- Forum >
- Topic: Romanian >
- "The boy eats lunch."
"The boy eats lunch."
Translation:Băiatul mănâncă prânzul.
17 Comments
It said I was wrong when I put Baiatul mananca pranz but is that not also an acceptable sentence?
I think the answer "Pranzul" is "The lunch" and not just lunch right ? Cause i was wrong too with the same answer as yours !
-ul is the definite article and defines that he is eating a specific meal in real time not just "...hey this dude eats lunch generally speaking, I mean seriously he never misses lunch."
Very confused! Lunch = pranz, the lunch = pranzul. Why was I marked wrong? Duolingo, please look at this sentence.
1263
Can someone please clarify this? I'm pretty sure I have written just 'prânz' somewhere in these practice lessons and have gotten them correct at times, while other times it has marked me incorrect.
i have the same feeling my guess is that was "at lunch=la prânz" with 'la' you drop the article, but i guess with food times you basically mean 'the' meal of that day (in morning/evening etc) Romanian in general often requires a companion word (a/the/at) even when English doesn't. you might not always see it, but it's always there is some form. and eating the lunch makes somehow more sense than eating a lunch.
When adding the ul at the end (pranzul) it like when we did it for barbatul. Use it when the the phrasing "the lunch" makes sense in the sentence. "The man eats the lunch" is pranzul but "the man drinks juice at lunch" is pranz.
"The man eats the lunch" doesn't really work in English, unless you're referring to an actual event that happens to cater lunch, or another unusual scenario. Even then, it's a stretch. In most cases, you would say, "The man eats lunch" as well as "The man eats at lunch."
the article is being used differently here and thus prânzul translates to lunch without the article "the". In the last example you gave I believe it would still be prânzul.
I'm no romanian expert, but in my head I like to think of prânzul etc as "his meal", although it's not a literal translation, so i think of it as something like "the boy eats his lunch" which makes more sence then "the lunch" in this kind of sentence.
From someone's comment on another question, i just learned that Romanians actually don't use this construction very often. Instead, they use the equivalent of "The boy ate for the afternoon."
This construction is just easier to literally translate into English. So, it's merely a stepping stone.
Prânz means lunch, prânzul means the lunch. However Romanian has different rules for using articles than English does so in this example prânzul correctly translates to lunch (not the lunch) for an indepth explanation check out this link:
Why not prânz? The question doesn't say the lunch, it just says 'lunch'! Having looked through the other questions on this one, I haven't seen a satisfactory answer!
