# τιποτα αλλο δεν θα θυμιζει πως δεν ειμαστε μες τους νεκρούς



## Aelialicinia

*"τιποτα αλλο δεν θα θυμιζει πως δεν ειμαστε μες τους νεκρους"*

I translate it thusly but I'm not sure:

*"Nothing else will remind us that we are not among the dead."*

It does not sound right. The double negatives disturb me.


----------



## eva 62

Hi,
your translation is perfect, why doesn't it sound right?
In Greek when you have a negative pronoun or adverb you have to use the negative particles δεν or μη(ν):
Κανένας δε με θέλει / δε με θέλει κανένας
Nobody wants me

Δεν είπα τίποτε
I said nothing / I didn't say anything

Τίποτα δεν έκανα σήμερα
I did nothing today / I didn't do anything today

and
Ποτέ μου δε θα πω τίποτε σε κανέναν
I will never say anything to anyone 

HTH
Eva


----------



## Aelialicinia

Thank you eva62.  I understand from the examples you suggest about the negatives---and they are perfectly understandable.  But here we have 3 negatives.  And there is something about 

*"τιποτα αλλο δεν θα θυμιζει πως δεν ειμαστε μες τους νεκρους"*

especially the phrase   

*"δεν θα θυμιζει" *

that annoys me.    It frustrates me.  Is *θυμιζει* the verb of the subject *τιποτα αλλο?* 

I think I have been looking at this too long.

Thanks again


----------



## Kevman

Γεια σου Aelialicinia,



Aelialicinia said:


> But here we have 3 negatives.


Don't let that third negative confuse the issue.  *Δεν είμαστε μες τους νεκρούς* is a self-contained relative clause and its elements don't really affect the grammar of the main sentence.  It merely expresses whatever circumstance "we won't be reminded of."  Even in English the resulting 'double negative' is perfectly legitimate.



Aelialicinia said:


> *"δεν θα θυμιζει" *
> 
> that annoys me.    It frustrates me.  Is *θυμιζει* the verb of the subject *τιποτα αλλο?*


Yes, *τίποτα άλλο* is the subject of the verb *θυμίζω* here.  And that *δεν* is necessary to give *τίποτα* its negative meaning, as eva explained so brilliantly.  Without it, *τίποτα* would just be interpreted as "anything."



Aelialicinia said:


> I think I have been looking at this too long.


Possibly. 
Actually, what strikes me as tricky about this sentence, at least from an English-speaker's perspective, is that there really isn't an explicit indirect object for θυμίζω. We just sort of infer the 1st person plural from the είμαστε in the relative clause.  But maybe that's an entirely new road of grammatical and semantic woes to go down....


----------



## eva 62

Thank you Kevman for this "brilliantly"!

As for your last sentence [how do we insert quotes?], about the indirect object, well, yes, this is interesting. The difference is that the object of "remind" must be expressed in English, whereas in Greek it can be left implicit. Actually, in that sentence nothing tells us that the object is "us"; it could as well be "them", "the other people", "anyone", "the man next door" ... And, to tell you the truth, the indefinite pronoun "anyone" is the most suitable candidate, from a Greek-speaker's perspective. Otherwise, if it were something definite, like "us", it would be expressed.
Isn't there a verb in English which is similar to "θυμίζει" in that its object can be left implicit?
Eva


----------



## ireney

Note that this is _not_ a good verbatim translation: The one already done is excellent. If however you are still not happy with the translation and going with eva's suggestion, how about something like "nothing else will testify..." ? Just a suggestion mind you.


----------



## epam

'Testify for' or 'Testify against'? I wouldn't go with that suggestion i think. To testify is to argue on behalf of someone else, or to prove something


----------



## Vagabond

epam said:


> 'Testify for' or 'Testify against'? I wouldn't go with that suggestion i think. To testify is to argue on behalf of someone else, or to prove something


Um, neither "for" nor "against"; just "testify". As in, "*Nothing else will testify that we are not among the dead*."..? See, to testify is also to simply καταθέτω or μαρτυρώ. As ireney said, not a _verbatim_ translation, but still one that conveys the meaning rather well, if one absolutely has to skip the "us" thing.


