Learn Hardcore Greek: Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε και να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα. - After the difficult discussion we decided to move on and not talk anymore about the problem.

In the phrase Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση, why is μετά followed directly by a noun? Can I also say μετά από τη δύσκολη συζήτηση? Is there any difference?

Here μετά is a preposition meaning after and it governs the accusative case. It can work in two main ways:

Preposition + noun (accusative)
- Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση, αποφασίσαμε...
  After the difficult discussion, we decided...
Preposition + από + noun (accusative)
- Μετά από τη δύσκολη συζήτηση, αποφασίσαμε...

Both are correct and very common in modern Greek. The difference is small:

Without από (μετά τη συζήτηση) is a bit shorter, very natural in everyday speech, and especially common with time expressions.
With από (μετά από τη συζήτηση) can sound slightly more explicit or careful, and is especially common with pronouns:
- μετά από μένα (after me), μετά από σένα (after you).

In your sentence, μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση is perfectly natural. Μετά από τη δύσκολη συζήτηση would mean the same thing.

Why is the article written as τη and not την in τη δύσκολη συζήτηση?

The full feminine accusative singular article is την. In modern Greek, the final -ν of several small words (like τον, την, έναν, δεν, μην) can drop before many consonants, for ease of pronunciation.

The usual spelling rule is:

Keep the -ν (write την) before vowels and before the consonants
κ, π, τ, ξ, ψ, μπ, ντ, γκ, τσ, τζ.
- την εικόνα, την πόρτα, την τσάντα
You may drop -ν (write τη) before other consonants:
- τη δύσκολη συζήτηση (δ is not in that list)

So:

τη δύσκολη συζήτηση is the standard modern spelling.
την δύσκολη συζήτηση is also possible and you will see it, but looks a bit more old‑fashioned or very careful.

The same pattern applies to τον (masc.) and to δεν, μην, etc.

In English we say we decided, but in Greek there is no εμείς before αποφασίσαμε. Is εμείς optional? When would I use it?

Yes, εμείς is optional here.

Greek is a “pro‑drop” language: the verb ending already tells you the subject:

αποφασίσαμε = we decided (1st person plural is built into the verb).

So the neutral version is simply:

Αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε...

You add εμείς only for emphasis or contrast, for example:

Εμείς αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε, αυτοί όχι.
We decided to move on; they didn’t.

So:

Without εμείς: just a normal statement.
With εμείς: we in particular (not others).

Why is αποφασίσαμε in the aorist tense here? Could I say αποφασίζαμε or αποφασίζουμε instead?

Αποφασίσαμε is aorist (simple past). It presents the decision as a single, completed event after the difficult discussion:

Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση αποφασίσαμε...
After the difficult discussion, we (then) decided...

Alternatives:

αποφασίζαμε (imperfect):
- Means we were deciding / we used to decide (repeatedly) in the past.
- Here it would sound like you were in the middle of the deciding process or did it habitually, which doesn’t match a one‑off decision after a specific discussion.
αποφασίζουμε (present):
- Means we are deciding / we decide (now / generally).
- With μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση it would sound like the discussion is present or very immediate, not a completed past situation.

So for a single decision that clearly follows a past event, the aorist αποφασίσαμε is the natural choice.

Why do we say αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε with να? What exactly does να do in this sentence?

Να is the particle that introduces the subjunctive in modern Greek. After many verbs (want, decide, try, hope, must, etc.), Greek uses να + verb to express what someone will do / should do / wants to do.

Here:

Αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε...
literally: We decided *(for us) to move on...
more naturally: *We decided to move on...

So να:

Connects αποφασίσαμε with the action that follows (what you decided).
Marks the verb προχωρήσουμε as subjunctive, not a simple statement of fact.

In English we often use to or that:

We decided *to move on.*
We decided *that we would move on.*

Greek uses να + subjunctive instead.

Why is it να προχωρήσουμε (aorist subjunctive) and not να προχωράμε (present subjunctive)? What is the difference?

The choice between να προχωρήσουμε and να προχωράμε is mainly about aspect:

να προχωρήσουμε (aorist subjunctive)
- Sees the action as a single, whole event or a step: to move on (once / as a decisive step).
- Fits the idea: We decided to move on and leave this behind.
να προχωράμε (present subjunctive)
- Describes an ongoing or repeated process: to be moving forward (as a continuous activity or habit).
- Example: Αποφασίσαμε να προχωράμε πιο γρήγορα στη δουλειά μας.
  We decided to move faster in our work (as a general policy).

In your sentence, the idea is emotionally/mentally move on from the issue, seen as a definite step, so να προχωρήσουμε (aorist) is the natural choice.

But then why is it να μην μιλάμε (present) instead of να μην μιλήσουμε (aorist), like να προχωρήσουμε?

Here the aspect difference works the other way around:

να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα (present subjunctive)
- Implies a continuing state or habit: not (to) be talking about the problem anymore, not talk about it anymore in general.
- It suggests an ongoing rule from now on: stop discussing it as a repeated/continuous activity.
να μην μιλήσουμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα (aorist subjunctive)
- Refers more to a single event or specific occasion: not to talk any further about the problem (this time / in this conversation).
- More like: Let’s not say anything more about it (now).

So the combination:

να προχωρήσουμε = take the one big step of moving on.
να μην μιλάμε άλλο = and (from now on) not be in the habit of talking about it anymore.

