Learn Hardcore Greek: Η συνάντησή μας ήταν απλά τυχαία, αλλά ένιωσα σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά. - Our meeting was simply random, but I felt as if I knew him from long ago.

When you add an enclitic pronoun like μας after a proparoxytone, Greek stress rules require the stress to stay within the last three syllables of the whole group (συνάντησή μας is treated as one phonological word). To keep the stress in the allowed “window”, the noun gets an extra accent on the last syllable:

συνάντηση → συνάντησή μας
δάσκαλος → δάσκαλός μου
θάλασσα → θάλασσά μας

So συνάντησή rightly shows two written accents: one on ά, one on ή.

Is it wrong to write Η συνάντηση μας without the extra accent on ή?

In standard spelling, yes, it’s considered wrong or at least non‑standard.

The correct form is Η συνάντησή μας with:

stress on συνάν- (the original stress), and
an extra accent on the last syllable (-σή) because of the enclitic μας.

You will see η συνάντηση μας in informal writing (people often skip this detail), but if you want correct, careful Greek, you should write Η συνάντησή μας.

Why is the article η used with συνάντηση? How do I know the gender here?

Η is the feminine singular definite article. Συνάντηση is a feminine noun, so it takes η:

η συνάντηση = the meeting
της συνάντησης = of the meeting (genitive)
τη συνάντηση = the meeting (accusative)

A helpful rule of thumb: a large number of abstract nouns ending in -ση (from verbs) are feminine:

η κίνηση (movement)
η σκέψη (thought; note different ending but same idea)
η συνάντηση (meeting)

You usually learn the gender together with the noun, but endings like -ση, -ξη, -ψη are very often feminine.

What exactly does απλά mean here, and how is it different from απλώς?

Here απλά is an adverb meaning “simply, just”. In the sentence, ήταν απλά τυχαία means “it was simply/by merely a coincidence”.

Απλά vs απλώς:

απλά: more colloquial, very common in speech and informal writing.
απλώς: a bit more formal or “careful”; you’ll see it more in written or neutral style.

In this position you could say either:

ήταν απλά τυχαία
ήταν απλώς τυχαία

Both are correct; απλά just sounds more everyday.

Is τυχαία an adjective or an adverb in this sentence? What does it literally mean?

Here τυχαία is an adverb, meaning “by chance, accidentally, coincidentally”.

The underlying adjective is:

τυχαίος, τυχαία, τυχαίο = random, accidental

From that adjective, the feminine form τυχαία can also function as an adverb (this is common in Greek):

Συναντηθήκαμε τυχαία. = We met by chance.

So in ήταν απλά τυχαία, it’s describing how the meeting happened: “it was simply accidental / purely by chance.”

Is the word order ήταν απλά τυχαία fixed, or can I move απλά somewhere else?

The most natural options here are:

Η συνάντησή μας ήταν απλά τυχαία.
Η συνάντησή μας απλά ήταν τυχαία. (slightly more marked, with emphasis on “simply”.)

You wouldn’t normally say:

✗ Ήταν τυχαία απλά. – sounds odd.
✗ Ήταν τυχαία απλώς. – also feels unnatural.

In practice, keep απλά / απλώς directly before the word or phrase it qualifies. Here it qualifies the whole predicate τυχαία, so ήταν απλά τυχαία is the cleanest choice.

Could I also say Η συνάντησή μας ήταν απλά μια σύμπτωση instead of ήταν απλά τυχαία?

Yes, that’s a very natural alternative, with a small nuance difference.

ήταν απλά τυχαία – focuses on the manner: it was (just) accidental.
ήταν απλά μια σύμπτωση – uses the noun σύμπτωση = coincidence.

Both mean essentially that the meeting was just a coincidence. The second version is a bit more explicit because σύμπτωση names the thing; τυχαία only describes it as “by chance”.

Why is the verb ένιωσα used, and not something like ένιωθα?

