Este periculos să traversezi intersecția când nu este lumină la felinar.

It is dangerous to cross the intersection when there is no light at the streetlamp.

Breakdown of Este periculos să traversezi intersecția când nu este lumină la felinar.

• nu: not
• a fi: to be
• când: when
• la: at
• a traversa: to cross
• lumina: the light
• felinarul: the streetlamp
• intersecția: the intersection
• periculos: dangerous

Questions & Answers about Este periculos să traversezi intersecția când nu este lumină la felinar.

In Este periculos să traversezi intersecția..., is este being used impersonally like English “it is”?

Yes.

Este periculos here is an impersonal construction, just like English “It is dangerous”.

• There is no concrete subject like he / she / it.
• The real “idea” acting as the subject is the whole clause să traversezi intersecția (to cross the intersection).

So structurally it’s:

• Este periculos = It is dangerous
• să traversezi intersecția = to cross the intersection

Together: Este periculos să traversezi intersecția... = It is dangerous to cross the intersection...

Why is it periculos and not periculoasă or some other form? What is periculos agreeing with?

Periculos is the masculine/neuter singular form of the adjective periculos (dangerous).

In impersonal structures like Este periculos să..., Romanian normally uses the masculine/neuter singular form of the adjective by default, because there’s no explicit noun for it to agree with. It’s similar to how English always uses “it is dangerous”, never “it is dangerouses” or anything else.

You’d change the form only if you made a real noun the subject, for example:

• Situația este periculoasă. – The situation is dangerous.
  (Here situația is feminine, so the adjective becomes periculoasă.)

But with Este periculos să..., the masculine/neuter default form periculos is standard.

Why do we say să traversezi and not use the infinitive a traversa or a noun like traversarea?

Romanian strongly prefers să + verb (subjunctive) after many adjectives and expressions like:

• este bine să...
• este important să...
• este periculos să...

So:

• Este periculos să traversezi intersecția
  literally = It is dangerous that/for you to cross the intersection
  functionally = It is dangerous to cross the intersection.

Using the infinitive a traversa (to cross) is possible in some contexts, but after adjectives it often sounds more formal, stiff, or just less natural:

• Este periculos a traversa intersecția – grammatically understandable but not idiomatic in everyday speech.

You could also rephrase with a noun:

• Traversarea intersecției este periculoasă. – Crossing the intersection is dangerous.

That’s correct, but it’s a different structure: now traversarea intersecției is the subject.

Why is the verb traversezi in the 2nd person singular if the sentence doesn’t mean specifically “you”?

In the structure să traversezi, traversezi is indeed morphologically 2nd person singular, present subjunctive.

However, in Romanian:

• să + 2nd person singular is often used generically, to talk about “one / you / people in general”, not a specific “you” the speaker is talking to.

So:

• Este periculos să traversezi intersecția...
  ≈ It is dangerous to cross the intersection / It’s dangerous when you cross the intersection (in general).

Context decides whether it’s:

• generic “you/one”
• or a specific “you” being warned.

English does something similar: “You shouldn’t cross here at night” can mean people in general shouldn’t cross.

Why is it intersecția (with the definite ending) and not o intersecție? Does it mean “the intersection”?

Yes, intersecția literally means “the intersection”.

Romanian marks definiteness with an ending instead of a separate word:

• intersecție = intersection
• intersecția = the intersection

Here, the speaker is talking about a specific intersection that both speaker and listener can identify (for example, the one nearby, or the one previously mentioned).

If you said:

• Este periculos să traversezi o intersecție...

it would sound more like It is dangerous to cross *an intersection* (any intersection), which is a different, more general idea and also a bit unusual logically (not every intersection is dangerous).

How does când work here? Could we use dacă instead of când?

In this sentence:

• când nu este lumină la felinar = when there is no light at the streetlamp.

când introduces a time clause (when), describing the time/situation in which the action is dangerous.

If you used dacă (if), you’d get:

• Este periculos să traversezi intersecția dacă nu este lumină la felinar.