That contrast matches the intended meaning very well.

Why is the negative μην used with να μιλάμε, instead of δεν?

Modern Greek uses two different negatives:

δεν with the indicative (normal statements of fact):
- Δεν μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα.
  We don’t talk / aren’t talking about the problem.
μη(ν) with:
- the subjunctive (να‑clauses),
- the imperative (commands),
- and some other non‑indicative uses.

So in να μην μιλάμε:

The verb is in the subjunctive, introduced by να.
Therefore the correct negative is μη(ν), not δεν.

That’s why you get:

να μην μιλάμε (subjunctive)
but
δεν μιλάμε (indicative).

Why specifically μην and not μη before μιλάμε? I’ve seen both μη and μην in Greek.

The basic negative particle for the subjunctive/imperative is μη(ν). The (ν) can be kept or dropped, mainly for phonetic and stylistic reasons.

Traditional spelling rule (similar to την/τον/δεν):

The ν is obligatory before vowels.
It is usually kept before certain consonants (κ, π, τ, ξ, ψ, μπ, ντ, γκ, τσ, τζ).
It is optional before other consonants.

In practice:

You will see and hear both:
- μη μιλάς and μην μιλάς
- μη φας and μην φας

In your sentence, να μην μιλάμε uses the full form μην, which is very common and perfectly correct. If you wrote να μη μιλάμε, that would also be acceptable in modern usage.

So:

μη(ν) is the underlying word.
The presence or absence of ν here is mostly a matter of pronunciation and style, not of meaning.

The form μιλάμε looks the same in the present indicative (εμείς μιλάμε) and in the subjunctive (να μιλάμε). How do I know which one it is?

You’re right: for many verbs, the present indicative and the present subjunctive look the same in the 1st person plural.

So you tell them apart by context and particles:

Indicative: usually with δεν (or no particle), making a factual statement:
- Εμείς μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα.
  We are talking about the problem.
- Δεν μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα.
  We don’t talk about the problem.
Subjunctive: introduced by να, often with μη(ν) as the negative:
- να μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα
  that we (should) talk about the problem
- να μην μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα
  that we (should) not talk about the problem

So in your sentence, να μην μιλάμε must be subjunctive because of the να.

What is the role of άλλο in να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα? Could I leave it out or replace it with something like πια?

Άλλο here means any more / any longer / further. With a negative, it adds the sense of no longer:

να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα
= to not talk about the problem any more / any longer.

If you leave it out:

να μην μιλάμε για το πρόβλημα
This still means not to talk about the problem, but it’s less explicit about the idea of stopping from now on. The context would usually still suggest it, but άλλο makes it very clear: “no more”.

You can also use:

πια or πλέον:
- να μην μιλάμε πια για το πρόβλημα
- να μην μιλάμε πλέον για το πρόβλημα

All three (άλλο, πια, πλέον) can express any more / any longer with a negative, with small nuance differences:

άλλο: very common and neutral in this exact structure.
πια: also very common, maybe slightly more emotional in some contexts.
πλέον: a bit more formal or “written”.

In για το πρόβλημα, why is για used and which case does it take? Are there other common ways to say about the problem?

Για is a very common preposition in modern Greek, and one of its main uses is “about, concerning”.

για always takes the accusative case.
Hence: το πρόβλημα (accusative neuter singular).

So:

για το πρόβλημα = about the problem.

Other common ways to say about the problem include:

σχετικά με το πρόβλημα – regarding the problem (quite common, slightly more formal).
γύρω από το πρόβλημα – literally around the problem; depending on context, can mean about the problem.
περί του προβλήματος – concerning the problem (formal, more Katharevousa style).

In everyday language, για το πρόβλημα is by far the most frequent and natural choice here.

The structure is να προχωρήσουμε και να μην μιλάμε. Could I leave out the second να and say να προχωρήσουμε και μην μιλάμε?

Normally, no—you would keep the second να here:

να προχωρήσουμε και να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα

Reasons:

Να introduces each subjunctive clause. You have two coordinated actions that were decided:
- να προχωρήσουμε
- (να) μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα
Without the second να, και μην μιλάμε can sound more like a separate main clause or even like a mild prohibition (and let’s not be talking…), rather than part of the same “we decided that…” structure.

Greek sometimes does share a single να between two verbs, but:

It’s more common when both verbs are immediately next to each other and both positive:
- Θέλω να πάω και να δω. (often still repeated)
With a negative in the second part, repeating να is strongly preferred and clearer.

So in your sentence, και να μην μιλάμε is the natural, correct form.

Could I change the word order to Αποφασίσαμε, μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση, να προχωρήσουμε και να μην μιλάμε άλλο για το πρόβλημα? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can, and the basic meaning stays the same.

Greek word order is relatively flexible. Both:

Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση αποφασίσαμε να προχωρήσουμε...
Αποφασίσαμε, μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση, να προχωρήσουμε...

are grammatically correct and mean essentially:

After the difficult discussion, we decided to move on…

The difference is mostly in emphasis and rhythm:

Starting with Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση foregrounds the time frame (the discussion) as the setting.
Starting with Αποφασίσαμε puts the focus first on the decision itself, then adds when it happened as additional information.

In normal speech and writing, the original order (Μετά τη δύσκολη συζήτηση αποφασίσαμε...) is very natural and fluent.