# hypothetic period with tha + aoristos in the apodosis



## metis

Hi to everyone, I am back again. Could anyone tell me if the structure in the title exists in greek or not? I find it strange and I am used to tha + paratatikos. Thank you all in advance


----------



## danira

If you mean: "αν έρθεις, θα παίξαμε", no. But we say "αν έρθεις, θα παίξουμε", which is στιγμιαίος μέλλων.


----------



## modus.irrealis

metis said:


> Hi to everyone, I am back again. Could anyone tell me if the structure in the title exists in greek or not? I find it strange and I am used to tha + paratatikos. Thank you all in advance



In the apodosis, no -- although you can use θα + pluperfect (υπερσυντέλικος), e.g. αν είχες έρθει, θα τον είχες δει = "If you had come, you would have seen him" although as far as I can tell using the pluperfect is never necessary (at least not with this example).

The only use of θα + aorist I can think of is when θα means the statement is probable or a supposition, e.g. θα 'φυγε = "he probably left" (more or less).


----------



## anthodocheio

modus.irrealis said:


> The only use of θα + aorist I can think of is when θα means the statement is probable or a supposition, e.g. θα 'φυγε = "he probably left" (more or less).


 
What about "θα ήταν"= "It would be"?


----------



## Spectre scolaire

anthodocheio said:
			
		

> What about "θα ήταν"= "It would be"?


It can mean both (depending on context) – like θα έκανε – and the reason is that none of these verbs are provided with a specific aorist form.

One might call θα + aorist _inferential_: θα έφυγε, "he/she must have left [but I don't know for sure]".


----------



## modus.irrealis

anthodocheio said:


> What about "θα ήταν"= "It would be"?


But ήταν isn't in the aorist, is it? It's an imperfect.


Spectre scolaire said:


> It can mean both (depending on context) – like θα έκανε – and the reason is that none of these verbs are provided with a specific aorist form.



I think κάνω and είμαι are different, in that the latter has no aorist forms at all (and you have to use another verb like γίνομαι or υπάρχω), while the former has aorist forms that just happen to be identical to the present and imperfect (unless someone says έκαμα or something like that).



> One might call





> θα + aorist _inferential_: θα έφυγε, "he/she must have left [but I don't know for sure]".


Yes, inferential is the perfect term for it.


----------



## anthodocheio

It seems that when one studies a language know better things like that!
(I never thought -since I finished school- that "ήταν" is not Αόριστος)


----------



## Spectre scolaire

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I think κάνω and είμαι are different, in that the latter has no aorist forms at all (and you have to use another verb like γίνομαι or υπάρχω), while the former has aorist forms that just happen to be identical to the present and imperfect (unless someone says έκαμα or something like that).


So, for all intents and purposes, in this thread it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. The important point is that _inferential mode_ has to use θα + _paratatik__όs_ in those cases where the verb does not provide an aorist form. You cannot automatically substitute ήταν with aorist of a verb like γίνομαι, στέκομαι or whatever for the sake of an inferential. If morphology is “deficient”, semantics has to decide.

_Paratatik__όs _έ-καμ-α will still be - from a _verbal aspect_ point of view - identical to the present κάμ-ω (both exhibiting _imperfective aspect_).The original verb was κάμνω. Different dialects chose κάμω/έκαμα or κάνω/έκανα, the latter being the standard forms. The question as to why the verb κάνω has no _perfective aspect_ is certainly an interesting one, but outside the scope of this thread.
​


----------



## modus.irrealis

anthodocheio said:


> It seems that when one studies a language know better things like that!


I think that's true of most people when it comes to their first language .


Spectre scolaire said:


> So, for all intents and purposes, in this thread it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. The important point is that _inferential mode_ has to use θα + _paratatik__όs_ in those cases where the verb does not provide an aorist form. You cannot automatically substitute ήταν with aorist of a verb like γίνομαι, στέκομαι or whatever for the sake of an inferential. If morphology is “deficient”, semantics has to decide.



I'm not sure what you mean -- the inferential use of θα can be used with any verb form, can't it? And then you choose between aorist, imperfect, etc. just like you would anywhere else -- you can say something like θα κρυβότανε και γι' αυτό δεν τον βρήκαμε where you have the inferential "he must have been hiding."
 


