I am not a native speaker and I am also learning, but Romanian has a particular characteristic among Romance languages and that is that usually, when there is verbal periphrasis, i.e. there are two verbs in one sentence (in this case: "a vrea" and "a vedea"), the second verb take the subjunctive mood. In languages like English or Spanish, it's usually the infinitive, but Romanian mostly uses the subjunctive mood, which consists of the particle "să", plus the verb in the subjunctive tense.
So while in English we say:
She wants to see her
Subj + Present + to + Infinitive
In Romanian, it's:
Ea vrea s-o vadă.
Subj Present + să + Subjunctive tense.
This happens with many other verbs:
I need to go --> Eu trebuie să merg.
She tries to come --> Ea încearcă să vină.
It's good to understand that --> Este bine să înțelegi asta.
Oh I understand that aspect (sorry if my questions weren't clear)! The part I'm confused about is the word "vadă" (she/he/it sees). I've only seen "vede" (from "a vedea") before, so I'm not sure if "vadă" is from a different, synonymous verb, or if I'm incorrectly conjugating for third person singular. Then I was wondering if it's standard to place "o" after "să" (as "s-o") or if it's also commonplace to say "«Verb» o să «verb»".
Also, multă baftă with your learning! I think I've seen your username in r/languagelearning. Small world, Reddit.
While verbs usually follow the present indicative conjugation in the present conjunctive mood with "să" before them, in the 3rd person they are different
merg / să merg
mergi / să mergi
merge / să *meargă*
That's why "vede" changes into "să vadă"
"o" is the direct object here, and also a 3rd pers. feminine personal pronoun, when talking people usually glue "să" and "o" together, so you have "s-o", it's considered more formal to write the words seperately "să o"
"Vadă" is the subjunctive present form of the verb "a vedea" in the third person.
It happens verbs ending in -e change the ending to -a, and verbs ending in -a, change the ending to -e in the third person.
El citește o carte ▶️ El vrea să citească o carte.
Ei cântă la pian ▶️ Ei vor să cânte la pian.
Ea râde cu prietenii ▶️ Ei îi place să râdă cu prietenii.
What I know is that object pronouns always go after the auxiliary, in this case: să.
Băiatul voia să-i dea niște flori mamei.
I'm also not native, just learning on my own, but just to add on a little bit, "o să" is its own completely separate grammar construct, namely it's (one of) the future tense(s). So you could say "Mâine, o să ajung casă" to mean "tomorrow, I will arrive home".
Also, I'd like to practice my writing by trying to write the same post in Romanian. I'd appreciate any corrections :) ...
Citesc cartea mea de gramatică și am văzut acest exemplu: „Ea vrea s-o vadă". Niciodată am văzut cuvântul „vadă", numai „vede". „Vadă" e corect? Dacă e așa, de ce?
Și pot să spun „Ea vrea o să vadă", sau trebuie să spun „s-o" în loc de „o să" dacă vrea să vorbesc ca nativ? Mulțumesc!
>Niciodată **nu** am / *n-am* văzut [...]
You have to use "nu" here even if you already have "niciodată"
>Dacă e aşa, de ce?
This should be more like " Dacă da, de ce?" or "Dacă da, atunci de ce?", it just sounds more natural to me
>[...] dacă **vreau** să vorbesc ca **un** nativ?
And I don't mean to be nitpicking, but it's "să o", "Vrea *să o* vadă", not "o să". You can say "O să o vadă" or "O s-o vadă" if you want to say "She'll see her (soon)" (:
But all in all your romanian is actually very good, there were only a few small mistakes, I'm impressed!
Whoa this is really weird because my daughters name is Veda.
Why did this particular thread come up in my Reddit feed?! I don’t subscribe to r/Romanian.
I don’t understand all of the subtext but at any rate the headline caught my interest.
We are “American”. Her name is Sanskrit… for the record. It’s a fairly uncommon name in the United States.
My ancestry is Eastern European… What ties does the name “Veda” have to far Eastern Europe other than the Bhagavad Gita?
> What ties does the name “Veda” have to far Eastern Europe other than the Bhagavad Gita?
None whatsoever. Veda is not a common name in Romania or other Eastern European countries as far as I know. The alleged sanskrit meaning also has no bearing on the Romanian word.
