# When to use the subjunctive verb tenses



## GreedyGreen

Hi there, I'm trying to learn a bit about verb tenses and am puzzled by the use of the subjunctive tense. I and using a Book called "600 Modern Greek verbs" by Carmen Capri-Karka (which is an excellent resource by the way) which gives an example at the beginning of the book of a verb in all tenses in both Greek and English so that the English speaker can understand when the tenses are used. However for the three subjunctive tenses (Present, Past and Perfect) the author just says "No direct English equivalent". 
Now, I understand why they say this as I believe "to be" is the only english verb that changes significantly in a subjuctive use ( "Can I _*be*_ bothered" compared with "I *am* bothered"). Apart from that there is a minor effect on the 3rd person singular (He run_*s*_ / Can he run) in most other verbs.
So, and please forgive me rambling on, my question is this: Given that I have heard and been told that "Can I pay" in Greek would be "Μπορώ να πληρώ*σ*ω" which seems to be the Past Subjunctive (and so more liturally in english would be "Can I have payed"), in what situation would you use the present subjunctive (να πληρώ_*ν*_ω) as opposed to the Past (or indeed the Perfect)?

Any guidance would be gratefully accepted.
Dave


----------



## ireney

Being lazy, I copy a combination of posts of my own from another forum 
Note that ONLY in the Indicative are the tenses alocated the same time reference. In the subjunctive etc the time reference depends on the main verb (the one that is in Indicative). The only thing shown by the verb in e.g. Subjunctive is aspect (for instance if an action will happen once -Aorist/Past- or many times -Present-)

The Subjunctive is used to show that something is hypothetical, we are not sure of and a number of other things, plus being the default mood we use in some cases.
The are two main uses of the subjunctive : (to keep things simple), to play the role of the infinitive of the English languages in many cases and to act as a mild (or not so mild) imperative.
Πήγα να πάρω ψωμί ( I went to buy bread)
Να πας στο διάτανο! (Go to heck)
English used to have a subjunctive too although it has now more or less fallen in disuse. In “If only I were taller” the verb “to be” is in subjunctive. 
Most phrases that have “might”, “should”, and “must” in English are translated using the subjunctive.
Negative formed with μην “Φοβάμαι μην πέσω» (I’m afraid I might fall)
“ας μην αγοράσουμε βούτυρο” (Let’s not buy butter)

SUBJUNCTIVE (Υποτακτική)

First of all: «να» maybe the most usual particle “accompanying” the subjunctive but it doesn’t need to be there or can be replaced by another one such as «ας».

Present: να αγοράζω 

Something that happens continuously in relation to the verb of the main sentence (if there is one) 
Μου είχε πει να αγοράζω μετοχές συνέχεια
Θα μου πει να αγοράζω μετοχές συνέχεια
He had told me to buy shares all the time
He will tell me to buy shares all the time

Να ακούτε τη μαμα (listen to mommy) (always listen to mommy) IMPERATIVE USE



Past (aorist): να αγοράσω
Something that happens once, not continuously/repetitively in relation to the verb of the main sentence

Μου είχε πει να αγοράσω μετοχές χτες
Θα μου πει να αγοράσω μετοχές αύριο
He had told me to buy shares yesterday (once)
He will tell me to buy shares tomorrow (once)
Να ακούσετε τι θα σας πει ο πυροσβέστης (listen to what the fireman will tell you) once IMPERATIVE USE

Present Perfect: να έχω αγοράσει

Something that has to be done before the verb of the main sentence or something happening continuously in the past.

Έπρεπε να είχα φύγει ( I should have gone)
Μου είπε να έχω τελειώσει μέχρι τις 5 (he told me to have finished till 5 [in proper English I must have finished])
Έτυχε να έχω πολύ τύχη τότε (it happened that I had a lot of luck then)
Αυτός να κάθεται και εγώ να έχω πεθάνει στη δουλειά; (Him sitting while I had worked like a slave?)
Να έχετε φύγει μέχρι αύριο (you must be gone by tomorrow ) IMPERATIVE USE


----------



## GreedyGreen

Thanks Ireney,

I think the key bit of information that I hadn't known is the difference between a once only action and a continuous one. That makes much more sense now.

ευχαριστώ


----------



## Outsider

Hello.

I don't know any Greek, so I'm going out on a limb, here, but in the languages that I know the past subjunctive is used for considering impossible, imaginary situations. It didn't/doesn't happen, but _if only / what if_ it had?... 

The present subjunctive is used for situations that may turn out to be possible, but are doubtful in some way at the moment the speaker is talking. It _may yet happen_, but the speaker can't be sure...

The past subjunctive is also used in narrative and reported speech, to express what was once possible but doubtful, in a previous time or in the mouth of someone else.