> _Paratatik__όs _έ-καμ-α will still be - from a _verbal aspect_ point of view - identical to the present κάμ-ω (both exhibiting _imperfective aspect_).The original verb was κάμνω. Different dialects chose κάμω/έκαμα or κάνω/έκανα, the latter being the standard forms. The question as to why the verb κάνω has no _perfective aspect_ is certainly an interesting one, but outside the scope of this thread.


Now I'm confused -- έκανα is both imperfective and perfective (with έκαμα being an alternate perfective form), and it clearly has a perfective aspect, not just because it can be used with a perfective aspect, but because you can also form the perfect from it (έχω κάνει) which you can only do with the perfective aspect*. That's what I think it's different from verbs like είμαι or ξέρω and so on which have no perfective forms at all and consequently have no perfect tense.

* verbs like παρκάρω are odd with this, but they're odd in general .


----------



## Spectre scolaire

You should probably read once more what I said. I don’t usually quote myself , but I'll make an exception:




> The important point is that _inferential mode_ has to use θα + paratatikos in those cases where the verb does not provide an aorist form.


The verb κάνω does not provide such a form, so you have to use θα + _paratatik__ós_ instead. Only the context will show whether it is an _inferential_ or a _conditional_ sentence. How else would you express _inferential_ with this verb?

The same obtains for έχω. This verb has no aorist form either – at least not in Modern Greek! Θα είχε σαράντα χρονών, “Ηe must have been 40 years old [but I never saw his birth certificate]” _or_ “He would have been 40 years old [if he had lived].” The former is a full sentence, the latter is only an apodosis of a conditional sentence. 




			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> έκαμα being an alternate perfective form


Who said such a thing? The only difference between έκαμα and έκανα is that the former is a non-standard form. Basically, the two forms don’t coexist but I have seen many cases where dialectal features crop up in novels. If – I say *if* – Classical Greek κάμνω had continued its existence into Modern Greek, one could think of an aspectual difference έ*καμν*α versus έ*καμ*α (with the verbal stem _which indicates aspect_ in bold), but this is hypothetical. It did not happen.



			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> you can also form the perfect from it (έχω κάνει) which you can only do with the perfective aspect


I don’t think one should mix the “perfect tense” into this picture. I don’t want to elaborate on this here because it would be off-topic.
 ​


----------



## modus.irrealis

Spectre scolaire said:


> The verb κάνω does not provide such a form, so you have to use θα + _paratatik__ós_ instead. Only the context will show whether it is an _inferential_ or a _conditional_ sentence.



But then that's not true -- like I said before, θα + anything can be inferential. Both θα έφυγε and θα έφευγε can be inferential in the right context, the difference between them being the same aspectual difference as if the θα weren't there. In other words, it's not that you say θα ήταν for the inferential because the verb lacks an aorist -- you say it because it can be inferential in and of itself.



> Who said such a thing? The only difference between έκαμα and έκανα is that the former is a non-standard form.



The dictionary, for one:



> *κάνω* [káno] P πρτ. _έκανα, _αόρ. _έκανα _και (σπάν.) _έκαμα,_ απαρέμφ. _κάνει _και (σπάν.) _κάμει,_ μππ. _καμωμένος_


----------



## Spectre scolaire

I consider this discussion to be the special construction “θα + aorist” – at least this is what it is all about from contribution #3 onwards. _Exceptionally_ you’ll find the inferential mode with θα + paratatikos simply because certain verbs don’t possess any aorist form. This is the case with the verb κάνω – among others (there are not too many of them).

The dictionary entry saying that έκανα is both paratatikos and aorist is misleading. What the authors probably mean to say is that έκανα can also be used in the functions of an aorist. (S. v. έχω and ξέρω there is no mention of aorist! –if we refer to the same dictionary).

If κάνω expresses _imperfective aspect_ – and it is a convention in Greek dictionaries to use the (present) imperfective form 1st p. sing. for most verbal lemmata – the same stem {καν} cannot equally express _perfective aspect_! As long as the form έκανα can only express imperfective aspect, paratatikos (expressing this aspect) is _de facto_ being used as a substitute for aorist in the inferential mode.

