# Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωθούμε στο ατύχημα



## panettonea

In GACG, the sentence is above is translated as: "We were nearly killed in the accident."  So, could one write it as Παρά τρίχα να *σκοτωθήκαμε* στο ατύχημα instead?


----------



## Perseas

No, "παρά τρίχα να" requires subjunctive, so "σκοτωθούμε" is correct.
"Σκοτωθήκαμε" (indicative) fits in this word by word translation, which is grammatically correct but not idiomatic in Greek: "Σχεδόν σκοτωθήκαμε στο ατύχημα".


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> No, "παρά τρίχα να" requires subjunctive, so "σκοτωθούμε" is correct.



OK, now I'm really confused.    According to GACG, what you are referring to as "subjunctive" is the "dependent."  Their definition of subjunctive is:  _The subjunctive is expressed formally by the particles _να_ or _ας_ and by the choice of the negative particle _μην_.  _  Are you saying that να can never be followed by the simple past (aorist)?  If so, then why can it often be followed by the imperfect?

What is your exact definition of subjunctive?


----------



## ireney

The subjunctive in modern Greek has three tenses. Present, simple past (aorist) and present perfect (paratatikos).
Να σκοτώνομαι, να σκοτωθώ, να έχω σκοτωθεί.
What Perseas is saying is that the form "σκοτωθήκαμε" is aorist indicative and therefore cannot be used with "να" when it indicates the subjunctive.


----------



## Perseas

Panettonea, να + past simple -- either indicative or subjunctive -- is OK (depending on context), as you can see in the examples below. *"παρά τρίχα να + past simple indicative" simply does not make sense.



panettonea said:


> Are you saying that να can never be followed by the simple past (aorist)?


past simple indicative :
 "Μπορεί να σκοτωθήκαμε"  
"Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωθήκαμε" 

past simple subjunctive: 
"Μπορεί να σκοτωθούμε" 
"Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωθούμε" 



panettonea said:


> If so, then why can it often be followed by the imperfect?


imperfect indicative:
 "Μπορεί να σκοτωνόμουν" 
"Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωνόμουν" 

The i_mperfect _has only indicative mood, so when there is _να_ or _ας_ + _imperfect_, it is the indicative and not the subjunctive mood. 
Ιreney has explained which 3 tenses have the subjunctive mood (υποτακτική έγκλιση).


----------



## panettonea

ireney said:


> The subjunctive in modern Greek has three tenses. Present, simple past (aorist) and present perfect (paratatikos).
> Να σκοτώνομαι, να σκοτωθώ, να έχω σκοτωθεί.
> What Perseas is saying is that the form "σκοτωθήκαμε" is aorist indicative and therefore cannot be used with "να" when it indicates the subjunctive.



Thanks.  GACG sure doesn't spell it out that way, though.  In fact, it seems to imply that anything followed by να/ας is _always_ subjunctive.  So, either:

1) The authors failed to fully explain the subjunctive mood in the book,
or
2) The authors do not use the term "subjunctive" in the same way as is typical.  

If anyone else has this book, please be sure to look at it and see if you can reach a different conclusion.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> past simple indicative :
> "Μπορεί να σκοτωθήκαμε"
> "Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωθήκαμε"
> 
> past simple subjunctive:
> "Μπορεί να σκοτωθούμε"
> "Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωθούμε"



Thanks for the helpful examples.  



> παρά τρίχα να + past simple indicative" simply does not make sense.



So that's because certain idioms always require the subjunctive, I gather?  One just has to learn which ones do and which ones don't?  




> imperfect indicative





> "Μπορεί να σκοτωνόμουν"
> "Παρά τρίχα να σκοτωνόμουν"



Now why is the latter OK, but when you use the aorist after _Παρά τρίχα να_ it becomes incorrect?  So the phrase can be followed by the indicative only for certain tenses??



> The i_mperfect _has only indicative mood, so when there is _να_ or _ας_ + _imperfect_, it is the indicative and not the subjunctive mood.



OK.



> Ιreney has explained which 3 tenses have the subjunctive mood (υποτακτική έγκλιση).



I believe you mean which 3 tenses the subjunctive mood has.  

That's interesting how GACG not only does not spell this out, but has a completely different take on the subject.


----------



## panettonea

Oh, I thought of something else:

Does the presence of μη(ν) instead of δε(ν) indicate the subjunctive?  GACG says that it does.  For instance, the book has sentences with να followed by the pluperfect indicative and also the aorist indicative, and uses μη(ν) in both cases.  If it doesn't indicate that, then what's the rule for the occasions when one uses μη(ν)?


----------



## Perseas

Maybe I shouldn't have referred to terms like indicative or subjunctive. *_Παρά τρίχα να σκοτώθηκαμε_ is wrong. The  synonym "παρά λίγο να..." has the same syntax. (note: _παρά τρίχα_ is very informal)
"Παρά λίγο να σκοτωθούμε" 
"Παρά λίγο να σκοτωθήκαμε" 



panettonea said:


> Oh, I thought of something else:
> 
> Does the presence of μη(ν) instead of δε(ν) indicate the subjunctive?  GACG says that it does.


