"Breakfast is a meal."
Translation:Micul dejun este o masă.
It's not clear to me what "micul" means. I'm assuming it's similar to "băiat" => "băiatul", but breakfast was taught as "mic dejun" (as if the both words need to be used). According to my Romanian friend, "mic" just means little (which makes sense). So "micul" would mean the little (which also makes sense). But I have no idea why little is used in the context for breakfast (cultural?).
Bottom line: Is "mic dejun este o masă" also correct? Is the article the just understood here?
No mic dejun would be incorrect because if you speak about breakfast in romanian you have to use it with an article (-ul=the) but in english you would not specialize breakfast ( as in: The breakfast is a meal) because you speak about breakfast in general and not one special. This is a gramma issue that does not really have a rule but its the way its used in this context.
Hope this was helpful :)
I would disagree, because the sentence as written does not speak about a specific breakfast, but breakfast in general, which is 'mic dejun'. I would submit that either translation should be considered acceptable, because perhaps it would make sense to a native speaker, however my wife who speaks several languages along with her native Romanian also maintains that 'mic dejun' would be more correct in this case than 'micul dejun'.