The thread takes up an interesting phenomenon which could certainly be the subject of further investigations. The morphological facts are clear, but the reality behind the lack of an aorist form for certains verbs may be less clear although there is an inherent semantic imperfectiveness about the the verbs in question.

In any case, your insistence to dig deeper is an asset!


----------



## modus.irrealis

It's looks like I'm just going to be repeating myself, but here goes .


Spectre scolaire said:


> _Exceptionally_ you’ll find the inferential mode with θα + paratatikos simply because certain verbs don’t possess any aorist form.



Except that you find the inferential mode with θα + imperfect even with verbs that do have aorist forms. How do you explain that?



> The dictionary entry saying that έκανα is both paratatikos and aorist is misleading. What the authors probably mean to say is that έκανα can also be used in the functions of an aorist.



They clearly mean that that the imperfect of κάνω is έκανα and the aorist of κάνω is έκανα, and they're correct in this. I don't see why you insist that έκανα is not an aorist when it can be used with a perfective meaning (unlike ήμουν or ήξερα) and you can form a perfect from it (again unlike ήμουν or ήξερα). In what way does έκανα fail to be an aorist?



> If κάνω expresses _imperfective aspect_ – and it is a convention in Greek dictionaries to use the (present) imperfective form 1st p. sing. for most verbal lemmata – the same stem {καν} cannot equally express _perfective aspect_!



Why not? There's nothing really strange about the situation - in Ancient Greek, κλιν- is both the present and aorist stem  (with a long ι in both), in English _quit _is both present and past, and I'm pretty sure most, if not all, language could provide examples of this.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> like I said before, θα + anything can be inferential. Both θα έφυγε and θα έφευγε can be inferential in the right context, the difference between them being the same aspectual difference as if the θα weren't there.


I wonder if we have a terminology problem here. Is it possible that you let _inferential_ encroach on _irrealis_, or perhaps even on _potentialis_, at least semantically? You may have inferential with perfect tense as in θα της είχε πέσει καθώς γδυνόταν - the logic here being that θα + the auxiliary verb (in paratatikos!) is expressing inferential as in the ex. I have already quoted – but I’d like to see examples with θα + paratatikos of verbs other than έχω, κάνω, ξέρω, etc.

Whichever language I have learned to a level of being able to appreciate _conditional sentences_ I have never come across a theory which always works in practice. For the smallest discrepancy between theory and practice I would probably recommend Turkish and Classical Latin, but once you consider dialects and Vulgar Latin (respectively) the fluctuation in this kind of utterances is rampant. There are numerous threads in the WordReference forums which illustrate the uneasiness that ordinary speakers of very different languages perceive in this field. I don’t think _inferential_ is very much better off – except in Turkish where it is a morphological category. 

My point with this attempt to take a step back and get a broader picture, is that Greek through the ages has never been among the most precise languages I can think of, neither in the morphological nor in the syntactical domain. I won’t even mention semantics. Unfortunately, this is the heritage of a _diglossic language_. In Arabic it is much worse.

Considering the miserable state of affairs concerning both grammars and dictionaries of Modern Greek until very recently, no wonder that a lot of uncertainty reigns. Just imagine that supporters of katharevusa, the official language of Greece until 1976, never ever produced a comprehensive grammar of this hybrid language. (I can only think of “primitive” school grammars and one written by two Frenchmen in 1918...). In spite of this lack of panegyrics – Greek is fascinating _because_ of its rather confusing appearance! - some sort of fairly homogenous standard of Modern Greek _has_ prevailed through adroit usage of dimotiki during the last 75 years or so. 

Considering the problems that written Greek has had to cope with, and the different vernaculars to a large extent being left to themselves, we should look at a phenomenon like _inferential_ in Modern Greek by supplying a certain amount of empirical data from Greek authors of dimotiki prose from the 1930s and onwards. Instead of repeating arguments _ad nauseam_, we need a corpus!
 ​


----------



## modus.irrealis

Spectre scolaire said:


> I wonder if we have a terminology problem here. Is it possible that you let _inferential_ encroach on _irrealis_, or perhaps even on _potentialis_, at least semantically? You may have inferential with perfect tense as in θα της είχε πέσει καθώς γδυνόταν - the logic here being that θα + the auxiliary verb (in paratatikos!) is expressing inferential as in the ex. I have already quoted – but I’d like to see examples with θα + paratatikos of verbs other than έχω, κάνω, ξέρω, etc.