 And it is correct. δε(ν) indicates the indicative.


panettonea said:


> For instance, the book has sentences with να followed by the pluperfect indicative and also the aorist indicative, and uses μη(ν) in both cases.  If it doesn't indicate that, then what's the rule for the occasions when one uses μη(ν)?


If I have understood well here are some examples:
 1._Μακάρι να μην τη γνώριζα. _
2._Μακάρι να μην την είχα γνωρίσει._

1. _γνώριζα_ = indicative imperfect but the negation is _μην_ because the sentence expresses wish (πρόταση επιθυμίας)
2. _είχα γνωρίσει_ = indicative pluperfect ... as above.

To tell it with other words, in both sentences the verbs are technically in indicative but they (let's say) function as if they were in subjunctive. (Since the subjunctive is basically the mood of the wish sentences).


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> Maybe I shouldn't have referred to terms like indicative or subjunctive. *_Παρά τρίχα να σκοτώθηκαμε_ is wrong. The  synonym "παρά λίγο να..." has the same syntax. (note: _παρά τρίχα_ is very informal)
> "Παρά λίγο να σκοτωθούμε"
> "Παρά λίγο να σκοτωθήκαμε"



Thanks.  But why is it OK to use the imperfect σκοτωνόμαστε in that same expression?  Why exactly is that idiomatic, but not σκοτωθήκαμε?  That's what I don't understand.



> And it is correct. δε(ν) indicates the indicative.



OK, so GACG is correct.  I checked further, and it does state point-blank that the indicative is incompatible with the particles να and ας, which means that it considers any verb following either particle to be in the subjunctive mood, regardless of the tense.



> If I have understood well here are some examples:
> 1._Μακάρι να μην τη γνώριζα._


"If only I never met/knew her"?  Yes, that's a good example.  Specifically, I meant the simple past, such as (directly from GACG):  _Μπορεί να μην έφυγαν κιόλας._ 



> 2._Μακάρι να μην την είχα γνωρίσει._



"If only I had never met/known her"?  



> To tell it with other words, in both sentences the verbs are technically in indicative but they (let's say) function as if they were in subjunctive. (Since the subjunctive is basically the mood of the wish sentences).



So you're saying that the mood of the sentences would be classified as subjunctive?  Well, what's this stuff then about there being only 3 tenses in the subjunctive?   Or do we have a new phenomenon going on here?

The _indunctive_?
The _subjicative_?  



I think you're right that the terms "subjunctive" and "indicative" muddied up the waters a bit here.  So let me ask you this.  Exactly what verb forms can occur after _Παρά λίγο να_?

simple past = aorist (σκοτωθήκαμε) = *μεγάλο* *όχι*
imperfect (σκοτωνόμαστε) = *ναι*
dependent (σκοτωθούμε) = *ναι*
perfect = (έχουμε     σκοτωθεί) = ???
pluperfect = (είχαμε     σκοτωθεί) = ???


----------



## Perseas

panettonea said:


> Thanks.  But why is it OK to use the imperfect σκοτωνόμαστε in that same expression?  Why exactly is that idiomatic, but not σκοτωθήκαμε?  That's what I don't understand.
> --------------------------------------
> simple past = aorist (σκοτωθήκαμε) = *μεγάλο* *όχι*
> imperfect (σκοτωνόμαστε) = *ναι*
> dependent (σκοτωθούμε) = *ναι*
> perfect = (έχουμε     σκοτωθεί) = ???
> pluperfect = (είχαμε     σκοτωθεί) = ???


I 'm sorry I can't explain why it is OK to use "παρά λίγο να σκοτωνόμαστε". I can say that "παρά λίγο να σκοτωθήκαμε" sounds like "He told me to went there". Moreover, "παρά λίγο να + (dependent?) σκοτωθούμε" is the most common in Greek. "παρά λίγο να + imperfect (σκοτωνόμαστε) or pluperfect (είχαμε σκοτωθεί)" are both OK but they are not so common as the former. "παρά λίγο να + aorist or perfect" are wrong.


panettonea said:


> "If only I never met/knew her"?
> "If only I had never met/known her"?
> 
> So you're saying that the mood of the sentences would be classified as subjunctive?


 According to GACG, yes. According to another traditional school grammar, the verbs are in indicative. However, since there is wish in the sentence, there can be also found some features of the subjunctive mood, e.g. the negation _μην_.


----------



## panettonea

Perseas said:


> I 'm sorry I can't explain why it is OK to use "παρά λίγο να σκοτωνόμαστε".



So the answer is "just because."  OK, I can accept that.  



> "παρά λίγο να + imperfect (σκοτωνόμαστε) or pluperfect (είχαμε σκοτωθεί)" are both OK but they are not so common as the former. "παρά λίγο να + aorist or perfect" are wrong.



Thanks.  At least now I know which tenses are considered acceptable, even if I don't exactly know why. 



> According to GACG, yes. According to another traditional school grammar, the verbs are in indicative. However, since there is wish in the sentence, there can be also found some features of the subjunctive mood, e.g. the negation _μην_.



I think I prefer the lack of ambiguity in GACG.


----------

