Some further notes, this time about articles, which you also asked about.

Ancient Greek, both Classical and Koine, had the definite article ("the" in English), but no indefinite article (a, an). It was declined through the 3 genders and 4 cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative), singular and plural. In the nominative case, the definite article is Ho (m.) He (f. - spelled with eta, long 'e'), To (n., spelled with omicron, short 'o') in the singular; Hoi, Hai, Ta is the plural. Since there is no indefinite article, it has to be supplied from the context when translating into English.

Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, so "the" and "a/an" have to supplied when translating. In the rare cases where it is necessary to verbally point out someone or something, "ille" = that, that one, is used where we would use "THE" (with an emphasis). And there are words for "a certain (person, thing)" and such expressions, which were used where we use the indefinite article.

It is another mystery why the Romance languages should have followed Greek and adopted definite articles, along with indefinite articles, when Latin, their mother language had neither. German, of course, did the same, although the German definite article (Der, Die, Das) is unlike the Romance articles (el, il, le, la, l'..., les, los, las, etc.) Russian (and, I presume the other Slavic languages) followed Latin in that it has no articles either. Romanian (a Romance language surrounded by Slavic tongues) has a peculiarity with the definite article. It places it as a suffix on its noun. In the Romanian translation of the famous Socialist motto "Proletarii munduli, Unitivi!" (Proletarians of the world, unite!), the article "ul" is attached to mundo (world) and declined in the genitive singular masculine.

So don't feel bad about the "annoyance" of having to learn those various forms in Spanish. You'd be having it 10 times as bad if you studied German, Old English, Latin and Ancient Greek, as I can attest from personal experience.