What was wrong with the example I gave before with θα κρυβότανε? But I guess I'm not the most native of speakers so I'm not the best source , and instead of telling you what I've heard native speakers say, I'll take an example from Tzartzanos's Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις (except I accent it the current way):

Το χωριό έμοιαζε αδειανό· ήταν πολύ νωρίς κι' όλοι *θα κοιμώνταν*

I also note that the author introduces this usage of θα by saying:

Οριστική κάθε χρόνου (εκτός από μέλλοντα) με το θα μπροστά της χρησιμοποιείται, όταν πρόκειται να παρασταθή εκείνο που σημαίνει το ρήμα απλώς ως πιθανόν.

And from another book I found on Greek, in a section labeled θα + impf. past - inferential, it gives an example

Πρόβαλε ο αγάς ολομέθυστος ... βούιζαν τ' αφτιά του, κάπου θα φώναζαν ή θα έκλαιγαν ή θα τραγουδούσαν - δεν μπορούσε να καταλάβει.


> Instead of repeating arguments _ad nauseam_, we need a corpus!



That is of course the way to answer this question, and hopefully my examples above go some way in doing that -- otherwise I'll have to start quoting my γιαγιά .


----------



## Vagabond

Just butting in  to comment on this (and agree, basically):


modus.irrealis said:


> They clearly mean that that the imperfect of κάνω is έκανα and the aorist of κάνω is έκανα, and they're correct in this. I don't see why you insist that έκανα is not an aorist when it can be used with a perfective meaning (unlike ήμουν or ήξερα) and you can form a perfect from it (again unlike ήμουν or ήξερα). In what way does έκανα fail to be an aorist?


Έκανα is indeed both the aorist and the imperfect. You'd say έκανα συνεχώς λάθη, and you'd also say έκανα ένα μεγάλο λάθος χθες. 

Είμαι and ξέρω do not have aorist forms, so you'd use the aorists of γίνομαι and γνωρίζω respectively. The difference in my mind is that κάνω describes an action (so έκανα can very well be an aorist), while είμαι and ξέρω describe states. Obviously in other languages (e.g. English) you say "I knew" or "I was", but in my mind that always translates as a state, not an instant thing. 

And yes, I am making the rule up as I go along , but seriously, it makes sense to me.


----------



## anthodocheio

Vagabond said:


> Just butting in  to comment on this (and agree, basically):
> 
> Έκανα is indeed both the aorist and the imperfect. You'd say έκανα συνεχώς λάθη, and you'd also say έκανα ένα μεγάλο λάθος χθες.
> 
> Είμαι and ξέρω do not have aorist forms, so you'd use the aorists of γίνομαι and γνωρίζω respectively. The difference in my mind is that κάνω describes an action (so έκανα can very well be an aorist), while είμαι and ξέρω describe states. Obviously in other languages (e.g. English) you say "I knew" or "I was", but in my mind that always translates as a state, not an instant thing.
> 
> And yes, I am making the rule up as I go along , but seriously, it makes sense to me.


 
Εγώ θα έλεγα ως αόριστο του "είμαι" το "υπήρξα" και του "ξέρω" το .... "έμαθα"!!! 
Greetings


----------



## modus.irrealis

Vagabond said:


> Είμαι and ξέρω do not have aorist forms, so you'd use the aorists of γίνομαι and γνωρίζω respectively. The difference in my mind is that κάνω describes an action (so έκανα can very well be an aorist), while είμαι and ξέρω describe states. Obviously in other languages (e.g. English) you say "I knew" or "I was", but in my mind that always translates as a state, not an instant thing.



You're right that with English, the past tense is not really equivalent to thhe aorist, but the strange thing for me has been languages which do have pretty much the same aorist vs. imperfect distinction and still have an aorist version of these words -- e.g. with French, it took me a long time to figure out the difference between _j'ai été / je fus _and_ j'étais._


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Spectre scolaire said:
			
		

> I wonder if we have a terminology problem here.


