Learn Hardcore Greek: Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ, αλλά τώρα έχω την ελπίδα ότι στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες. - In the past I didn’t travel much, but now I have the hope that in the future I will see many countries.

So you say στο παρελθόν, not σε το παρελθόν, in normal speech and writing. They mean the same thing; one is just the standard contracted form.

Why does Greek say στο παρελθόν (“in the past”) with the article? Could you say just σε παρελθόν?

You cannot say σε παρελθόν here; it sounds wrong.

Greek uses the definite article much more than English, especially:

with abstract nouns: η αγάπη, η ελευθερία, το παρελθόν
with time expressions: το πρωί, το βράδυ, την Κυριακή

So:

στο παρελθόν ≈ “in the past”
στο μέλλον ≈ “in the future”

Leaving out the article (σε παρελθόν, σε μέλλον) is unidiomatic in this meaning.

Why is it δεν ταξίδευα πολύ and not δεν ταξίδεψα πολύ?

Greek contrasts two main past aspects:

Imperfective past (παρατατικός) – ongoing, repeated, or habitual actions
- ταξίδευα = I was traveling / I used to travel / I would travel (habitually)
Aorist past (αόριστος) – single, whole event, seen as a complete unit
- ταξίδεψα = I traveled (once / as a completed event)

In the sentence:

Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ
In the past I didn’t travel much (as a general habit),

the speaker is talking about a general pattern or habit in the past, so the imperfect ταξίδευα is appropriate.

If you said:

Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδεψα πολύ,

it would sound more like “On that past occasion / in that past period, I didn’t travel much (as a total result).” Possible, but less clearly “habitual” and more like referring to a specific timeframe.

Where is the subject “I” in Greek? Why is there no εγώ?

Greek is a pro‑drop language: the verb ending usually shows the subject clearly, so the pronoun is often omitted.

(Εγώ) ταξίδευα = I was traveling
(Εγώ) θα δω = I will see

In:

Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ
… στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες,

the endings ‑α in ταξίδευα and ‑ω in δω clearly mark the subject as “I”, so εγώ is left out.

You would include εγώ only for emphasis or contrast:

Εγώ στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ, αλλά τώρα…
I (on the other hand) didn’t travel much in the past, but now…

Why is the negative particle δεν placed before ταξίδευα? Could it go elsewhere?

The standard word order for negation in Greek is:

δεν / δεν + (clitics) + verb

So:

δεν ταξίδευα = I did not travel / I wasn’t traveling

You cannot move δεν away from the verb as in English:

✗ ταξίδευα δεν πολύ (incorrect)

You may sometimes see or hear δε instead of δεν before consonants in speech or informal writing:

δε ταξίδευα (colloquial)

But its position relative to the verb stays the same: it directly precedes the verb (or clitic + verb).

Why is it αλλά τώρα and not something like όμως τώρα? What is the difference?

Both αλλά and όμως can express contrast, but they work differently:

αλλά = “but” (conjunction, joins clauses)
- … δεν ταξίδευα πολύ, αλλά τώρα έχω την ελπίδα…
όμως ≈ “however”, “yet”, “though” (adverbial, more flexible position)
- … δεν ταξίδευα πολύ. Όμως τώρα έχω την ελπίδα…
- … δεν ταξίδευα πολύ, όμως τώρα έχω την ελπίδα…

In this sentence, αλλά is perfect because it directly links two contrasting clauses within one sentence. Όμως would also be possible with slightly different rhythm and style, but αλλά is the most straightforward “but”.

What is the difference between έχω την ελπίδα and ελπίζω?

Both express hope, but one uses a noun phrase and the other a verb:

έχω την ελπίδα ότι… = I have the hope that…
ελπίζω ότι… = I hope that…

Nuance:

έχω την ελπίδα is a bit more formal or “literary”; it emphasizes “the hope” as a thing you possess.
ελπίζω is simpler, more common in everyday speech.

In everyday Greek, many speakers would probably say:

… αλλά τώρα ελπίζω ότι στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες.

The original sentence with έχω την ελπίδα is correct and natural, just slightly more “crafted” or formal in tone.

Why is it έχω την ελπίδα with the article την? Could you say έχω ελπίδα?

Την ελπίδα is the direct object of έχω:

έχω = I have
την ελπίδα = the hope (feminine, accusative singular)

So:

έχω την ελπίδα = I have the hope

You can say έχω ελπίδα, and it is grammatically correct. The nuance:

έχω την ελπίδα (ότι…) – more specific: I have the particular hope that…
έχω ελπίδα – more general: I have hope (as a quality / feeling).

