Ana negociază prețul și plătește cu bancnota.

Both verbs are present tense, third person singular.

They match Ana, which is a single person:

• Ana negociază = Ana negotiates
• Ana plătește = Ana pays

So the sentence describes what Ana is doing / does in the present.

Because prețul is the definite form: the price.

In Romanian, the definite article is usually attached to the end of the noun:

• preț = price / a price
• prețul = the price

So negociază prețul means she negotiates the price, not just a price in a general sense.

For the same reason: bancnota is the definite form, meaning the banknote.

• bancnotă = banknote / a banknote
• o bancnotă = a banknote
• bancnota = the banknote

With many feminine nouns ending in -ă, the definite singular form ends in -a:

• bancnotă → bancnota

So plătește cu bancnota suggests a specific banknote, not just any banknote.

Here cu means with, in the sense of using something.

So:

• plătește cu bancnota = she pays with the banknote / she pays using the banknote

It shows the means or instrument used for paying.

Both are functioning in the accusative here.

• prețul is the direct object of negociază
• bancnota comes after cu, and cu normally takes the accusative

For these nouns, the accusative form looks the same as the nominative form, so you do not see a special ending change here beyond the definite article.

Because they belong to different verb patterns.

• a negocia → negociază
• a plăti → plătește

Romanian verbs do not all form the present tense in the same way. So even though both are third person singular present, their endings are different because they come from different conjugation classes.

This is something you gradually learn verb by verb, although patterns do exist.

Because Romanian often does not need subject pronouns when the subject is already clear.

Here the subject is explicitly given as Ana, so adding ea would be unnecessary:

• Ana negociază prețul și plătește cu bancnota.

Romanian usually avoids repeating the subject unless you want emphasis or contrast.

Yes. Ana is the subject of both negociază and plătește.

So the structure is:

• Ana negotiates the price
• and Ana pays with the banknote

Romanian, like English, often states the subject once and then connects two actions with și.

The most important ones here are:

• ă as in negociază, plătește: a short neutral vowel, like the a in sofa
• ț as in prețul: ts
• ș as in și, plătește: sh

Rough approximations:

• negociază ≈ neh-go-CHEA-zuh
• prețul ≈ PREH-tsul
• și ≈ shee
• plătește ≈ pluh-TESH-teh

These are only approximations, but they are a good start.

Because și simply connects two coordinated verbs with the same subject:

• negociază
• plătește

In a basic structure like this, Romanian normally does not use a comma before și, just as English normally does not use a comma in Ana negotiates the price and pays with the banknote.

Yes, often it can.

You could say:

• Negociază prețul și plătește cu bancnota.

That is grammatically possible in Romanian, because the verb forms already show third person singular. But without context, it could mean he/she negotiates the price and pays with the banknote.

So using Ana makes the sentence clearer and more specific.