# "La" used in the accusative



## SerinusCanaria3075

I'm running into a problem here. As I understand the preposition _*la*_ can either mean _to_ or _at_. My question is if the noun after _*la*_ has to be in the accusative as a general rule in order to express the following:

Ne ducem *la* mare.

I assume when the noun is in the accusative *la* is understood as "*to the*", correct?


----------



## OldAvatar

Well, I must admit that your issues are really challenging. 
I think that if you see preposition _la_, that means that any substantive following respective preposition will be in accusative case. But you should notice that, in Romanian, the accusative is determined by following the questions it answers to.
For example:
Where do you go? We go to the seashore.
Unde mergeţi? Mergem la mare.
That means that _mare _is accusative.
So, my point of view is that a foreigner, but not only, should focus on learning the questions which establish the case, instead of a particular rule...


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

OldAvatar said:


> So, my point of view is that a foreigner, but not only, should focus on learning the questions which establish the case, instead of a particular rule...


So for example, I make a question to someone:
"Who do you want to free?"

Now depending on the answer I will either:
1. use "_*la*_" before the noun.
2. use the *definite article* (obviously attached) with the accusative noun.

So is there only one answer or which of the following two is wrong?:
1. Vrem ca el să elibereze *la* popor. (I'm guessing this one is wrong)
2. Vrem ca el să elibereze popor*ul*. (what someone gave me a while back)


----------



## OldAvatar

Well.... The first one is indeed wrong. The second one is correct.
To identify the accusative case, in this situation, you go for the question _*What *to free? _So, answering the question _what?_, you know that the noun _poporul _will be in accusative case.
Where did you come up with this Communist phrase, anyway?


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Ahh.. So this is one of those things I guess time will teach you, sort of. Eventually I'll get it, sooner or later.

One last thing I noticed is that whether you use _*la*_ or _*-ul*_ you can always add the possessive adjective after the noun (although you must add the definite article to the noun when using the _*la *_construction).
Mă gândesc adesea *la* copilâria mea.

Either way this would be a whole different topic. 
Thanks for the help.


----------



## OldAvatar

_ Mă gândesc adesea *la* copilăria mea_ would be the same situation as in _Vrem ca el să elibereze popor*ul.
*_In order to understand the cases in Romanian, you should learn the questions that the noun answers to...
what?, how?, when?, where?, for example, they all determine the Accusative.
Who? determine the Nominative
Whom? the Dative
To whom? The Genitive
etc


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

So _this_ is what they mean with "case" question, finally I see the logic to it! It's much clearer now (I had seen it while learning the genitival article, "_whose_" as the case question), finally makes sense.

Thanks.



OldAvatar said:


> Where do you go? We go to the seashore.
> Unde mergi? Mergem la mare.


One very small detail here. Shouldn't it be "unde mergeţi?" in the 2nd person plural? Assuming you're talking to a group of people.


----------



## OldAvatar

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> One very small detail here. Shouldn't it be "unde mergeţi?" in the 2nd person plural? Assuming you're talking to a group of people.



Yes! Sure! Sorry about that! . You are right! I figured out the phrase in English first, so that's why I probably got it wrong!


----------



## jazyk

Prepositions are typically followed by an article-less noun (except cu, with). They are articulated if you add information to their meaning:

Merg la mare. (la is a preposition and no article is used after it).
Merg la marea unde mergeam când eram copil (now you're determining it so the article should be used).
Merg la mare cu autobuzul (even though you're not determining what bus it is, you typically use the article with cu, as I said above).



> So is there only one answer or which of the following two is wrong?:
> 1. Vrem ca el să elibereze *la* popor. (I'm guessing this one is wrong)
> 2. Vrem ca el să elibereze popor*ul*. (what someone gave me a while back)


I don't think I've ever seen la with the direct object. With the dative, though, it is used when your indirect object can't take the dative suffix:
Văd două femei. I see two women. - accusative
Dau la două femei un cadou. I give two women (două doesn't have a dative form) a present. - dative
But if you want to specify what women you gave the present to, celui (m./n.), celei (f.) or celor (pl.) are used according to gender and la is kicked out:
Dau celor două femei pe care le văd un cadou. I give the two women I see a present.


----------



## OldAvatar

Very impressive analyze, Jazyk. However, I'm not that sure about this one:
* Dau la două femei un cadou.*
Since the question is _to whom?_, I'll go for Dative form: *Dau unor două femei un cadou. Unor *is a perfect Dative form here.


----------



## jazyk

My book says that la is used with numbers above one to indicate the dative. The example they give is: Au vândut bilete la patru studenţi. - They sold tickets to four students. But I understand you're showing restrictions to the use of _la două_, you're not stating it's downright wrong (or are you? )

Okay, if you don't like my original example , what about this: Am trimis invitaţii la mulţi prieteni. - I sent invitations to many friends?


----------



## OldAvatar

I've learned that _la_ is always imposing the accusative. The form you gave as examples are very often used in spoken language, but, to be honest, I'm not sure if they are correct anymore. 
For example:
Am trimis invitaţii la mulţi prieteni. - incorrect
Am trimis invitaţii multor prieteni. - correct
Au vândut bilete la patru studenţi. - incorrect
Au vândut bilete unor patru studenţi. - correct

Since there is a Dative form in Romanian, I guess that we should use that form and we should not replace it with an Accusative form.


----------



## jazyk

I didn't know you could you use _unor_ in these cases. I love the dative and I don't think there's a reason not to use it. Let's all use it!


----------



## aurette

I remember one of my Romanian teachers saying that using *la* instead of the Dative is definitely a mistake, a common one in spoken language.
She also said Romanian, like many other Romance languages, is heading towards the loss of its cases... so use them while you still can


----------

