# How are articles constructed in Romanian?



## Dix Ponga 9

I have a problem with Genitive/Dative forms. I understand how to put the definite article after the noun in Nominative/Accusative case.

I think it's like this:



Singular
Nom./Acc. (s)
Plural
Nom./Acc. (p)
Romanian
stea
stea*ua*
st*ele*
stea*le*
English
star
the star
stars
the stars



But then I don't know how to construct the Genitive/Dative form. 

What I've found in a pretty bad grammar book is this:



Masculine
Femenine
Singular
Add *<-ui>*
Add *<-ei>*
Plural
Add *<-lor>*
Add *<-lor>*



I do not know if that's completely true. I do not know how to add them either.

I hope anyone can help me. I would love to see examples to understand it better. If I'm wrong with any of these tables, please tell me.


----------



## Reef Archer

No. No, no, no, lol!

First of all, you have to determine the noun's genre.
The noun you took as an example is feminine, and you were right for the singular form.
But *stele* becomes *stelele* in nominative plural; so you add the *-le* suffix, the definite article, to the already declined to plural noun stele.
Therefore, stele + *le* = stele*le*.

There is not a unique form of the definite article. Pretty much as in your yesterday's question, there are general rules (the first syllable of the word is usually the stressed one, for example), but the exceptions to those rules are so many, the rules can barely be called "rules".

Now, once you determined the nouns genre (again... you can't really determine the genre until you begin "to feel" the words, as the rules do not cover all particularities), you may try to add the -*ui*/-*ei*, -*lor*/-*lor* genitive/dative definite articles.

*stea* -> stea*ua* -> stel*ei* (because it's a feminine one, but, as you see, the singular form altered in the process; you simply have to hear it and hear it being used until you get it);
*stele* -> stele*le* -> stele*lor* (this one was easier, since the -*lor* suffix came directly after the plural form of the simple noun).

Then, the next major trouble is with the way nouns end. *Stea* was a tough one, because it ends in -*ea*.
Other feminine nouns which end in other words (-*ă*, -*ie* etc.) might have been better choices - but, again, exceptions come out of nowhere, all the time.

As for masculine and neutral nouns, same thing: general rules are merely... general. They may not always apply.

masculine:
câine -> câinele -> câinelui
câini -> câinii -> câinilor

cățel -> cățelul -> cățelului
căței -> cățeii -> cățeilor

neuter:
ciocan -> ciocanul -> ciocanului
ciocane -> ciocanele -> ciocanelor


----------



## Dix Ponga 9

I knew that book was rubbish... Well, thank you very much again! Maybe what I should do is copy a lot of vocabulary words and then try to memorize their different forms. I guess these examples you have just given me are "regular", aren't they? One more question, is the second table I put in my previous message correct?

Thank you very much and sorry for my poor knowledge


----------



## Reef Archer

Not at all, Dix Ponga 9, haha!

The book was not rubbish at all; it gave you the correct suffixes. But until you add those, you have to feel how the words bend naturally. So, yes, the table from that book is accurate.
The copying and memorizing is also a very bad idea, in my opinion. The languages I tried to study by memorizing words and their meanings are the ones I suck at the most. Listening and pronouncing phrases, however, this is what works best when it comes to learning languages. In my opinion, of course.

Thank YOU for your interest in Romanian. Don't let me or others discourage you by making things look too complicated - they are not, they never are.
Just listen, listen and listen. You know? So many housewives here understand Spanish perfectly, only after months of watching those _telenovelas_. You do the same: find some Romanian on-line shows or radio stations and just... listen. It's as simple as that.
It always is


----------



## Dix Ponga 9

Thank you for your support. Don't be afraid, I am going to study in Bucharest in a couple of years and I really love Romanian culture, so learning Romanian is one of my goals. It's not that difficult being Spanish-speaker, most of the words are nearly the same. In September I'll try to start Romanian lessons, but first I would like to learn the basics (phonology, alphabet, articles, tenses, etc.).

Seriously, thank you for your help! Surely this week I'll be asking lots of things xD


----------



## farscape

There are three genitive-dative forms for the definite article:
  -*(u)**lui* (masculine and neuter, singular), 
 -*i* (feminine, singular)
 -*lor* (plural for all three genders)

The masculine and neuter nouns are pretty tame: in all cases they have one form for singular and one form for the plural.

The feminine nouns are more complex:
 - In the genitive-dative singular the ending before the article is identical to the ending from the nominative plural 
- The form for dative-genitive differs from the form for nominative-accusative and also takes a different form for plural.

A special case is represented by the feminine nouns that take an ending in -*ii* in the nominative-accusative plural (informaţie/informaţii, chelie/chelii) and have an ending in -*ie* in the genitive-dative form (informaţi*e*i/informaţiilor, cheli*e*i/cheliilor).

