Talk:Romanian verbs

message: There are several so-called "popular" ways to put a verb in the future tense. The two widespread forms use the subjunctive and an additional auxiliary:
am să fac	ai să faci	are să facă	avem să facem	aveţi să faceţi	au să facă
o să fac 	o să faci 	o să facă  	o să facem   	o să faceţi    	o să facă
Sources:
*Cojocaru's Romanian grammar
*"a face", at Verbix
Although I did hear the form "or să facă", I suspect it is a mixture of "o să facă" with "vor face", possibly in order to avoid a disagreement in number. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected -- thank you, AdiJapan! (for future reference, the above is AJ's explanation for his revert on a change I made recently.) --Gutza T T+ 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future tense, popular

message: You missed the Periphrastic (compound) Pluperfect, a popular and quite unliterary tense, but nevertheless a tense that exists in the language, that has more or less the same meaning as the Synthetic (Simple) Pluperfect, much like the Simple and Compound Perfect tenses have more or less the smae meaning, or SHOULD have the same meaning but their meaning may vary beacause of their usage. 
This Romanian tense is a close relative of the French "Anterior Past" (Passé antérieur), which is constructed in the very same way and has the same meaning, that of a Pluperfect.
However, unlike the Perfect, where the Compound tense is much more used than the Simple tense, in the Pluperfect, the Simple tense (făcusem, făcuseşi etc.) is the only literary form, whereas the Compound tense (am fost făcut) is considered popular. Just like the Simple Perfect is used in "limba vie" (the natural spoken language) a lot in Oltenia instead of the Compound Perfect, the Compound Pluperfect is almost the only pluperfect tense used in the Moldavian region in "limba vie", in the contryside, instead of the Simple Pluperfect.
This tense, the, Compound Pluperfect is formed by juxtaposing the Compound Perfect forms of the verb "to be" with the past perfect participle of the verb to be conjugated (ex. am fost făcut, ai fost făcut etc.). This has the same form as the Compound Perfect tense in the Passive voice. However, in the area mentioned (Moldavia), "am fost ucis", when used as a pluperfect means "ucisesem", "I had killed". Only usage and circumstances can make a difference between "am fost ucis" with the meaning of "I was killed" and "am fost ucis" with the meaning of "I had killed". However, the existance of the Compound Pluperfect is obvious in the case of intransitive verbs like "a merge", which don't have a Passive voice at all. "Am fost mers" can only mean "mersesem", "ai fost mers" can only mean "mersesei".
The Grammar of the Romanian language by the Romanian Academy can testify the existence of this tense, as can any person that has a relative in the Moldavian countrside. I am from Iaşi and my grandmother is from a village nerby Suceava. She often uses "am fost mers" instead of "mersesem" and sometimes has slight problems understanding my usage of the Simple Pluperfect (mersesem, venisem, făcusem). Other people from her village that don't have relatives in the city or that have never lived in a city any part of their lives use almost EXCLUSIVELY the Compound Pluperfect (am fost mers) instead of the simple one (mersesem) and may not comprehend even the meaning, not only the usage of the literary simple Pluperfect (mersesem).
So this tense exists. If the Popular future with "o să" is in this table I think the Compound Pluperfect should be too, as there are related tenses in other Romance languages (in French for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk • contribs) 
:You are right, the tense you describe does exist, not just in Moldova, but also in parts of Transylvania. But the article in its current state focuses only on the standard language, or at least on the forms that are used by a large portion of its speakers. There are other regional tenses or regional particularities of the Romanian verb morphology (such as o venit instead of a venit in the northern half of Romania, or the seemingly incorrect agreement in Wallachian verbs: ei a plecat) that have not been included in the article. Probably they should be gathered in a special section dedicated to regional facts. If you have a source (say a Romanian dialectological work) that gives a well structured view of the subject please feel free to add that section. — AdiJapan 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You missed an indicative past paradigm. 

message: This is totally misunderstood on this page. I do not say I know better - but somehow the Wikipedia Securitate/Stasi has launched an attack on anyone who dare ask the question. In Romanian there IS a simple past. What does it mean? That is the only question I ask; for that I am damned by the self-appointed guardians of Wikipedia. The standard traditional view is that the simple past (used in books) is equivalent to the FRENCH. The Wikipedia editor (self-appointed and not even Romanian) seems not to address this issue.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.92.110 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Past/"Passe simple"

message: The article (first sentence, second section) mentions Romanian having 9 moods, but only 5 are actually moods. The infinitive, participle, supine, and gerund are non-finite forms that are deverbal nouns or adjectives, and are therefore not encoded for mood. Despite this sentence being cited [1], that source, though academic, is incorrect and not in line with the current understanding of verbal modality in Indo-European languages. This error persists in the two subsequent tables.
I am not a scholar of Romanian, and I would prefer not to edit this because I do not know a better source to cite to properly correct this. Wynn and thorn (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mood