Would the native speakers confirm or deny this?


----------



## GreedyGreen

Although I'm not a native Greek speaker either, but I think Ireney's explanation about the various subjunctive forms being used to express whether the verb is a single instance or a continuous use, is more in keeping with the other verb tenses such as past and future which also have two forms for expressing single incident or continuous use.
The distinction between actions that are imagined and those that are just not definite, isn't one I've come across in any other facet of Greek languge...

...but then again there's so much I don't know about Greek!

Thanks Outsider for you reply however. Is the subjunctive used how you describe it in Portuguese?

Dave


----------



## Outsider

Portuguese, Spanish, and French (my explanation was very generic). English, too. Compare:


If only I were rich ! --> You know you aren't.
It's possible that I win the lottery this time! --> There's a remote chance you might win, but there's no way to be sure. The "jury is still out".
(I do realise the second sentence is old-fashioned in English.)

Although this doesn't include all cases, and is not an infallible rule, in these four languages at least it's useful to think of the past subjunctive as being associated with "if"-clauses, and the present subjunctive as associated with "that"-clauses.

I don't know how far this will help you with Greek, though...


----------



## GreedyGreen

I see - I guess it shows up quite nicely in that phrase about being rich:

Simple Present tense - "I *am* rich"
Past Subjunctive - "If I *were* rich"
Present subjuctive - "Can I *be* rich"

I hadn't noticed the _differing forms_ of subjunctive in English before.
Very interesting.

I'm not very good at learning a different language, but it does all fascinate me!
Cheers
Dave


----------



## modus.irrealis

Just to add to Irene's example some if-statements, because even there the difference between the present and aorist subjunctive is aspect.

(aorist) αν δεν φας το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die
(present) αν δεν τρως το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die

where the difference is the first refers to a specific meal that you're eating, and the second is a more general statement. There are better examples but hopefully that's clear.

Same with words like οταν "when." The aorist subjunctive is used when you're talking about a specific (future) event, while the present subjunctive is about general statements (about present or future):

(aorist) όταν έρθει απ' τη δουλειά, θα φάμε - when he comes from work, we'll eat
(present) συνήθως τρώμε όταν έρχεται απ' τη δουλεία- we usually eat when he comes from work

For unreal events, i.e. events that didn't happen, Greek actually uses the imperfect (this it shares with French) for the present and the past perfect for the past.

αν ήταν εδώ, θα τον έβλεπα - if he were here, I'd see him
αν είχε έρθει, θα τον είχα δει - if he had come, I'd have seen him

Although I guess you could think of these as subjunctives without να, just like the previous if statements the subjunctive didn't have να.

But with Outsider's "If only I were rich!" you would use να

μακάρι να είχα λεφτά - if only I had money

but είχα is imperfect so I don't know if that's even considered a subjunctive or what. Irene, what would you call that?


----------



## Outsider

Drat, I always forget about French, which is an exception, because it doesn't use the past subjunctive in "if"-clauses. And it seems that Greek doesn't either. I will shut up now.


----------



## GreedyGreen

Outsider said:


> Drat, I always forget about French, which is an exception, because it doesn't use the past subjunctive in "if"-clauses. And it seems that Greek doesn't either. I will shut up now.


 
Please don't shut up Outsider - although it seems the Greek subjunctive works in a different way to most other European languages (typical -always has to be different! lol), it's very useful to know the differences so we don't fall into the trap of assuming how something will work in Greek based on our own native language. As the subjunctive has such a little effect in English it's been interesting to hear how it is used in Portuguese and Spanish etc as well as in Greek.

Modus, your post raises a few other questions for me so if I may I'll add comments into your message in blue where i'm confused :



modus.irrealis said:


