# îmi aduce, mi-a adus



## mike2008

Bună!
I'm very confused about two sentences someone used as examples in a previous thread [a gypsy has eaten...].

_*"îmi* aduce Dan pisica_ = _Dan brings me the cat"_
_"îmi aduce" = brings me. I thought "bring" = "a aduce", so where has the "a" gone? Also I don't understand the order of the words, in English this would sound like "me bring Dan cat" which has a very different meaning. _

_*"mi*-a adus pisica_ = _He brought me the cat"_
_"mi-a adus" = brought me. I think "mi-" is an abbreviation of "îmi". But I also thought that "brought" was just "adus", so where has the "a" come from? Also I can' t see any indication to it been "He brought", where's the "he"_
_Pa._


----------



## Kraus

Hi! 

"A aduce" is only the infinitive of the verb (the "a" disappears in any other form of it): eu aduc, tu aduci, el aduce, etc. The "a" of the second sentence (mi-a) is the third person singolar of the auxiliary verb "a avea" (eu am, tu ai, el a, noi am, voi aţi, ei au; pay attention: these form are used only in the compound tenses, otherwise the right forms are "am, ai, are, avem, aveţi, au"). 

As for the order of the first sentence, I'm confused too. Maybe it's an emphatic way to say "it's Dan who brings me the cat".


----------



## janecito

Although I think comparing everything to English it is not the best thing to do – specially as far as sentence structures etc. go – it might help you to understand the 'a' from 'a duce' if you see it as the equivalent of English 'to' in 'to bring'. That of course doesn't mean, that they are used in the same way.

'a' from 'a adus' is of course a different one, but Kraus has already explained that.

Personal pronouns (I, you, he, she, etc.) can be omitted unless you want to stress the subject. It works like that in most Romance languages (with the exception of French, I guess).


----------



## mike2008

Thank you janecito and Kraus. I'm still confused.
"The "a" of the second sentence (mi-a) is the third person singular of the auxiliary verb "a avea" (eu am, tu ai, el a, noi am, voi aţi, ei au; pay attention: these form are used only in the compound tenses, otherwise the right forms are "am, ai, are, avem, aveţi, au"). "
I'm having trouble understanding this because I don't know what a "second sentence", "third person singular of the auxiliary verb" or "compound tenses" are [maybe I should be learning English not Romanian]. Is there a more simple way to explain. Also could someone please explain the order of the words, so I can learn more about sentence structure.
"_*mi*-a adus pisica"_ I would still like to know why this is "he brought".
Bye.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

mike2008 said:


> I'm having trouble understanding this because I don't know what a "second sentence", "third person singular of the auxiliary verb" or "compound tenses" are [maybe I should be learning English not Romanian]. Is there a more simple way to explain. Also could someone please explain the order of the words, so I can learn more about sentence structure.
> "_*mi*-a adus pisica"_ I would still like to know why this is "he brought".


 
Remember that Romanian is like French and Italian when it comes to expressing an action in the *past*, in that all three use a *compound tense*, which is nothing more than an _*auxiliary + participle*_:

To form the Present Perfect in Romanian, you always use the auxiliary "_a *avea*_ (_*am, ai, a, am, aţi, au*_)" plus the _*participle *_of the verb you use:

1st Person Singular: _*Am* *avut*, *Am* __*văzut*, *Am* *căzut*_...
2nd Person Singular: _*Ai* *avut*, *Ai* *văzut*, *Ai* *căzut*_...
3rd Person Singular: _*A* *avut*, *A* *văzut*, *A* *căzut*_...

In English you can translate it as:
1st Person Singular: *I had*/I have had, *I saw*/I have seen, *I fell*/I have fallen.
And so on.

It's rare to find the simple past in Romanian, so you must work with two words rather than one.

_*Mi*-a adus pisica _

Compare to:
Italian: _*Mi* ha portato il gatto_.
French: _Il *m*'a apporté le chat_. (Notice the subject pronoun "il" which equals "he", which is mandatory in French)
Spanish: _*Me *ha traído el gato / Me trajó el gato_. (Notice that in Spanish and Portuguese we would use the simple past rather than a compound tense)

Enjoy.


----------



## OldAvatar

mike2008 said:


> Bună!
> I'm very confused about two sentences someone used as examples in a previous thread [a gypsy has eaten...].
> 
> _*"mi*-a adus pisica_ = _He brought me the cat"_
> _"mi-a adus" = brought me. I think "mi-" is an abbreviation of "îmi". But I also thought that "brought" was just "adus", so where has the "a" come from? Also I can' t see any indication to it been "He brought", where's the "he"_
> _Pa._



Actually, _mi- _is an abbreviation of _mie _(*to me*) and not of _îmi_. It is a short form (and the only acceptable) of _a adus mie _*([he] brought me)*. In order to understand why _a adus_ means *he/she brought*, see conjugation of compound perfect (past tense) in Romanian.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

I was under the impression that all *stressed* forms of the personal pronouns were invariable.

Wouln't "_a adus *mie*_" be the same thing as _"a adus pe *mine*_"?

For that matter I thought "îmi" was the unstressed form used when the pronoun precedes the compound tense (rather than "mie" which always follows, correct?).

Or do I owe an apology?


