Talk:Romanian grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This article needs filling in a lot of blanks (obviously). Be sure to mention clitic doubling and compare to other Romance languages. --Pablo D. Flores 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we badly need some Romanian speakers here. Maybe they're just too poor to waste their time on online encyclopaedias over there. — Chameleon 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... that's an interesting theory Chameleon, because the Romanian Wikipedia is well-over the 10,000 articles figure, while the Greek Wiki, the Hungarian Wiki, the Lithuanian Wiki, the Icelandic Wiki and so on are all still below 10,000 articles. There's plenty of Romanian users on this English Wiki also---it's just that there are too many other articles that attract attention. A Romanian grammar article reminds too many Romanians of those boring high school classes. Alexander 007 15:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] cases

i've changed some stuff related to the cases, of which there should be 3, not 5... i'm using the terms 'Direct' for nominative/accusative and 'Indirect' for dative/genitive, as was put on the Latin page... this better reflects the current situation for Romanian cases Exit 06:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article in Romanian

It is often said that the definite article in Romanian is a clitic (an enclitic to be specific). However, I wonder if this is correct, as it seems to me that it behaves more like an affix. I am a native Romanian speaker, but I can't figure this one out. --AdiJapan 05:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • according to the definitions, i think it appears that the definite article is definitely enclitic, especially since the definite article can combine with adjectives as well as nouns The fact that it is written as part of the word it attaches to is merely an orthographic convention... also, it confirms that the definite article is syntactically free, if it were an affix, it would be bound to the noun and only the noun.. not sure of the latin origins, but i'm guessing in contexts of NOUN + ADJECTIVE, the article must intercede? c.f. (Ştefan cel Mare = Stephen the Great)


omul = man.DEF = the man
bunul om = good.DEF man = the good man
*bun omul

this could possibly have implications for the romanian case system as really the bulk of case marking (except feminine singular genitive/dative) is on the cliticized definite article

Exit 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the definite article in Romanian is a clitic. It is part of the noun declension. A clitic is a word that doesn't have its own accent, but is attached to the following or preceding word, in the sense that they are pronounced as a single word. However, a clitic is an independent word morphologically and syntactically. The Romanian definite article changes its form according to the noun it determines, compare om - omul with munte - muntele. Both nouns are masculine singular, so if the article were a clitic, it should have had the same form in both cases. In linguistics, this declension category is called spesies (the same way as case stands for nominative, accusative, etc., spesies stands for definite and indefinite). About the example of bunul om, the explanation is that Romanian has no spesies congruence - that is, in one constituent, only one element receives the spesies marker (article), and that element is the first one. In Basque there is the same situation, except that the spesies, case and number markers go to the last element of the noun phrase. Compare:

gizon = man,

gizona = the man,

gizon on = good man,

gizon ona = the good man.

On the other hand, Swedish does have spesies congruence:

man = man,

mannen = the man,

god man = good man,

den goda mannen = the good man.

So I think the Romanian definite article is not a clitic, but part of the noun (and adjective) declension. Dumiac 20:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference on this? It would be interesting to mention it in the article. However, most grammarians (at least all sources I've read) agree that the Romanian definite article is a clitic, so we'll have to stick to that. --AdiJapan 03:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Clitics are known to change according to the head/dependent they refer to; you can see that in the Hindi Genitive clitic, which alternates between "kaa", "ko", "ke" and I think "kii" according to the gender and number of the noun before it. The exact same thing occurs with the Romanian article. That's why it is definitely a clitic. —N-true 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cacophony

There is no mention of cacophony. Besides, from DEX Online:

Documentul ăsta e plin de cacofonii!
Da. Autorul acestui document nu crede în cacofonii. Dacă alăturarea a două cuvinte inofensive îi duce pe unii cu gândul la trivialităţi, este problema lor. De multe ori, construcţiile la care ajungem încercând să evităm o cacofonie zgârie urechea mai rău decât cacofonia însăşi. Alte limbi nu se străduie deloc să le evite şi autorul crede că spaima pe care cacofoniile le provoacă vorbitorilor de limbă română se datorează numai automatismelor învăţate în şcoala primară.

Is this attitude common?

That is the personal opinion of the person who created the website, and it does not come from the DEX itself. Actually he states somewhere that he is not a linguist, but a programmer. Although I tend to agree that his attitude is reasonable and sane, the majority of native Romanian speakers are aware of cacophonies (in particular those word pairs which by joining create sound sequences such as /kaka/, /kakə/, /kəka/ etc.) and try to avoid them. Romanian linguists, such as George Pruteanu (see here), say that cacophonies should be avoided, especially in formal writing/speeches or poetry, but that we should not get too paranoid about them. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns in Latin

At the moment, there is utter nonsense about the Latin pronoun 'ille'. It goes like this if my brain's right:

sg.