Ένιωσα is the aorist (simple past) of νιώθω (to feel). It presents the feeling as a single reaction at that moment:

ένιωσα = “I felt (at that moment, once, as a reaction)”

If you used ένιωθα (imperfect), you would emphasise an ongoing state over some stretch of time:

ένιωθα σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά. = “I was feeling / kept feeling as if I knew him from long ago.”

In this sentence, the speaker is talking about the immediate impression triggered by the meeting, so the aorist ένιωσα fits well: a sudden, one‑off feeling.

How does σαν να work here? Is να some kind of subjunctive marker?

Σαν by itself means “like, as”.
The combination σαν να means “as if”.

Structure:

σαν να
- verb (often in a past tense when the situation is unreal or hypothetical)

In your sentence:

ένιωσα σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά
→ “I felt as if I knew him from long ago.”

The να here is the same particle used in many so‑called “subjunctive” clauses, but notice that the verb form ήξερα looks exactly like the normal past tense (imperfect). Greek doesn’t change the verb form itself; the “subjunctive” flavour comes from the presence of να and the context.

Typical patterns with σαν να:

σαν να τον ήξερα – as if I knew him
σαν να τον είχα ξαναδεί – as if I had seen him before

Why is ήξερα (past) used after σαν να, instead of the present ξέρω?

Ήξερα is the imperfect of ξέρω (to know). Using the imperfect here gives an unreal, “already-existing” past state:

σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά
= “as if I already knew him from long ago.”

If you said σαν να τον ξέρω από παλιά, it would sound odd, because the time frame is that past moment when you met him. The imperfect fits the idea:

at that moment in the past, it felt as though, in that same past, you already had a long‑standing acquaintance with him.

So ήξερα shows a background state in the past, not a simple, punctual event.

What is the role of τον in σαν να τον ήξερα? Could I leave it out or replace it with αυτόν?

Τον is the unstressed (clitic) object pronoun meaning “him”:

τον ήξερα = I knew him

In σαν να τον ήξερα, it refers back to the man you just mentioned. You cannot leave it out; Greek needs an explicit object pronoun here, even though English can just say “as if I knew (him).”

About αυτόν:

αυτόν is the stressed form (“that man / him in particular”).
You could say σαν να τον ήξερα αυτόν από παλιά, but that adds contrastive emphasis: “as if I knew him, that particular guy, from long ago.”

In the neutral sentence, the simple clitic τον is what you want.

Where do pronouns like τον go in a clause like σαν να τον ήξερα? Could I say σαν να ήξερα τον instead?

Clitic object pronouns like τον follow fixed placement rules:

With να‑clauses, they come after να but before the verb:
- να τον δω, να τον ήξερα, να τον βρω.

So:

σαν να τον ήξερα = correct
✗ σαν να ήξερα τον = wrong (you would then need a full noun: σαν να ήξερα τον Γιάννη).

Rule of thumb: in non‑imperative forms, clitic pronouns go right before the verb, and after any particles like να, θα, να μην:

θα τον δω, να τον ρωτήσω, δεν τον ξέρω.

What does από παλιά mean exactly? Is it different from just παλιά?

Literally, από παλιά is “from old (times).” Idiomatically, it means:

“from long ago, for a long time, since way back.”

So σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά suggests “as if I had known him for ages / from long ago.”

Differences:

παλιά τον ήξερα – “I used to know him long ago.” (simple past time reference)
σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά – hypothetical, “as if I had known him since long ago.”

You’ll also hear similar expressions:

από παλιά τον ξέρω – I’ve known him since long ago.
από παλιά γνωριζόμαστε – we’ve known each other for a long time.

Why is there a comma before αλλά in this sentence? Is it necessary?

Yes, the comma before αλλά is standard here because αλλά joins two independent clauses:

Η συνάντησή μας ήταν απλά τυχαία,
αλλά ένιωσα σαν να τον ήξερα από παλιά.

Each part has its own subject and verb:

[Η συνάντησή μας] [ήταν] …
[εγώ] [ένιωσα] …

In Greek, when αλλά links two full clauses, you normally put a comma before it, just as in English with “but”.