Learning Romanian language

Originally Posted by Gustaw

Nici pe aceasta nu am știt. [am scris bine?]

Nici pe asta nu am ştiuto

Ştiut-o...

Gustaw, you made an error earlier: nu am (n-am) ştiut, ştit nu e corect.

Marian, Cammy is right, you still use the hyphen într-o/un.

You never write sânt, the old Romanian didn't have the letter and only used î. You can say it but it isn't correct anymore. The writing is definitely outdated.

nu am ştiut=I didn't know
nu am ştiut-o=I didn't know that

I know, you said stiuto as one word. It has the hyphen. I was referring to Gustaw's word stit.

Originally Posted by Gustaw

Și încă în 1984 „sînt” era corect? Ciudat! Dar mersi pentru explicația!

Hello! Before 1989 it was correct the writing with î inside of a word but now rules have changed and we use it only at the beggining and at the end of the word. We call it comunist writing.

Originally Posted by Diana89

Hello! Before 1989 it was correct the writing with î inside of a word but now rules have changed and we use it only at the beggining and at the end of the word.

Salut! Pe asta am știut-o (acum bine? ), dar m-interesa pronunțarea corectă – dacă este încă corect a spune (nu a scrie) [sînt/sânt] în loc de [sunt]. Deja știu că nu.

Originally Posted by Gustaw

Pe asta am știut-o (acum bine? ), dar m-ar interesa pronunțarea corectă – dacă este încă corect a spune (nu a scrie) [sînt/sânt] în loc de [sunt]. Deja știu că nu este.

Multa lume inca mai pronunta sint in loc de sunt ....Cred ca multi asa s-au obisnuit sau poate multi nu sunt la curent cu modificarile facute de Academia Romana . Dar asta nu inseamna ca nu vorbesti corect romaneste .

De ce nu pot să scriu m-interesa (am vrut să folosesc imperfectul... )? Și m-a interesat?

Well, I don't really know how to answer this; better to ask a native because I would think it was correct to say, "it used to interest me", si asta foloseste imperfectul in multe limbi... maybe because "interesa" in writing can be easily confused with the infinitive (thereby rendering it improper, but only interpreted wrong...?) I assume it interested you for more than a brief time, so wouldn't imperfect make sense?

Oh, I just saw Crisa's corrections. What happened is that you need ar before the verb to signify IT was the subject, and ME was the object (IT interested ME)... Even though it's still imperfect, it can, like I said, be confused with the infinitive without the ar to signify that it used to interest you, and not that "it to interest me", which is how it sounds the way you wrote it (I would have thought what you wrote was improper grammar ).

Originally Posted by Gustaw

De ce nu pot să scriu m-interesa (am vrut să folosesc imperfectul... )? Și m-a interesat?

m-a interesat=i was interested (past tense)
am fost interesat=i was interested (perfect compose)

m-interesa=this thing don't exist in romanian language
maybe this.
M-ar interesa=i would have interest (future tense)

Hello everybody!

I can tell u why u can't say ''m-interesa'', but yes u can say m-a interesat. Here it is: short forms of personal pronoun can make one syllable only wyth the auxiliary verb, I mean the verb u use to form a compound tense and not with the verb itself.
So, "m-a" contains a short form of pronoun with preposition pe mine, mă, m- Acusative construction, and auxiliay to have, needed to form Perfect Compound. ''interesa'' is practically the verb with full power, so to say. Other examples:

m-a ascultat but never m-ascultat
ne-a ascultat but never ne-ascultat
l-a ascultat but never l-ascultat

m-a auzit but never m-auzit
v-a auzit but never v-a auzit
te-a auzit but never te-auzit


the same when using conditional, present or perfect, when u need again auxiliary to have and auxialiary to be:

m-ar asculta
m-ar fi ascultat

l-ar auzi
l-ar fi auzit
te-ar vedea
te-ar fi vazut

never m-asculta or l-auzi

I hope u can understand my explanation, if not tell me and i will try again

Mersi! Cred că am înțeles, dar am două întrebări:

1) Cum pot să folosesc imperfectul aici? Dacă m-interesa nu este forma corectă, mă interesa este corecta...?

2) Dacă l-auzi este incorect (sau incorectă?), trebuie să folosesc îl auzi? Înțeleg bine?

Great Gustavo yes, mă interesa and yes îl auzi?

si da, este incorect

numai dacă foloseşti inainte substantivul formă atunci adjectivul se acordă cu substantivul si spui sau scrii formă incorectă. should I translate?

did u go away? do u need anything else?

mike r u here? how s ur romanian going?and what ab u?

should I translate? (...) do u need anything else?

Nu, mulțumesc frumos. Și da, am înțeles.

Și it/this englez în română este acesta sau aceasta, când nu are genul? De exemplu: You’re stupid and I don’t like it este în română Ești prost și acesta nu-mi place ori Ești prost și aceasta nu-mi place?

I think it is acesta maybe, since it's ambiguous and most likely will take the masculine singular...But neutral? I would have said "și nu-mi place" without the "it/this"...

I would have said "și nu-mi place" without the "it/this"...

Ha, that's not a solution! You know what I meant. Now I think it's aceasta, because of this sentence (you probably remember it too): Nici pe asta nu am știut-o., and not: Nici pe ăsta nu l-am știut... It's quite interesting, since I would think it ought to be neutral (in singular = masculine), as it is in Polish for example... Hungarian doesn't have grammatical genders at all, so I can't compare.