# the article "le"



## wanipa

Salut!

I've got two sentences:

1. Haidți, sarmalele sunt gata.

2. Mulțumesc pentru sarmale.

Both would be translated as "the sarmale". Why do we use article 
for the first one and do not use in the second one?

Mulțumesc!


----------



## irinet

If you read about the definite article and its use, you'll see that there are 5 or 6 circumstances when the article doesn't come into play. Your example is one of these: when the _noun is_ _preceded by a preposition and nothing comes after.
_
1.Mulțumesc _pentru cină [0]._
2.Mulțumesc _pentru cina minunată.

As you can read, there's a modifier following 'dinner' in no.2. So, we use the article._


----------



## farscape

wanipa said:


> ....
> 1. Haid*e*ți, sarmale*le* sunt gata.
> 
> 2. Mulțumesc pentru sarmale.
> 
> ...



To stress out a bit more the context adding to irinet's input :

1. You know, _those_ sauerkraut rolls we are going to eat...
2. Thanks for making/sending sauerkraut rolls (generic, sarmale w/o a qualifier)

It's just the way we speak


----------



## danielstan

In Romanian there are Latin inherited words with special treatment of singular/plural forms:
lat. _stella_ > rom. _stea_ (singular), but lat. _stellae_ > rom. _stele_ (plural)
lat. _maxilla_ > rom. _măsea_ (sg.); lat. _maxillae_ : rom. _măsele_ (pl.)

This phonetic rule was applied (uncounsciously) on Turkish or Greek loanwods with similar ending:
_sarma_ (sg.) / _sarmale_ (pl.)
_para_ / _parale_
etc.

The 2nd _le_ in _sarmale_*le* is the definite article for feminine plural (< lat. _illae_):
_sarmale*le*_ = "the" _sarmale_


----------

