The author’s argumentation, expounded mostly as a series of objections to C. Dimitriu and in support of other Romanian linguists, is aimed at showing the article (unlike prepositions, conjunctions etc.) having the necessary traits of a categorial marker of a word form of which it is eo ipso a part, hence not being a word itself. Sometimes this is evident (as in case of the adjacent Balkan, Scandinavian, Basque and other post-position or of the Hebrew pre-position), sometimes, however, it is a part of a non-evident split word form, cf. the English split infinitive, a subclass of German verbs etc. (as in West Germanic and West Romance), but always nothing more than a categorial marker. Finally, C. Dimitriu’s denying the existence of the category of definiteness in Romanian is also strongly criticized.