----------



## OldAvatar

Serinus, _mine _from _A adus pe mine_ is accusative. _Mie _is dative.

_A adus pe mine_ (it sounds pretty weird anyway, _m-a adus_ being the correct form) = He brought me (*He brought me there*, for example, *He showed me the wa*y, *He took me there*, *He picked me up on the way* *to *etc.)
_A adus mie_ = *He brought* (*something*) *TO me* (a gift, for example)


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Yes, I'm aware of that.

My question though is whether or not the stressed forms (accusative or dative) can be modified or not. My analysis (as a foreigner):

Dative *stressed* "Postpus": “_a adus *mie*_”
Dative *unstressed* "Antepus": "_*mi*-a adus_"

But now I'm confused since you said "mi-" was the contraction of "mie" and not "îmi" like I thought.


----------



## janecito

OldAvatar said:


> Actually, _mi- _is an abbreviation of _mie _(*to me*) and not of _îmi_. It is a short form (and the only acceptable) of _a adus mie _*([he] brought me)*. In order to understand why _a adus_ means *he/she brought*, see conjugation of compound perfect (past tense) in Romanian.



I actually agree with SerinusCanaria. Could you, if you really wanted to stress the dative, use both:

Mie mi-a plăcut. (Nu ţie.)?

I'm not sure whether Romanian here works like Spanish or like Italian. But such example should prove that *mi-* is an abbreviated unstressed form (*îmi*), not the stressed one (*mie*). After all, in present tense, the sentence would be:

Mie îmi place (Not: Mie mie place.)


----------



## OldAvatar

It doesn't make any difference. _Mie mi-a plăcut_ is just a repetition of _mie_, in order to emphasise the feeling. The normal way to say it is just _Mi-a plăcut_! _mi-_ is not a short version of _îmi_, but of _mie.

Mie îmi place_ is a different matter. You will see it written _Mie-mi place_ and not _Mie mi-place_. the dash is substituting the missing letter. So, I agree with you on that one. See also the different tenses of the verb between those two situations.

Conclusion: If you've got the hyphen at the end of mi-, then it is _mie_. If you've got it in front of it, then it will be _îmi._


----------



## janecito

OldAvatar said:


> Conclusion: If you've got the hyphen at the end of mi-, then it is _mie_. If you've got it in front of it, then it will be _îmi._



Hmm. Is that you rule or have you actually taken it from somewhere. Cause all the Romanian grammar books I am able to check right now seem to disagree with you. Here is what one of them says:

*PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN DATIVE*
stressed from | unstressed form (variants of unstressed form depending on the position and context)
*mie | îmi (mi-, -mi, -mi-)
ţie | îţi (ţi-, -ţi, -ţi-)
lui | îi (i-, -i, -i-)
ei | îi (i-, -i, -i-)
nouă | ne (ne-, -ne, -ni-)
vouă | vă (v-, -vă, -vi-)
lor | le (le-, -le, -li-)*


----------



## OldAvatar

Listen! I'm here to discuss, to help people if I can and also to get some help when needed. I'm not here to create rules, or to try yo prove a thing or another. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I'm not insisting that you're wrong. So, you better give up using pathetic rhetorical questions on me.

The above example was not a gramatical rule, it was a way of saying, so you, as a foreigner, can better understand how it works. In that particular case, the hyphen follows the logic.

Your example:

*Mi-a plăcut!*
You've got the reflexive pronoun _mi_-. As you probably know, you detect the pronoun by answering the question *to whom* - _cui (a plăcut)_? The answer to that question is *to me* - _mie _and not _îmi.
_Reading a bit about voices (diateze) would probably help a foreigner to understand how it works.


----------



## janecito

OldAvatar said:


> Listen! I'm here to discuss, to help people if I can and also to get some help when needed. I'm not here to create rules, or to try yo prove a thing or another. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I'm not insisting that you're wrong. So, you better give up using pathetic rhetorical questions on me.


 This discussion has, unfortunately, taken a rather "unlinguistic" turn here. That's why I shall refrain from further comments in this thread.


----------



## Zamolxis

janecito said:


> *PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN DATIVE*
> stressed from | unstressed form (variants of unstressed form depending on the position and context)
> *mie | îmi (mi-, -mi, -mi-)*
> *ţie | îţi (ţi-, -ţi, -ţi-)*
> *lui | îi (i-, -i, -i-)*
> *ei | îi (i-, -i, -i-)*
> *nouă | ne (ne-, -ne, -ni-)*
> *vouă | vă (v-, -vă, -vi-)*
> *lor | le (le-, -le, -li-)*


I'm not a linguist to care about all little details... so too me it seems you guys are fighiting too much about sth of little importance.

It's not like we're dealing with two different meanings of _mi-. _Whether it's the stressed or the unstressed form is of minor importance for somebody trying to learn the most basic rules & vocabulary of the language. In both cases it means "_to me_".

Knowing if "_mi-_" comes from the stressed form or not is something 99% of the Romanians themselves (except for teachers, linguists etc) won't know. Kudos to janecito for knowing that (well... at least for heaving the right books in the house). 

- - -

@mike2008: dunno if the posts above clarified the issue for you. If not yet, say it. I could try explaining from a different perspective.


----------

