:

1. _She is the owner of a new puppy._ <-- regular intonation
2. _She is the owner of the new puppy._ (not of the new kitten) <-- stress on "puppy"
3. _She is the owner of the new puppy._ (she is, not him) <-- stress on "she"

As you can see, 2 and 3 are completely identical on paper, but in spoken English they have two completely different stress structures.

Moreover, the "She is" in your example would indeed have the same stress structure as the "She is" part of 3.

So even in your example I'd say that the use of the pronoun in Greek corresponds to a particular stress structure/value in English, and hence a kind of emphasis.


----------



## Outsider

brian8733 said:


> Hm.. but you see, even in that small sentence, "She is," there is a stress structure. Consider these three sentences:
> 
> 1. _She is the owner of a new puppy._ <-- regular intonation
> 2. _She is the owner of the new puppy._ (not of the new kitten) <-- stress on "puppy"
> 3. _She is the owner of the new puppy._ (she is, not him) <-- stress on "she"
> 
> As you can see, 2 and 3 are completely identical on paper [...]


Not necessarily. They can be differentiated using italics:

She is the owner of a new puppy.
She is the owner of a new _puppy_.
_She_ is the owner of a new puppy.



brian8733 said:


> Moreover, the "She is" in your example would indeed have the same stress structure as the "She is" part of 3.


I was not commenting on the intonation of English. I was trying to explain how a pronoun in Greek may not indicate emphasis.



brian8733 said:


> [...] even in your example I'd say that the use of the pronoun in Greek corresponds to a particular stress structure/value in English, and hence a kind of emphasis.


I think you're conflating two notions which aren't quite the same, intonation (or stress) and emphasis. In Greek, as you noted, emphasis can be shown without any change of stress. Even in English this is sometimes possible.


----------



## ireney

OK, let's see if this clarifies things a bit: When both the pronoun (as subject) and the verb of the sentence are included in that sentence, then the pronoun is used for emphasis or for other special reasons (contrast, metric reasons and anything else I cannot think of right now).
In normal speech the pronoun is omitted. If not then the verb is omitted.

Examples:
a) (I) want coffee. 
b) Who wants coffee? I (do)
c) Although I wanted coffee you made tea.

α) Θέλω καφέ (just verb)
β) Ποιος θέλει καφέ; Εγώ (just pronoun)
γ) Ενώ εγώ ήθελα καφέ εσύ έφτιαξες τσάι (both)


----------



## brian

Outsider said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. They can be differentiated using italics: [...]



Haha...I think you're missing my point. 

The use of italics indicates the particular stress or intonation, right? So how does that not indicate emphasis? 

I guess you're just trying to say that there are occasions where the pronoun must be used, even though it's not a matter of emphasis, but simply as a reference to a particular person without saying his or her name. Example:

A: Who broke the glass?
B: Me. (= Εγώ)

In that case, yes I agree with you. But going to Ireney's point above, in that case you don't even need a verb either.

So my original point refers _only_ to the times in which there is both a pronoun _and_ a verb in Greek, and hence information redundancy, which equates to emphasis of some sort, which is generally characterized in English by stress & intonation.


----------



## Outsider

brian8733 said:


> I guess you're just trying to say that there are occasions where the pronoun must be used, even though it's not a matter of emphasis, but simply as a reference to a particular person without saying his or her name. Example:
> 
> A: Who broke the glass?
> B: Me. (= Εγώ)


Yes, and there are other cases, in complex texts that talk about many things, that can be distinguished with pronouns.

I apologize for not posting an example, but it takes some creativity to think up a whole text, and I'm not feeling very creative.


----------



## brian

Sure, you're right. I was just trying to give a simpler, more natural way for native English speakers to think about it.

Anyway, the English pronoun equivalents in Ireney's examples above would be emphasized in English, except _maybe_ the last one, which I find really interesting.

Most people would say the sentence with "Although..." with stress on "coffee" and "tea," not on "I" and "you"; but interestingly enough, I think in that sentence ενώ has a meaning similar to "whereas," which would make me put emphasis on the pronouns: _Whereas *I* wanted coffee, *you* made (decided to make) tea._ But I'm not 100% sure on that. I would've assumed that the Greek equivalent of contrasting "coffee" and "tea" (instead of "I" and "you") would not require the pronouns.


----------



## vatrahos

Hello, sometimes when we are telling a story with more than one person (most stories, thankfully, involve several people), we use the third person demonstrative without emphasis but just to clarify who is saying what. For example, let's say that Renata has a blind date with Thor (god of thunder):

Από τη στιγμή που τον είδε ήταν σίγουρη: Μεγάλος κεραυνός, μικρό π**ς. _Θα μου πει_, σκεφτόταν, _καμιά παπαρδέλα για τη "Βαλχάλα," σίγουρα, κάτι του τύπου, "Έχεις ξαναπάει στη Βαλχάλα; Ε, θα σε πάω εγώ απόψε."_ Αλλά ευτυχώς εκείνος τσιμουδιά δεν έβγαλε για το νορδικό παράδεισο.

Here, εκείνος serves no other purpose than to tell the listener / reader, that Thor (god of thunder), not Renata, is the one who doesn't speak. Well, there is actually a bit of contrast here, but in English there is nothing. In English, we would put the stress not on "he" but on "nothing" ("thankfully he said _nothing_ ...").


----------



## ireney

You know, you are absolutely right. "Although" is best translated as "Αν και" and the first verb ("I wanted") would be _sans_ pronoun.


----------



## brian

ireney said:


> You know, you are absolutely right. "Although" is best translated as "Αν και" and the first verb ("I wanted") would be _sans_ pronoun.



Yeah, that's what I would've suspected. 

@vatrahos: yes, you're right, good point. In any case where the idea is _Then he said, then she said, then he said, _etc. (or any other action) the pronouns are absolutely necessary.


----------



## Outsider

Thank you so much, Vatrahos. 
You explained it much better than I.


----------



## vatrahos

Well, I was just trying to be funny more than anything. There are more common examples, though: My friend and I are walking through the woods one evening.

Βαδίζαμε αργά, ακούγαμε τους γρύλους να τραδουδούν από κάπου κοντά. Νύχτωνε σιγά-σιγά. Σε λίγο εκείνος μου είπε, "θες να γυρίσουμε;"

Here there are only two people: he and I. So there is really no reason why we should need "εκείνος." So much has passed though between the last time he was subject that we use εκείνος -- even though there's no way we could confuse _who_ is the subject of είπε: _I'm_ not the subject; nor the crickets. We just use εκείνος to help remind the listener that my friend is still here.

But anyway, this is all academic. It seems that chrislols understands the use of pronouns so that's cause for celebration.

I would just like to point out that, even though your textbook gives you *αυτός / αυτή / αυτό* as equivalents of "he / she / it," it's more often used for "that guy / that girl / that one" (but not always ... this requires a bit of context with each situation). The more common equivalent though of "he / she / it," is "εκείνος / εκείνη / εκείνο." I guess it depends on the context of each sentence, but usually εκείνος is used with less emphasis, αυτός with more emphasis (when used in place of "he / she / it").


----------



## Evros

I think this rule exists in many languages in the world,slavic languages are also an example.
let's see slovak:
Ja som = I am
but
if you want to say ,"i am student" ,its enough if you say "som student" ;you dont have to use "ja" , because "som" anyway shows that you are talking about yourself
If you want so much to stress yourself on the sentence,you can put there "ja" 
i think greek has something like this also


----------