> Just to add to Irene's example some if-statements, because even there the difference between the present and aorist subjunctive is aspect. _[is aorist just another word for "past" - the book I use for verbs (see the link below) mentioned in my original post doesn't use the term aorist as the author comments it's a confusing term]_
> 
> (aorist) αν δεν φας το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die
> (present) αν δεν τρως το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die
> _[this usage without "να" is a little confusing as for the present subjuctive "να τρώς", taking the "να" away is identical to the simple present tense. Similarly the only tenses listed in my verb tables where "φας" is the form of the verb (past sunjunctive or simple future) then "να" or "θα" is shown as being infront of the verb. Is there any grammar rule for when the "να" would be dropped or when it would be used?]_
> 
> where the difference is the first refers to a specific meal that you're eating, and the second is a more general statement. There are better examples but hopefully that's clear.
> 
> Same with words like οταν "when." The aorist subjunctive is used when you're talking about a specific (future) event, while the present subjunctive is about general statements (about present or future):
> 
> (aorist) όταν έρθει απ' τη δουλειά, θα φάμε - when he comes from work, we'll eat
> (present) συνήθως τρώμε όταν έρχεται απ' τη δουλεία- we usually eat when he comes from work
> 
> For unreal events, i.e. events that didn't happen, Greek actually uses the imperfect (this it shares with French) for the present and the past perfect for the past.
> 
> αν ήταν εδώ, θα τον έβλεπα - if he were here, I'd see him
> _[isn't ήταν the past tense of the verb "to have" rather than "to be"? Is this just a usage peculiar to the language?]_
> αν είχε έρθει, θα τον είχα δει - if he had come, I'd have seen him
> 
> Although I guess you could think of these as subjunctives without να, just like the previous if statements the subjunctive didn't have να.
> 
> But with Outsider's "If only I were rich!" you would use να
> 
> μακάρι να είχα λεφτά - if only I had money
> _[could *μακάρι να είμαι πλούσιος* be used as a closer litural translation? Or is *πλούσιος* not used in this fashion to mean rich?]_
> 
> but είχα is imperfect so I don't know if that's even considered a subjunctive or what. Irene, what would you call that?


 
Link to example page from verb tables book (600 Modern Greek Verbs):
_Well - I can't post the link here yet but if you go to the .COM version of amazon and search for the book, it can show you example pages from inside the book_


----------



## modus.irrealis

GreedyGreen said:


> _[is aorist just another word for "past" - the book I use for verbs (see the link below) mentioned in my original post doesn't use the term aorist as the author comments it's a confusing term]_


I went and looked at the book at amazon, and using the book's terminology, when "aorist" is used alone, it usually refers to the "simple past." And then all the forms based off the simple past are also called aorist -- basically you have "aorist subjunctive" = "past subjunctive" and "aorist imperative" = "simple imperative." It's the traditional term for these things -- I'm not sure it's confusing so much as uninformative. "Past subjunctive" though is an odd term that I don't think I've seen anywhere else. I wonder why the author didn't just have "simple subjunctive" vs. "continuous subjunctive" to match the terminology of the other forms.



> _[this usage without "να" is a little confusing as for the present subjuctive "να τρώς", taking the "να" away is identical to the simple present tense. Similarly the only tenses listed in my verb tables where "φας" is the form of the verb (past sunjunctive or simple future) then "να" or "θα" is shown as being infront of the verb. Is there any grammar rule for when the "να" would be dropped or when it would be used?]_


Yes, the present subjunctive forms are always identical to the present tense. It won't lead to confusion, though, because there's no place where it could be either and where that would make a difference in the meaning.

And like Irene mentioned, it's just very common to have να before a subjunctive, but it doesn't always accompany it -- I would think the very popular approach of books listing the subjunctive form with να is a little misleading. But there are rules with when to use what and you'll pick them up as you go. For example, the bare subjunctive can be used with αν 'if', όταν 'when(ever)', όπου 'where(ever)', and similar words. Another example is that in Greek, the imperative is used only for positive commands and for negative commands you use μη + subjunctive:

φύγε - leave!
μή φύγεις - don't leave!

And Irene already mentioned ας.



> _[isn't ήταν the past tense of the verb "to have" rather than "to be"? Is this just a usage peculiar to the language?]
> _


It's from είμαι "to be." The form for "to have" would be είχε.



> _[could *μακάρι να είμαι πλούσιος* be used as a closer litural translation? Or is *πλούσιος* not used in this fashion to mean rich?]_


Not sure why I didn't translate literally, but yes, πλούσιος there would be fine. But that should be να ήμουν rather than να είμαι since you use the continuous past when you want to say that something is not true, i.e. "if only I were rich (but I'm not)." μακάρι να είμαι refers to the future so that would be more like "May I be rich."


----------



## anthodocheio

GreedyGreen said:


> Modus, your post raises a few other questions for me so if I may I'll add comments into your message in blue where i'm confused :


 


> Just to add to Irene's example some if-statements, because even there the difference between the present and aorist subjunctive is aspect. _[is aorist just another word for "past" - the book I use for verbs (see the link below) mentioned in my original post doesn't use the term aorist as the author comments it's a confusing term]_


 There are two past tenses. The Greek terms are "αόριστος" και "παρατατικός".