I think we have to agree on a distinction between _inferential_ and _potential_. If we can’t, there is no point in keeping the notion of inferential. And yet -




			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Yes, inferential is the perfect term for it.


As gleaned from Tzartzanos, however:




			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Οριστική κάθε χρόνου (εκτός από μέλλοντα) με το θα μπροστά της χρησιμοποιείται, όταν πρόκειται να παρασταθή εκείνο που σημαίνει το ρήμα απλώς ως πιθανόν.


Is πιθανότητα the same as inferentiality?

Inside brackets: Τζάρτζανος' MG syntax, the first of its kind, has a good collection of examples, but the author was not a linguist and probably never pretended to be one either. That may be - excuse me for the pun - his _Achilles heel_ in not presenting a coherent theory of the *syntax of θα*, but I'll rush to say that his role as a teacher and an educator of the people was crucially more important than whatever he may not have been. In fact, _there is very little on the subject at all_! I can think of a small book published in Denmark (in English), but I can't remember the author. What does Peter Mackridge say?​I guess you consider the χωριό being αδιανό and the ağa being ολομέθυστος as a logical premise for calling the subsequent verbal form _inferential_? 

Next week I’ll be trying to find some adequate examples for a _potential_[sic] theory of a finer distinction between _potential_ and _inferential_. Since I don’t have any γιαγιά at my disposal, and worse, my library is 8000 km away, I’ll have to rely on my intuition.

In fact, my general intuition about language has always been that it is more complicated than we usually think. Greek ought to be no exception!
​


----------



## modus.irrealis

Spectre scolaire said:


> I think we have to agree on a distinction between _inferential_ and _potential_. If we can’t, there is no point in keeping the notion of inferential. And yet -



Alright -- it seems likely I'm using inferential in too broad a sense (but see below), or to put it another way, when you asked



> I wonder if we have a terminology problem here. Is it possible that you let _inferential_ encroach on _irrealis_, or perhaps even on _potentialis_, at least semantically?



I should have answered yes. But this imprecision seems fine in Greek because there is no grammatical distinction between inferential and potential in Greek, although I'm looking forward see what you come up with about such a distinction.

But because this does seem to be more than just a dispute about terminology (which normally isn't all that fun), here's the question as theory-neutral as I can make it: can the meaning of θα in θα + aorist occur also in θα + imperfect for any verb or only for those verbs that lack an aorist? I think it's the former, while you seem to think it's the latter, correct?


> I can think of a small book published in Denmark (in English), but I can't remember the author.​


If you're referring to Rolf Hesse, his is the book I took my second example from. And about terminology, here's what he says about "Inference"


> Θα can indicate that what is referred to must be taken with certain reservation. It covers a wide range, from mere guessing to logical conclusion.


So if my terminology is sloppy, at least I'm not alone.


> I’ll have to rely on my intuition.



Alright, but like you said before, empirical data and corpuses (or corpora -- both word sound really awful ) are better.



> In fact, my general intuition about language has always been that it is more complicated than we usually think. Greek ought to be no exception!


I don't understand why you made this comment.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

It is indeed Rolf Hesse! No doubt, he has thought more about _syntax of the Modern Greek verbal system_ than most of us. I may not want to challenge Hesse, but for the time being, Hesse being literally far away, I find this discussion sufficiently challenging. I have got some ideas which I’d like to test, but there is no garantee that it will result in “a less sloppy terminology.” Considering however that very few people seem to think about these problems at all, it is rewarding to keep a dialogue about it.




			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward [to] see what you come up with about such a distinction [between inferential and potential].


I am definitely as curious as you are! Let me look into some manuscripts first. I’ll keep you posted during the process (which might take some time).

My point with “Greek ought to be no exception” is just to underline that whatever has not been done in terms of studies in Modern Greek syntax (where there are tremendous lacunae), should not be left uninvestigated. Language is a bit like pathology: the more you go into details, the more complications you’ll discover. I don’t find that _aspect_ (if you excuse the pun) unpleasant, but it is time consuming.
 ​


----------