In this sentence, because it’s immediately followed by a clause (ότι στο μέλλον θα δω…), the structure έχω την ελπίδα ότι… feels slightly more natural.

What is the role of ότι in this sentence? Can I replace it with πως?

Ότι is a subordinating conjunction meaning “that” (introducing a clause):

έχω την ελπίδα ότι στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες
I have the hope that in the future I will see many countries.

In modern Greek, ότι and πως (without accent) often work almost the same way in this meaning:

έχω την ελπίδα ότι στο μέλλον θα δω…
έχω την ελπίδα πως στο μέλλον θα δω…

Both are acceptable. Ότι often feels slightly more neutral or formal; πως is very common in speech and informal writing.

Be careful not to confuse ότι (that) with ό,τι (with a comma), which means “whatever / anything that” and has a different function.

Why is the future written as θα δω and not something like θα βλέπω?

Greek has two aspects in the future, just like in the past:

Simple future (θα + aorist subjunctive form)
- θα δω (from βλέπω – είδα – θα δω)
- expresses a single, complete event: I will see (at some point, as a result).
Continuous future (θα + present form)
- θα βλέπω
- expresses an ongoing or repeated action: I will be seeing / I will keep seeing.

In this sentence:

… έχω την ελπίδα ότι στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες.

the speaker is talking about the result: eventually, they will have seen many countries (one by one, as achievements). That fits the simple future θα δω.

Θα βλέπω πολλές χώρες would sound more like “I will be (constantly) seeing many countries”, focusing on the ongoing activity rather than the end result.

Why is the future of βλέπω here θα δω? How are these related?

Βλέπω is an irregular verb with different stems for different tenses:

Present: βλέπω = I see
Aorist (simple past): είδα = I saw
Simple future: θα δω = I will see

The pattern is:

βλέπω – είδα – θα δω

So θα δω is simply the standard simple future form of βλέπω. Many common verbs in Greek change stem between present, past, and future (e.g., πηγαίνω – πήγα – θα πάω).

Why is πολλές χώρες in that form? What case and gender is it?

Χώρα (country) is a feminine noun:

Singular: η χώρα (nom.), τη χώρα (acc.)
Plural: οι χώρες (nom.), τις χώρες (acc.)

In the sentence:

… θα δω πολλές χώρες.

θα δω = I will see (verb, taking a direct object)
πολλές χώρες = many countries (direct object → accusative plural)

So:

πολλές = feminine accusative plural of πολύς / πολλή / πολύ (many)
χώρες = feminine accusative plural of χώρα

The verb βλέπω / θα δω requires its object in the accusative, which is why we have πολλές χώρες, not e.g. πολλές χώραι or anything else.

Why does the sentence use στο μέλλον? Is this a fixed phrase like στο παρελθόν?

Yes. Στο μέλλον is the standard way to say “in the future” in Greek:

στο μέλλον = in the future
στο παρελθόν = in the past

Again, you have:

σε + το μέλλον → στο μέλλον

Like with παρελθόν, you normally include the article: you don’t say σε μέλλον for this meaning.

Both το παρελθόν and το μέλλον are neuter nouns commonly used with the article in time expressions.

Is the word order Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ fixed, or could I move things around?

Greek word order is fairly flexible, but there are “neutral” patterns that sound most natural.

Neutral here:

Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ
(Time phrase first, then negated verb, then adverb.)

Other possible orders (with slightly different emphasis):

Δεν ταξίδευα πολύ στο παρελθόν.
Emphasis on “didn’t travel much”, time at the end.
Πολύ δεν ταξίδευα στο παρελθόν.
This is unusual and feels marked; πολύ is not typically fronted like this.

You generally keep:

δεν immediately before the verb
adverbs like πολύ after the verb or at the end of the clause

So the original order is both natural and typical.

Why is there a comma before αλλά and no comma before ότι?

Punctuation choices here follow common Greek usage:

Comma before αλλά
You often use a comma before αλλά when it links two independent clauses:
- Στο παρελθόν δεν ταξίδευα πολύ, αλλά τώρα έχω την ελπίδα…
Each side could almost be its own sentence, so a comma is natural.
No comma before ότι (in this sentence)
Ότι introduces a subordinate object clause:
- έχω την ελπίδα ότι στο μέλλον θα δω πολλές χώρες
In modern usage, many writers do not put a comma before ότι in this kind of object clause, unless they want a special pause or emphasis. Both:
- έχω την ελπίδα ότι…
- έχω την ελπίδα, ότι…
are seen, but the version without the comma before ότι is very common and perfectly correct here.