Examples:
                           Singular                                                                                 Plural
Masculine                     (ciorap) ciorap*ului*                                             ciorapi*lor*
Neuter                                  (butoi) butoi*ului*                                                       butoaie*lor*

Feminine
                         (stea) stel_e_*i*                                                                              stele*lor*
                                         * (chelie) cheli_e_*i*                                                                cheliil*or*
                                                           * (informaţie) informaţi_e_*i*                           informaţii*lor*
                                                                 (floare) flori*i*                                                                           flori*lor*
                                                                 (masă) mese*i*                                                                    mese*lor*

Letters in bold type are the genitive-dative article and the ones  underlined in italics are showing the rule stated above about the  feminine nouns which take an -ii in the plural form. One can see that  following the common rule G_A would have lead to something like  chelie/chelii -> cheli_i_*i*.


Unlike German, figuring out the gender of a noun is pretty easy in  Romanian therefore you shouldn't have problems applying these rules and  their exemptions. Have fun 

Later,


----------



## Dix Ponga 9

@Reef Archer:

I was checking the examples you gave me... _Cățel_ is irregular, isn't it? I think when a singular masculine noun ends with consonant, you have to add an <i>, but in this case the <l> has been removed from the plural forms.

@farscape:

It's a little bit complicated, but I think I get it


----------



## farscape

Dix Ponga 9 said:


> ... _Cățel_ is irregular, isn't it? I think when a singular masculine noun ends with consonant, you have to add an <i>, but in this case the <l> has been removed from the plural forms.



There is no exception with "căţel" - remember what I said earlier:

"There are three genitive-dative forms for the definite article:
  -*(u)**lui* (masculine and neuter, singular), 
 -*i* (feminine, singular)
 -*lor* (plural for all three genders)

The masculine and neuter nouns are pretty tame: in all cases they have one form for singular and one form for the plural."

caţel/căţei
Singular
N/A _> căţel*ul*
G/D -> căţel*ului*

Plural 
N/A -> căţei*i
*G/D -> cătei*lor
*
The letter(s) in bold type are the standard terminations for N/A and G/D.

Clear as mud now? 

Later,


----------



## Dix Ponga 9

Yeah, I know, but I thought I had to add an <i> to _caţel_, not to replace the <l>. I mean, I thought the rule said it should be _caţel-caţeli_ instead of _caţel-caţei_. You know, I thought every word which ends with consonant needed an aditional <i> to form the plural.

Thank you again


----------



## farscape

Dix Ponga 9 said:


> Yeah, I know, but I thought I had to add an <i> to _caţel_, not to replace the <l>. I mean, I thought the rule said it should be _caţel-caţeli_ instead of _caţel-caţei_. You know, I thought every word which ends with consonant needed an aditional <i> to form the plural.
> 
> Thank you again



You're right I was referring to the N/A and D/G declinations which were the topic of your thread - my bad. The rule for masculine nouns in the plural still stands (they get -i termination) the problem is with the stem, which gets a morphophonemic alteration, usually pretty easy to spot.

viţel/viţei (calf)
frate/fraţi (brother)
monstru/monştri (monster)

Best,


----------



## Reef Archer

Dix Ponga 9 said:


> _Cățel_ is irregular, isn't it? I think when a singular masculine noun ends with consonant, you have to add an <i>, but in this case the <l> has been removed from the plural forms.



No, we do not classify nouns as _regular_ and _heteroclite_.
In a sense, they are all irregular.

Look at the three forms _Farscape_ gave you, *-ului*, *-i*, *-lor*.
Now I'm sure some books indicate them as valid - but look again at the example I provided, _*câine*_ (dog). According to those rules, it should be *câine* -> câine*ului* or câinel*ului*, which is not the case. So, either the rule is wrong, or the word should not exist. But the word exists and it's doing just fine.

Here's another example - the English talking world would label this word as _irregular_:

om -> o*a*m*eni*​
I mean... you just look at that and ask yourself, 'Where the hell did all these extra letters come from? It defies all the rules I know of.'
It's just the way it is: un om (a man) -> doi oameni (two men), in spite of all the rules.
And then you'll see *pom* (tree). Pretty much the same thing, right? Not exactly...

pom -> pom*i*​
So why isn't it *pom* -> *poameni*? Or why isn't it *om* -> *omi*?
It's just the way it is.

And then here comes the third similar noun, *con* (cone of a pine tree).

con -> con*uri*​
What? It can't be!
Yes, it can.
So, which one is more regular than the other? What's the rule? Because you can't articulate them unless you know their gender and their singular/plural form.

No rule at all. They simple exist the way they do. Hence my repeatedly given advice: forget about the rules. Start reading sentences and see the words being used in their proper forms, always different in different context. Nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and articles change their form when declined, verbs do the the same thing when conjugated. Rules are simply too many. They may seem crystal clear to those with years of practice, but they are nothing but confusing to those who are just starting.
Come on...


----------



## farscape

The "rule" for G/D masculine and neuter nouns says in fact that the first *u of the termination "-ului" is not always there - thanks RA for pointing this out. Another example is soare - soarelui or ciorchine - ciorchinelui. Looks like a pattern, isn't it? 

As a matter of fact those "rules" come from the Romanian grammar books... One has to start somewhere and being cognisant of those rules helps them to know what to look for when reading a text or following a conversation in Romanian. 


Later,*


----------

