Translation:His dwelling has a red roof and a garage.
Why ”acoperișul”? Shouldn't it translate as ”the red roof”? And furthermore, why doesn't ”garaj” also have a definite article if acoperiș has one?
You can also say:
Locuința lui are (un) acoperiș roșu și (un) garaj.
Basically, we can use the definite article to indicate possession:
Close your eyes! - Închide ochii!
She's got a broken nose. - Ea are nasul spart.
He's got a phone with a broken screen. - El are un telefon cu ecranul spart.
If it's any clearer, you can translate it as "he's got a phone with its screen broken".
In English, saying "his dwelling has the red roof" suggests that there are some known roofs and the speaker makes a connection between "his dwelling" and one of them. Translated into Romanian, there'd be no difference in form between the two sentences; the distinction is based on context, but the most intuitive interpretation is the one in which the definite article represents possession.
That is interesting! But why not garajul also then? Articles are indeed used very differently in Romanian compared to the other languages I know or have studied! (Swedish, English, German, French)
Because a dwelling by definition has a roof, only one roof, and it is qualified here with an adjective.
Why translating "lucuința lui" to "his face" gets an error? This is how you say this in English! No one says "his dwelling" in normal every day conversation.
In such cases you can edit your own posting instead of replying to yourself (twice).