This is still understandable and not wrong, but it slightly shifts the nuance:

• când = whenever that situation occurs in time
• dacă = on the condition that this happens / in case this happens

With când you’re describing a typical recurring situation; with dacă, more of a conditional scenario.

What exactly does nu este lumină mean? Is it like “it is not light” or “there is no light”?

In this context, nu este lumină means “there is no light.”

Romanian frequently uses este / sunt (is / are) with a noun to express existence, similar to English “there is / there are”:

• Este lumină în cameră. – There is light in the room / It’s light in the room.
• Nu este lumină în cameră. – There is no light in the room / It’s not light in the room.

So când nu este lumină la felinar = when there is no light at the streetlamp (i.e. when the lamp is not lit / not working).

Why is the preposition la used in la felinar? Does it mean “at,” “in,” or something else? And shouldn’t it be felinarul (the streetlamp)?

la is a very flexible preposition in Romanian. In la felinar it roughly corresponds to “at the streetlamp” or “by the streetlamp.”

About la:

• It can mean at / to / by, depending on context:
  • la școală – at school / to school
  • la magazin – at the shop / to the shop
  • la fereastră – at/by the window
  • la felinar – at the streetlamp.

About the article:

• felinar = streetlamp / lantern
• felinarul = the streetlamp.

Both are possible, but they feel a bit different:

• nu este lumină la felinar
  – sounds more general: there is no light at the lamp (there), with the context making it specific.

• nu este lumină la felinarul din colț
  – explicitly specific: there is no light at the streetlamp on the corner.

In short:

• la = at / by here
• The missing -ul (definite ending) is allowed because context often already makes the lamp specific.

Does felinar mean “traffic light” here because we’re talking about an intersection?

No. That’s an easy false friend to fall into.

• felinar = streetlamp, lamp post, lantern (a light source on a pole, usually for lighting the street).
• semafor = traffic light (red-yellow-green signal for cars and pedestrians).

So:

• nu este lumină la felinar = the streetlamp is not lit / there’s no light in the lamp.
• If you wanted traffic light, you’d say something like:
  • Este periculos să traversezi intersecția când nu funcționează semaforul.
    – It is dangerous to cross the intersection when the traffic light isn’t working.

Can Este be shortened to E? Is there any difference between E periculos and Este periculos?

Yes, Este can be shortened to E in speech and informal writing.

• Este periculos să traversezi...
• E periculos să traversezi...

Both mean the same thing: It is dangerous to cross...

Differences:

• Este – slightly more formal/complete, common in writing and careful speech.
• E – more colloquial and frequent in everyday conversation.

Grammatically, both are fine.

Is this word order fixed? Could we say Este periculos când nu este lumină la felinar să traversezi intersecția?

Romanian word order is more flexible than English, but it still has preferred patterns for clarity and naturalness.

The original:

• Este periculos să traversezi intersecția când nu este lumină la felinar.

is very natural: main statement (Este periculos), then the action (să traversezi intersecția), then the condition/time (când nu este lumină la felinar).

Your version:

• Este periculos când nu este lumină la felinar să traversezi intersecția.

is understandable but sounds awkward and a bit “heavy,” because the când-clause splits the verb phrase from să traversezi intersecția.

More natural alternatives, if you want to move things around:

• Când nu este lumină la felinar, este periculos să traversezi intersecția.
• Este periculos, când nu este lumină la felinar, să traversezi intersecția. (still a bit heavy, but acceptable in writing)

Could this idea also be expressed with pe întuneric instead of când nu este lumină la felinar?

Yes, pe întuneric (in the dark) is a very natural alternative and is often used in everyday language.

For example:

• Este periculos să traversezi intersecția pe întuneric.
  – It is dangerous to cross the intersection in the dark.

This version is:

• shorter,
• more general (doesn’t mention any specific source of light),
• very idiomatic.

The original sentence is more specific: it highlights the streetlamp not providing light as the dangerous condition.