"Copiilor le e sete?"
Translation:Are the children thirsty?
Oh the beauty of romanian grammar :). That's the wonderful dative case.
Romanian dative phrases exhibit clitic doubling similar to that in Spanish, in which the noun in the dative is doubled by a pronoun. The position of this pronoun in the sentence depends on the mood and tense of the verb. For example, in the sentence Le dau un cadou părinților (I give a present to [my] parents), the pronoun "le" doubles the noun "părinților" without bringing any additional information.
You should check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_grammar#Dative_case
Is the short pronoun in dative case just as mandatory as in accusative (eu îl văd pe tatăl meu)? My theory (no expert!) was that pe+person is not a proper direct object for a transitive verb and thus gets a real accusative with the short pronoun. But a verb doesn't depend on a dative object just as much. So I thought that the clitic doubling of a dative was more of an idiomatic habit parallel to the indispensible accusative doubling. And Duolingo has examples without dative doubling.
My question: Is Eu dau un cadou părinților just as wrong as Eu văd (pe) tatăl, or is the first sentence without doubling grammarwise correct and just feels less "Romanian"?
(Also: Why is Eu văd tatăl - a person as direct accusative object - taboo, whereas Eu văd mărul passes as correct?)