> (aorist) αν δεν φας το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die
> (present) αν δεν τρως το φαγητό σου, θα πεθάνεις - if you don't eat your food, you'll die
> _[this usage without "να" is a little confusing as for the present subjuctive "να τρώς", taking the "να" away is identical to the simple present tense. Similarly the only tenses listed in my verb tables where "φας" is the form of the verb (past sunjunctive or simple future) then "να" or "θα" is shown as being infront of the verb. Is there any grammar rule for when the "να" would be dropped or when it would be used?]_


 "Να" = subjuntive, "θα" = future, "αν" = if, "όταν" = when.
Να τρως (always/in general)
Να φας (once)
Θα τρως (for a period in the future)
Θα φας (once in the future)
Αν τρως (if you eat your food every day you will grow up)
Αν φας (if you eat your food, the one you are going to eat right now, I will take you to the zoo)
Όταν τρως (when you eat = every time you eat)
Όταν φας (when you('ll) eat = once you have eaten)



> αν ήταν εδώ, θα τον έβλεπα - if he were here, I'd see him
> _[isn't ήταν the past tense of the verb "to have" rather than "to be"? Is this just a usage peculiar to the language?]_
> αν είχε έρθει, θα τον είχα δει - if he had come, I'd have seen him


 No, "ήταν" has always been the verb "to be". "To have" is "έχω/είχα".



> μακάρι να είχα λεφτά - if only I had money
> _[could *μακάρι να είμαι πλούσιος* be used as a closer litural translation? Or is *πλούσιος* not used in this fashion to mean rich?]_


 The word πλούσιος is OK. Is just another sentense the one that modus gave. And it is "Μακάρι να ήμουν πλούσιος".

Although I didn't read carefully what Outsider said (I promise I will soon..) I believe that he is right. I am learning Spanish and it serves me to think "Greek" regarding subjuntive. It's really very similar...

Hi friends!


----------



## GreedyGreen

Thanks Modus (and everyone who has replied) for the explanations (and corrections) for my queries - it all makes a little more sense now - even if it will take a long while to master any of it.


----------



## GreedyGreen

Thanks to Anthodocheio too.

Don't know why I got confused with είμαι (or ήταν). I should know very well it's "to be" - doh!


----------



## Kevman

GreedyGreen said:


> it seems the Greek subjunctive works in a different way to most other European languages (typical -always has to be different! lol), it's very useful to know the differences so we don't fall into the trap of assuming how something will work in Greek based on our own native language.


When many Modern Greek grammars use the term "subjunctive" they are endowing it with a slightly broader sense than the usual irrealis-type usage it has in other languages. (This is what Irene meant by: "The Subjunctive is used to show that something is hypothetical, we are not sure of _and a number of other things, plus being the default mood we use in some cases_.") It may have been a true subjunctive once upon a time, but nowadays the term is often a more imprecise shorthand for the verb form which follows another verb by way of να, as well as the mood which is accompanied by particles like να, μην, ας, αν, όταν, etc. even in the absence of another verb.

Now, many of these uses do happen to be truly subjunctive, but when talking about Demotic Greek it seems that the term "subjunctive" often refers only to the verb form that appears in those situations rather than a necessarily true subjunctive mood. Thus, to be really precise it is usually necessary to differentiate between the Subjunctive: the mood for referring to hypothetical situations, and the 'subjunctive tense': the Greek verb form that accompanies those particle words.  For instance, as in many of the examples given above, Modern Greek uses a "subjunctive tense" form in some Imperative Mood constructions.

In short, GreedyGreen, I'm glad your question actually turned out to be about continuous/non-continuous _aspect_ within the "subjunctive" because "subjunctive" itself in Modern Greek opens up this whole terminology can of worms!   I suppose these terminology headaches arise because Greek is still applying age-old grammatical terms to its modern variants, and then there isn't universal agreement on their English translations, which, of course, leads to variation among different English-language grammar texts.  So it may be possible, modus, that your differentiating between the imperfect and the subjunctive may simply be part of this terminology morass, since I think what you're designating "imperfect" might just as soon be considered "subjunctive" by some grammars by dint of the use of the particle, aside from any consideration of the actual mood.


----------



## ireney

Well, the truth is that in modern Greek (Demotike) the Subjunctive is used sometimes (when used as Imperative) without truly beeing subjugated, subjoined to another verb  In all other cases however it is a true Subjunctive and we do have to remember that it was always used a bit more "freely"  really. The only thing more or less constant about the usage of Subjunctive is that it expresses something that is not quite certain. Even that however has always being a bit of a pain. Consider the following (it's the same in Ancient Greek by the way; a timeless pain if you ask me).
Είναι καλό να έχεις λεφτά όποτε *βρεθείς* σε ανάγκη. It is an unsure situation (that's why there's  "whenever") but you have to know where to look for the uncertainty don't you?

In short, the subjunctive is a rather complex issue (without even touching the whole terminology matter  ) but that's why we're here.


----------



## GreedyGreen

ireney said:


> In short, the subjunctive is a rather complex issue (without even touching the whole terminology matter  ) but that's why we're here.


 
Trust me to join the forum and jump rigfht in at the deep end


----------



## ireney

Note: The rest of the posts, dealing with Mood and Aspect have been moved in a separate thread here


----------