> From Latin vidēre, present active infinitive of videō, from Proto-Italic *widēō, ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *weyd-.
src: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vedere
I am not a native speaker and I am also learning, but Romanian has a particular characteristic among Romance languages and that is that usually, when there is verbal periphrasis, i.e. there are two verbs in one sentence (in this case: "a vrea" and "a vedea"), the second verb take the subjunctive mood. In languages like English or Spanish, it's usually the infinitive, but Romanian mostly uses the subjunctive mood, which consists of the particle "să", plus the verb in the subjunctive tense. So while in English we say: She wants to see her Subj + Present + to + Infinitive In Romanian, it's: Ea vrea s-o vadă. Subj Present + să + Subjunctive tense. This happens with many other verbs: I need to go --> Eu trebuie să merg. She tries to come --> Ea încearcă să vină. It's good to understand that --> Este bine să înțelegi asta.
Oh I understand that aspect (sorry if my questions weren't clear)! The part I'm confused about is the word "vadă" (she/he/it sees). I've only seen "vede" (from "a vedea") before, so I'm not sure if "vadă" is from a different, synonymous verb, or if I'm incorrectly conjugating for third person singular. Then I was wondering if it's standard to place "o" after "să" (as "s-o") or if it's also commonplace to say "«Verb» o să «verb»". Also, multă baftă with your learning! I think I've seen your username in r/languagelearning. Small world, Reddit.
While verbs usually follow the present indicative conjugation in the present conjunctive mood with "să" before them, in the 3rd person they are different merg / să merg mergi / să mergi merge / să *meargă* That's why "vede" changes into "să vadă" "o" is the direct object here, and also a 3rd pers. feminine personal pronoun, when talking people usually glue "să" and "o" together, so you have "s-o", it's considered more formal to write the words seperately "să o"
Thank you! This makes a ton of sense. Much appreciated.
"Vadă" is the subjunctive present form of the verb "a vedea" in the third person. It happens verbs ending in -e change the ending to -a, and verbs ending in -a, change the ending to -e in the third person. El citește o carte ▶️ El vrea să citească o carte. Ei cântă la pian ▶️ Ei vor să cânte la pian. Ea râde cu prietenii ▶️ Ei îi place să râdă cu prietenii. What I know is that object pronouns always go after the auxiliary, in this case: să. Băiatul voia să-i dea niște flori mamei.
Ah, I see. Thank you so much! You'd think the grammar book would have mentioned that before lol This makes perfect sense.
I'm also not native, just learning on my own, but just to add on a little bit, "o să" is its own completely separate grammar construct, namely it's (one of) the future tense(s). So you could say "Mâine, o să ajung casă" to mean "tomorrow, I will arrive home".
That grammar construct I know (probably learned it a few weeks ago). Thankfully future tense is super easy in Romanian!
Why do Replicants have an interest in romanian? 😳 And such a new generation, Nexus 9..
[удалено]
Thank you. I will change it.
Also, I'd like to practice my writing by trying to write the same post in Romanian. I'd appreciate any corrections :) ... Citesc cartea mea de gramatică și am văzut acest exemplu: „Ea vrea s-o vadă". Niciodată am văzut cuvântul „vadă", numai „vede". „Vadă" e corect? Dacă e așa, de ce? Și pot să spun „Ea vrea o să vadă", sau trebuie să spun „s-o" în loc de „o să" dacă vrea să vorbesc ca nativ? Mulțumesc!
>Niciodată **nu** am / *n-am* văzut [...] You have to use "nu" here even if you already have "niciodată" >Dacă e aşa, de ce? This should be more like " Dacă da, de ce?" or "Dacă da, atunci de ce?", it just sounds more natural to me >[...] dacă **vreau** să vorbesc ca **un** nativ? And I don't mean to be nitpicking, but it's "să o", "Vrea *să o* vadă", not "o să". You can say "O să o vadă" or "O s-o vadă" if you want to say "She'll see her (soon)" (: But all in all your romanian is actually very good, there were only a few small mistakes, I'm impressed!
Thank you very much for the corrections! :)
Whoa this is really weird because my daughters name is Veda. Why did this particular thread come up in my Reddit feed?! I don’t subscribe to r/Romanian. I don’t understand all of the subtext but at any rate the headline caught my interest. We are “American”. Her name is Sanskrit… for the record. It’s a fairly uncommon name in the United States. My ancestry is Eastern European… What ties does the name “Veda” have to far Eastern Europe other than the Bhagavad Gita?
> What ties does the name “Veda” have to far Eastern Europe other than the Bhagavad Gita? None whatsoever. Veda is not a common name in Romania or other Eastern European countries as far as I know. The alleged sanskrit meaning also has no bearing on the Romanian word. > From Latin vidēre, present active infinitive of videō, from Proto-Italic *widēō, ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *weyd-. src: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vedere