----------



## epam

Yeah, I don't disagree with you (it does sound right, in a way) but if anyone wants to skip the 'us' part (just because it sounds not right) he/she could of have used other words (synonyms) of 'remind', like 'recall'. 'Testify' is not even a synonym of "remind', and it still changes the meaning, even the slightest bit. Even, neither 'for' or 'against' it still needs to provide proof, something we are not asking for.


----------



## Vagabond

epam said:


> Yeah, I don't disagree with you (it does sound right, in a way) but if anyone wants to skip the 'us' part (just because it sounds not right) he/she could of have used other words (synonyms) of 'remind', like 'recall'. 'Testify' is not even a synonym of "remind', and it still changes the meaning, even the slightest bit. Even, neither 'for' or 'against' it still needs to provide proof, something we are not asking for.


"Recall" means "remember", not "remind".

"Testify" does not need to provide proof; even when you testify "for" or "against" in a court of law, it's just your word you are testifying, which is why you'll be cross-examined and questioned. 

"Testify" is not a verbatim translation of θυμίζω, as stated by both me and ireney, sure; it does get the meaning across though, in lack of a more precise synonym. Of course, if you know of such a synonym, I'll be glad to be enlightened, since all I've been able to find in dictionaries, was "awaken memories of something" and "cause to remember".


----------



## epam

Well, if you were to be taken to court for just your word, believe me, you're nothing but useful to the case. And just your words does not make you persuasive. If you don't provide proof of your testimony, then who are you? why are you here? (just for the courts)

Recall means "remember", not "remind". Oh yeah, I forgot. The subject of remembrance is that I spontaneously brought back to my memories something from the past, while "remind" needs some stimuli to make you remember something from the past. So, what we are missing is that stimuli, which in this case is "Nothing". So, why not "*Nothing will recall that we are not among the dead*"?.


----------



## Vagabond

Okay, let's make things clear one at the time:


epam said:


> Well, if you were to be taken to court for just your word, believe me, you're nothing but useful to the case. And just your words does not make you persuasive. If you don't provide proof of your testimony, then who are you? why are you here? (just for the courts)


A witness testifies. He might or might not be lying. If he provided proof that he was not lying, there would be no need to swear to tell the truth and there would be no need to have a perjury thingy, because duh, there'd be _proof_ he was telling the truth!


> Recall means "remember", not "remind". Oh yeah, I forgot. The subject of remembrance is that I spontaneously brought back to my memories something from the past, while "remind" needs some stimuli to make you remember something from the past. So, what we are missing is that stimuli, which in this case is "Nothing". So, why not "*Nothing will recall that we are not among the dead*"?.


Apparently you did forget; so I will remind you, and hopefully you will remember: remember = θυμάμαι, remind = θυμίζω. Do I need to go into a detailed analysis on why the two are fundamentally different..?


----------



## Vagabond

epam said:


> So, why not "*Nothing will recall that we are not among the dead*"?.


I should say though; I really like this one. I think it would be great in poetry or literature, and if that's the context, I just might go for it. Of course, it would alter the original meaning, if only at the slightest bit.


----------



## Kevman

Woah sorry, I didn't mean to distract us off the topic of the negatives.  I also understand that θυμίζω doesn't necessarily need to take an explicit indirect object, and that the Greek sentence therefore is technically impersonal or ambiguous.  I just thought it interesting that in a sensible English gloss the tendency is to supply the 1st person plural i.o. through inference from the relative clause.

