Learn Hardcore Greek: Για να μην είμαι τόσο αφηρημένος, ελέγχω συχνά στο κινητό σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι. - So that I am not so absent-minded, I often check on my phone which stop I am at.

Together, για να very often corresponds to English “in order to / so that”. It is completely normal in Greek and does not sound awkward the way “for to” does in modern English.

Is είμαι after να considered subjunctive? It looks the same as the normal είμαι.

Yes, after να it is functionally subjunctive, even though the form is identical to the indicative.

Greek uses:

να
- verb to mark the subjunctive mood (possibility, purpose, wish, etc.)
plain verb (without να) for indicative (simple statements/facts)

So:

είμαι αφηρημένος = I am absent‑minded (statement, indicative)
να είμαι αφηρημένος = to be / that I be absent‑minded (subjunctive, here showing purpose)

With είμαι, the actual word shape doesn’t change, so the mood is recognized from context and from particles like να, ας, αν, etc.

What nuance does τόσο add in τόσο αφηρημένος? How is it different from πολύ αφηρημένος?

Both τόσο and πολύ relate to degree, but they are used slightly differently.

πολύ αφηρημένος = very absent‑minded (a high degree, like “very”)
τόσο αφηρημένος = so absent‑minded (degree + emotional coloring / comparison)

Τόσο often implies:

“to such an extent”
often connects to a reason, consequence, contrast, or comparison

In this sentence, για να μην είμαι τόσο αφηρημένος = so that I won’t be that absent‑minded / so absent‑minded (as I tend to be). It feels a bit more personal and evaluative than πολύ.

You could say για να μην είμαι πολύ αφηρημένος; it’s grammatical, but τόσο sounds more natural here because we are talking about changing an existing habit/degree.

Does αφηρημένος only mean absent‑minded, or can it also mean abstract?

Αφηρημένος can mean both, depending on context:

For people:
- αφηρημένος άνθρωπος = an absent‑minded person, someone who easily loses focus.
For things / concepts (less common in everyday speech):
- αφηρημένη έννοια = an abstract concept

In this sentence it clearly means absent‑minded, because it describes a person checking where they are.

Grammatically:

αφηρημένος = masculine singular (nominative)
It agrees with the subject (εγώ), which is masculine here by implication.
For a woman speaking, you’d use αφηρημένη:
- Για να μην είμαι τόσο αφηρημένη, …

Why is it στο κινητό and not στο κινητό μου? How do we know it means on my phone?

Greek often uses the definite article with objects that are clearly understood as belonging to the speaker (or to the people involved in the conversation):

το κινητό = the mobile phone
but in context, στο κινητό very often means on my phone / on the phone (I’m using).

Other similar examples:

Πήρα τα κλειδιά. = I took the keys (usually: my keys).
Έχασα το πορτοφόλι. = I lost my wallet.
Άφησα το αυτοκίνητο πιο πέρα. = I left the car a bit further down (normally: my car).

If you want to be explicit, you can say στο κινητό μου, but here στο κινητό is completely natural and usually understood as “my phone” in this everyday context.

Can συχνά go in other places in the sentence? Would the meaning change?

Yes, συχνά (often) is relatively flexible. All of these are grammatical:

ελέγχω συχνά στο κινητό σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι
συχνά ελέγχω στο κινητό σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι
ελέγχω στο κινητό συχνά σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι (a bit less natural)

The most natural positions are:

ελέγχω συχνά στο κινητό…
συχνά ελέγχω στο κινητό…

The meaning doesn’t really change: in all cases, συχνά modifies ελέγχω (how often I check). Changing the position may slightly emphasize συχνά more at the beginning, but it’s mostly a matter of rhythm and style.

Why do we say σε ποια στάση and not just ποια στάση?

In English, we say “which stop I’m at”, and the “at” is required.

Greek also needs its preposition σε here, because the underlying direct question would be:

Σε ποια στάση είμαι; = At which stop am I?

When we turn that into an indirect question inside a larger sentence, we keep σε:

ελέγχω … σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι = I check … at which stop I am.

If you said only ποια στάση βρίσκομαι, it would sound wrong, like saying “which stop I am” in English. The preposition σε shows the spatial relation just like at does in English.

Why use βρίσκομαι instead of just είμαι for location?

Both είμαι and βρίσκομαι can express location, but:

είμαι = I am (very general, can also give location: είμαι στο σπίτι)
βρίσκομαι = I am located / I find myself (more specifically about position / location)

In many contexts of physical location, especially where you’re checking or determining where you are, βρίσκομαι sounds very natural:

Πού βρίσκεσαι τώρα; = Where are you (located) now?
Σε ποιο σημείο του χάρτη βρισκόμαστε; = At what point on the map are we?

Here, σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι emphasizes the idea of “what stop am I currently at (located at)?”, which fits well with checking a route on your phone.

You could say σε ποια στάση είμαι, and it’s understandable and used sometimes, but βρίσκομαι feels slightly more idiomatic in this exact context.

Is σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι a full question by itself, or does it only work inside a longer sentence?

As written, σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι can serve as:

Part of a reported / indirect question inside a larger sentence:
- ελέγχω συχνά στο κινητό σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι
  = I often check on my phone which stop I’m at.
A direct question, if you add a question mark and the right intonation:
- Σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι;
  = At which stop am I?

So grammatically it is a full clause. Inside the long sentence, it functions as the object of ελέγχω (I check what? → σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι).

Could we replace για να with ώστε να here? Would there be a difference?

Yes, you could say:

Ώστε να μην είμαι τόσο αφηρημένος, ελέγχω συχνά στο κινητό σε ποια στάση βρίσκομαι.

Ώστε να also introduces a purpose or result clause. Compared to για να:

για να = the most common, neutral way to express purpose (in order to / so that)
ώστε να = can sound a bit more formal, or can lean slightly towards result or consequence in some contexts

In everyday speech here, για να is more typical and lighter. Ώστε να is not wrong, just a bit more formal/marked in tone.

Why is ελέγχω in the present tense, not something like a future or a different aspect?

Greek present tense (ελέγχω) is used for:

habits / repeated actions
general truths
actions happening now

This sentence describes a habitual strategy the speaker uses:

ελέγχω συχνά = I often check (as a regular habit, not just once)

Using any other tense would change the meaning:

θα ελέγχω συχνά = I will often check (in the future)
έλεγχα συχνά = I used to often check (in the past, habitually)

So the simple present is exactly what is needed for a general statement about what the speaker regularly does.