N. ille, illa, illud

G. illius, illius, illius

D. illi, illi, illi

A. illum, illam, illud

Ab. illo, illa, illo

pl.

N. illi, illae, illa

G. illorum, illarum, illorum

D. illis, illis, illis

A. illos, illas, illa

Ab. illis, illis, illis

As I don't really know what the etymology is, I haven't corrected the article. It's not correct at the moment, this is for sure. 217.50.143.160 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a new reference in the article, an article by Maria Aldea. See page 24 there for the etymology. I have seen this table also in other sources. I'm not a specialist either, but my understanding is that the Romanian definite and indefinite articles derive not from classical Latin, but vulgar Latin, which might explain the differences. — AdiJapan ☎ 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add more on genitive pronouns and prepositions that take the genitive

The table of pronouns should be expanded to list the feminine forms. Also, the section on prepositions should be expanded with an explicit list of prepositions that take the genitive — including, specifically, prepositions requiring a feminine genitive form when the object is a pronoun (e.g., împotriva mea). Richwales 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumneata — impolite?

The page was just updated with a statement saying that the pronoun dumneata "is only used when addressing a person that one finds undesirable, or not worthy of respect, but with whom one cannot resort to using the simple personal pronoun tu (you), due to not actually being acquainted with that person." Can someone cite a source for this? Richwales (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the explanation of dumneata is at least inaccurate. It is still a polite pronoun, used by many (especially by the elderly) as such, without implying undesirability or lack of respect. In fact, several dictionaries record it as a polite pronoun and no dictionary points out a negative connotation. Many decades ago dumneata was the most frequent polite pronoun (after being the only), and has been gradually replaced by dumneavoastră. This gives dumneata an archaic note today. It may also be perceived as intermediate between tu and dumneavoastră (on the scale of politeness degree), most probably because many old people often use it instead of tu when talking to younger people, in situations where others might hesitate in choosing between tu and dumneavoastră. However, linguist Narcisa Forăscu, in her Dificultăţi gramaticale ale limbii române, puts dumneata and dumneavoastră in the same category of polite pronouns (without evaluating their degree of politeness), while she places tu, dînsul etc. in a separate category of plain personal pronouns. (Her book used to be on the internet, but now you can only see it cached, for example here.) — AdiJapan ☎ 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A less reliable, albeit rather direct source for my statement, which, I admit, is a bit extreme for the sheer purpose of urging language learners not to use the pronoun dumneata, simply because they risk to be misunderstood, resides here. The forum entries read:
“ What happened is that at some point only using the formal pronoun "dumneata" wasn't seen as polite enough, but you also had to use plural just like in French. This way "dumneata" fell out of use. Its contraction "mata" is probably much more used, but it is very informal, and to me it seems that people use it only when talking with very old villagers. No kidding. Being polite now means using "dumneavoastră" and putting the verb to second person plural even when you talk to a single person. I personally hate and would preffer "dumneata" it but nobody asked me. (sic) ”
A sloppy grammar and lax vocabulary skills seem to indicate that this contributor is an average native Romanian speaker, experiencing the typical difficulties of the English language. From his contribution, it is evident how people feel about the replacing of dumneata with dumneavoastră, namely that it should not have happened, but nevertheless, has. Of course, opinions are split, as always... My solution would be the replacing of the somewhat troublesome phrase "only used when addressing a person that one finds undesirable, or not worthy of respect" with a statement clarifying its gradually deprecating usage. Incidentally, AdiJapan pointed out that old people use dumneata to address young people. I have seen this usage very rarely, but have seen young (and often middle-class) people using dumneata to address old people of inferior social status. Hoping I haven't created too much of a misunderstanding, I leave the decision to you. --Danielsavoiu (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a few notes:
  1. Using a discussion forum as a source is way below what WP:RS recommends.
  2. Using the discussion forum to derive conclusions on language use is original research.
  3. "Urging language learners" to use or not to use a word or another is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
However, I agree with Danielsavoiu that dumneata has very much fallen out of use today and that it is mostly used by or toward older speakers, also depending on the social context. I would say it practically never appears in a dialog where no old person is involved. The article should indeed say someting about dumneata having become obsolete. The fact that it is intermediate between tu and dumneavoastră probably also stems from dumneata being used with the singular of the verb, like tu, but unlike dumneavoastră. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mamă-mamă

Attribute: Mi-am luat o fustă mamă-mamă. I bought a cool dress.

I've never heard this expression before in my life. Can someone confirm? 142.167.83.171 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)