If we must engage in this exercise of finding some English verb or construction that is similarly ambiguous or impersonal indirect-object-wise, Irene's "testify," in the (non-court-of-law) sense of "provide evidence for" (or μαρτυρώ), isn't too bad a suggestion in my opinion (at least, I can't come up with anything better at the moment! ).  "Recall" doesn't work for me quite so well because in English it has more of a μέση or ουδέτερη διάθεση, if you will.  It still needs some sort of prepositional phrase if you want it to 'transfer' its action from the subject: "Nothing will recall..." means no thing will remember.  You'd need to say something like "Nothing will recall _to us(/anyone, etc.)_" or "..._to our(/one's, etc.) memory_," which puts us right back where we started, and is rather awkward in English anyway.

I'm still happiest with the original "nothing will remind us," just keeping in mind that the "us" in the English sentence is implied rather than explicit, and noting that the way the two languages differ here is interesting.


----------



## epam

No, i don't need any more explanations as you have explained to me what i was telling you on my previous post, but I urge you to move on.

Apparently you did forget; so I will remind you, and hopefully you will remember: remember = θυμάμαι, remind = θυμίζω. Do I need to go into a detailed analysis on why the two are fundamentally different..?

It's probable that "I" is the stimuli that reminds me what i had to remember And you told me that recall = remember. In addition, 'nothing will make me remember' could just be replaced with 'Nothing will recall that ...'.

If rightfully used it can produce the desirable meaning.

Go on and search Google "Nothing recalls" in the "exact wording or phrase:" field and tell me, were all these people wrong when using this phrase?

I don't need to go further with this topic, as I know that you will have something more to add.  People will judge by themselves about what has been said in here.


----------



## Vagabond

Well, I will just urge you too to read Kevman's post about the use of "recall" in this context (and the rest of it), as well as to open a dictionary, but do feel free to stick with google if you prefer; just make sure to notice that most of the "nothing recalls" findings in google either use "recall" in the "ανακαλώ" sense (not in the "θυμάμαι" sense), or they have it followed by a preposition (e.g. nothing recalls _of_ [...]).

"I" reminds me what I have to remember..? I have to remember to remind myself to remember this next time I need to use the word, thanks.

I don't particularly care whether you wish to continue on this or not. What I do care about, is the accuracy of the information given.


----------



## anthodocheio

Kevman said:


> Yes, *τίποτα άλλο* is the subject of the verb *θυμίζω* here. And that *δεν* is necessary to give *τίποτα* its negative meaning, as eva explained so brilliantly. Without it, *τίποτα* would just be interpreted as "anything."


 
Hello Kevman, Aelialicinia and everyone,

I just came to say that the only correct phrase is "τίποτα δεν θυμίζει". "Τίποτα θυμίζει" is not Greek. It means nothing ("δε σημαίνει τίποτα"). I doubt that τίποτα can be used without another negative meaning "anything". Really, I can't think of any examples as such. 

All the best,


----------



## ireney

I think Kev's meaning was that "τίποτα" can mean "anything" or "nothing" and the reason the double negative (τίποτα + δεν) is necessary is because "τίποτα" by itself, albeit with a different syntax, can mean "anything" (or even "some") π.χ. Υπάρχει τίποτα που σου θυμίζει κάτι; One negative yet positive meaning. 
It's an English speaking people thingy/explanation I guess


----------



## anthodocheio

ireney said:


> It's an English speaking people thingy/explanation I guess


Χιχι! 


> with a different syntax, can mean "anything" (or even "some") π.χ. Υπάρχει τίποτα που *να* σου θυμίζει κάτι; One negative yet positive meaning.


 
Thanks! Now I got it!


----------



## Kevman

ireney said:


> I think Kev's meaning was that "τίποτα" can mean "anything" or "nothing" _[...] _albeit with a different syntax _[...]_
> It's an English speaking people thingy/explanation I guess


Yep, that's what I meant.  Of course you can't get the "anything" meaning from the τίποτα in Aelialicinia's sentence by simply dropping the δεν--you'd have to rearrange the sentence a little bit. I didn't make that very clear.


----------



## Aelialicinia

I really do thank everyone who posted their helpful suggestions in a very informative, "seminar" really, on the  great sentence written by Elias Venezis.


----------

