# Macedonian: Definite Articles



## cr00mz

Hello

I want to know about the definite articles, is there a rule or something similar to how the articles work? I was thinking for example when translating from English to Macedonian. Every time *THE* is used, do you use a article? Or are there some rules, that sometimes if a word/sentence in English uses the definite article, it is not always possible in Macedonian to also use a article.

Sorry if it sounds confusing.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

cr00mz said:


> Hello
> 
> I want to know about the definite articles, is there a rule or something similar to how the articles work? I was thinking for example when translating from English to Macedonian. Every time *THE* is used, do you use a article? Or are there some rules, that sometimes if a word/sentence in English uses the definite article, it is not always possible in Macedonian to also use a article.
> 
> Sorry if it sounds confusing.


Yes, of course. However, please keep in mind that there are small difference in using definite articles between such languages as English, French/Spanich, German.
The usage of definite articles in Bulgarian/Macedonian is close to German, not so close to English.


----------



## iobyo

It would probably be impossible to explain all the differences in one thread, but I've found a major one:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> However, in English, unlike in some other languages such as French, the definite article is absent before familiar but intangible concepts such as "happiness": _Happiness is contagious_ is correct, whereas _The happiness is contagious_ is not unless a very specific example of happiness is referred to. _The_ is also omitted when the noun refers to a generic mass object (_Coffee grows in Colombia_) or to a generic collection of countable objects (_Cars have_ _accelerators_).





_Среќата е заразна_ ('Happiness is contagious'), but: 
_Кафе расте во Коломбија_ ('Coffee grows in Colombia');
_Кафето расте во Коломбија_ ('The [particular] coffee [which we are/were talking about] grows in Colombia'); 
 
_Коли имаат педали за гас _('Cars have gas pedals');
_Колите имаат педали за гас_ ('The [particular] cars [which we are/were talking about] have gas pedals').


----------



## cr00mz

@Christo Tamarin 
OK, I learned German in school, unfortunately i have forgotten a lot of grammatic.

@Iobyo

OK, do you have some information about the use of articles, some articles (for reading)


----------



## Marski

iobyo said:


> It would probably be impossible to explain all the differences in one thread, but I've found a major one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Среќата е заразна_ ('Happiness is contagious'), but:
> _Кафе расте во Коломбија_ ('Coffee grows in Colombia');
> _Кафето расте во Коломбија_ ('The [particular] coffee [which we are/were talking about] grows in Colombia');
> 
> _Коли имаат педали за гас _('Cars have gas pedals');
> _Колите имаат педали за гас_ ('The [particular] cars [which we are/were talking about] have gas pedals').



"_Коли имаат педали за гас _('Cars have gas pedals');"

This doesn't sound right to me, I'd never use that expression without an article. It would be "_Колите имаат педали за гас._" for both situations and the meaning would have to be decided from context.


----------



## cr00mz

@Marski

To me the kafe sentence and cars sentence sounds similar, so if the first one can get by without article, why not the second? Unless it has something to do with verb "have".


----------



## Marski

I'm sorry for the very late answer, but yes, the kafe sentence needs the article too.


----------



## iobyo

On second thought, I'm tempted to think my fellow natives are correct.

Better translations might be as follows:



_Среќата е заразна_ ('Happiness is contagious'); 
_Кафето расте во Коломбија_ ('Coffee grows in Colombia', 'the plant coffee');
_Кафе расте во Коломбија_ ('Coffee does/can grow in Colombia'). 
 
_Колите имаат педали за гас _('Cars have gas pedals');
_Коли имаат педали за гас_ ('Some cars have gas pedals'). 
 

...or something like that. 

Here a short little excerpt from a grammar book of another interesting feature of the article. I'll translate the rest of the chapter and PM it to you, if you'd like.




> In its true service the article designates the definiteness of a given object, its separation from the generic concept to which it belongs. Thus, for example, while the form _дрво_ awakens a generic concept in us,  the form _дрвото_ indicates a specific item of that kind.
> 
> Not always when we think of the object or when we can think of it as unknown does the noun occur with an articulated form. We have, on the contrary, a number of cases where the non-articulated form is more common, although the same statement may be rendered with an articulated form. Above all this includes constructions with a preposition as in _на глава_, _за рака_, _до гуша_ and so on. The sentence _тој ја фати за рака_ can be rendered both with an articulated form and without one: _тој ја фати за раката._ This indicates that the object is definite. However, the constructions with a non-articulated form take on an adverbial meaning, which can develop to such an extent that it would not be possible to articulate the noun without disturbing the meaning of the expression. Thus the sentence _ми дојде веќе до гуша_ can not be adequately replaced with: _ми дојде веќе до гушата._


----------



## Duya

> However, the constructions with a non-articulated form take on an adverbial meaning, which can develop to such an extent that it would not be possible to articulate the noun without disturbing the meaning of the expression. Thus the sentence ми дојде веќе до гуша can not be adequately replaced with: ми дојде веќе до гушата.


Followup question: In BCS, _guša_ is archaic ("fossil word"), _vrat_ being the unmarked term, and preserved only in fixed expressions like _do guše_ or _hvatati za gušu_. Thus, such expressions have an adverbial meaning. Is it the same in Macedonian?


----------



## iobyo

Duya said:


> Followup question: In BCS, _guša_ is archaic ("fossil word"), _vrat_ being the unmarked term, and preserved only in fixed expressions like _do guše_ or _hvatati za gušu_. Thus, such expressions have an adverbial meaning. Is it the same in Macedonian?



_Гуша_ does occur in many fixed adverbial expressions, but it's far from being a fossil word: _гуша _is the external front part of the neck and _грло_ is what's directly behind it, the internal front part of the neck. _Врат _is the entire part of the body between the head and torso. There's also _шија _referring specifically the back part of the neck, but it's hardly ever used.


----------

