Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που να καλύπτει εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος.

I ask if the shoes have a warranty that covers one hundred percent of the cost.

Breakdown of Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που να καλύπτει εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος.

• έχω: to have
• να: to
• αν: if
• που: that
• ρωτάω: to ask
• το παπούτσι: the shoe
• η εγγύηση: the warranty
• καλύπτω: to cover
• εκατό τοις εκατό: one hundred percent
• το κόστος: the cost

Questions & Answers about Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που να καλύπτει εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος.

What is the difference between ρωτάω and ρωτώ? Could I say Ρωτώ instead of Ρωτάω here?

Both ρωτάω and ρωτώ mean I ask / I am asking. They are just two present-tense forms of the same verb ρωτάω / ρωτώ.

• Ρωτάω is more common in everyday spoken Greek; it sounds more colloquial.
• Ρωτώ is a bit more formal or literary.

In your sentence, you can say either:

• Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση… (very natural in speech)
• Ρωτώ αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση… (a bit more formal, but still fine)

Grammatically, both are correct.

Why is αν used here, and what exactly does it mean in this sentence?

In this sentence, αν means if / whether and introduces an indirect yes/no question:

• Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση…
  I’m asking if / whether the shoes have a warranty…

This is like English:

• I’m asking *if the shoes have a warranty…*
• I’m asking *whether the shoes have a warranty…*

So here αν does not mean a conditional “if X then Y”; it is just used after verbs like ρωτάω, ξέρω, θέλω να μάθω to report yes/no questions:

• Ξέρω αν θα έρθει. – I know if he will come.
• Θέλω να μάθω αν δουλεύει ακόμα εδώ. – I want to find out if she still works here.

Why is it τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση and not something like υπάρχει εγγύηση για τα παπούτσια?

Both are possible, but they sound slightly different.

Τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση
literally: The shoes have warranty → The shoes come with a warranty.

Here τα παπούτσια (the shoes) is the subject, and έχουν (have) is agreeing in the plural. The noun εγγύηση is singular: there is one warranty applying to those shoes.

You could also say:

• Υπάρχει εγγύηση για τα παπούτσια; – Is there a warranty for the shoes?

This just shifts the focus:

• Τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση; – Focus on the shoes and one of their “features.”
• Υπάρχει εγγύηση για τα παπούτσια; – Focus on the existence of a warranty for them.

Your original sentence is very natural as-is.

Why is there no article before εγγύηση? Shouldn’t it be μια εγγύηση?

In Greek, after verbs like έχω (have), when we talk about something in a general/indefinite way, the indefinite article (ένας, μία, ένα) is often dropped.

• Τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση.
  literally: The shoes have warranty.
  meaning: The shoes have *a warranty.*

Adding μια is possible but less natural here:

• Τα παπούτσια έχουν μια εγγύηση… – grammatically correct but sounds more marked or specific, as if you are emphasizing this particular, one warranty.

So omitting μια is the usual, idiomatic choice in this structure.

What is the function of που in εγγύηση που να καλύπτει…? Is it like that / which in English?

Yes. Here που is a relative pronoun meaning that / which:

• εγγύηση που να καλύπτει…
  warranty that covers…

It introduces a relative clause, just like in English “a warranty that covers 100% of the cost.”

In more formal Greek, you could also use η οποία:

• εγγύηση η οποία να καλύπτει… (more formal, less common in speech)

But in everyday language, που is by far the most common relative pronoun for this kind of clause.

Why do we say που να καλύπτει and not just που καλύπτει?

This is a key nuance. The structure που να + subjunctive is used when we talk about a desired, potential, or not-yet-confirmed characteristic, rather than a straightforward fact.

Compare:

1. Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που να καλύπτει 100% το κόστος.
   I’m asking whether the shoes have a warranty that (would) cover 100% of the cost.
   → You are not stating as a fact that such a warranty exists; you are checking.

2. Τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που καλύπτει 100% το κόστος.
   The shoes have a warranty that covers 100% of the cost.
   → Here you assert that this is true.

So:

• που να καλύπτει → typical when you are looking for or asking about something with a certain property, not yet known to exist:
  • Ψάχνω παπούτσια που να είναι άνετα. – I’m looking for shoes that are comfortable.
• που καλύπτει → used when you state a fact about something that you know has that property.

Grammatically, να καλύπτει is present subjunctive (3rd singular) of καλύπτω.

What exactly does καλύπτει mean here, and why is there no preposition (like “for”) before το κόστος?

καλύπτω literally means to cover. In financial/insurance contexts it corresponds to English to cover (costs, damages, etc.).

• καλύπτει το κόστος = covers the cost

In Greek, καλύπτω takes its object directly, with no preposition:

• Η ασφάλεια καλύπτει τα έξοδα. – The insurance covers the expenses.
• Η εγγύηση καλύπτει τη ζημιά. – The warranty covers the damage.

So καλύπτει το κόστος is the standard structure; you would not say καλύπτει για το κόστος in this sense.

What does the expression εκατό τοις εκατό literally mean? Why is τοις used?

εκατό τοις εκατό means 100 percent / 100%.

Literally:

• εκατό – one hundred
• τοις εκατό – “per hundred”

τοις is an old dative plural article (from Ancient Greek) that survives today only in a few set expressions, especially in percentages:

• δέκα τοις εκατό – 10%
• είκοσι πέντε τοις εκατό – 25%
• εκατό τοις εκατό – 100%

In modern Greek you don’t use τοις productively; it’s just part of this fixed pattern for percentages.

You can also write the number as digits:

• 100% το κόστος – common in writing and ads.

Why is it εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος and not εκατό τοις εκατό του κόστους?

Both forms exist, but they have different “feels”:

• εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος (as in your sentence)
  → Very typical in everyday speech. The idea “of the cost” is understood from context.

• εκατό τοις εκατό του κόστους
  → More formal/explicit; you spell out “of the cost” with the genitive του κόστους.

You could say:

• εγγύηση που να καλύπτει εκατό τοις εκατό το κόστος
• εγγύηση που να καλύπτει το εκατό τοις εκατό του κόστους

The second sounds more formal and technical (e.g. in contracts); the first is more natural in normal conversation.

Why is it το κόστος with the article? Could we say just κόστος?

Here το κόστος (“the cost”) refers to a specific, known cost: the cost of the shoes.

Greek normally uses the definite article where English often omits it:

• Το κόστος είναι υψηλό. – (The) cost is high.
• Καλύπτει το κόστος. – It covers (the) cost.

You could say simply καλύπτει κόστος, but that sounds incomplete or non-idiomatic in this context. Κατά κανόνα, with a specific cost in mind, you say το κόστος.

Is the tense of Ρωτάω here closer to “I ask” or “I am asking”?

The Greek present tense usually covers both:

• Ρωτάω αν… can be:
  • I am asking if… (now, at this moment), or
  • I ask if… (habitually / generally, depending on context).

Without a broader context, the most natural English translation here is usually “I’m asking whether…” because it sounds like a specific situation, but grammatically the Greek present doesn’t force the progressive meaning; it’s just present.

Can this sentence be reordered? For example, could I say Ρωτάω αν έχουν τα παπούτσια εγγύηση…?

You can move τα παπούτσια, but not every order sounds equally natural.

Most natural:

• Ρωτάω αν τα παπούτσια έχουν εγγύηση που να καλύπτει…

Possible but a bit less smooth:

• Ρωτάω αν έχουν τα παπούτσια εγγύηση που να καλύπτει…

Greek word order is relatively flexible, but the subject τα παπούτσια normally comes before the verb έχουν in neutral statements. Putting it after the verb can create emphasis, but here there is no special reason to do that, so the original order is preferred.