Talk:Portuguese grammar

On the use of prepositions

Ok, I do not think that this page goes into very good detail about prepositions. It pretty much only lists some common ones, and how to contract them. It doesn't give any placement rules. The use of prepositions is very difficult in this language, and there are a lot of rules that should be listed, or even better, an entire article for them. I don't understand half the stuff myself, but am planning to translate pt:oração coordenada, which may be able to add to the page a bit. Charlesblack 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

General cleanup

I just did a major cleanup and reorganization of this article, and brough into it some excess detail that was removed from Portuguese language. Hopefully the result is an improvement, and nothing important was lost.
I must put Wikipedia aside for a while now. Please check this article and fix what you think is necessary. Thanks, and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Diminutives

Jorge, did you have a reason to delete the paragraphs on diminutives? Velho 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I? I don't remember doing it, must have been an accident. Jorge Stolfi 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinitive

I suppose your definition (or something) of infinitive (in Portuguese grammar) isn't right: "The infinitive is used, as in English, to make subordinate noun clauses that express an action at an indefinite time."
But (Portuguese) infinitive forms can be "present" (fazer) or "past" (ter feito). Periphrastic structures can also refer to the future (cf. ir fazer or haver de fazer). Don't you think we should change this? Velho 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest fix is to say "synthetic infinitive" instead of "infinitive".
I am not very fond of mixing compound verbal forms with the synthetic ones. For one thing, it is very hard to tell what is a compound verb and what is just subordination. For another thing, the classification of those verbs just repeats the classification of synthetic forms because you can inflect each auxiliary in almost any tense. I suspect that the idea of compound verb was invented by English grammarians who did not want to admit that their language was less "powerful" than Latin or French. 8-)
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You should admit that that position of yours is quite away from what most people think. At least, there is certainly no subordination when the compound uses a past participle. And, more importantly, there are better ways to define the infinitive! Velho 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

... It suffices to say for now that calling "vou fazer" a 'compound verb' is problematic because one can insert certain things between "vou" and "fazer", as if "fazer" was a nominal subordinate clause of a special transitive sense of "ir" (or "pretender", "planejar", "esperar", etc. -- shall we call those 'auxiliary verbs', too?). On the other hand, displaced-object constructions like "ele me quer ver" would seem a good excuse to say that "quer ver" is a compound verb, but apparently grammarians don't think so. So i am still not sure whether 'compound verb' is the best way to describe those linguistic constructions. ...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 06:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But please consider that: 1) your examples are not new; 2) they regard mostly "compound" forms that are not usually seen as compound, but rather as "periphrastic"; 3) things are very different with compound forms where the main verb is a past participle; 4) above all, the problem here concerns the definition of infinitive, and this certainly does not depend on a meaning of "indefinite time".
Moreover, your previous argument that ("I suspect that the idea of compound verb was invented by English grammarians who did not want to admit that their language was less "powerful" than Latin or French.") is quite implausible: people have always talked about "compound verbs" in Latin (v.g., the past passive) and in French! Velho 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

C'm'on, that was just a joke. As for the compound tenses, I am still worried that the complete list would be just too big (2-3 times as long as the synthetic tenses). Is it possible to give a short summary of them?
I am also worried that if we list the compounds together with the synthetic tenses, sorted by semantics (as in some previous versions of this article), the reader will not be able to see the structure of the synthetic table.
I other words, the question seems to be whether this section should focus on verbal morphology (the synthetic table) or on verbal semantics (the full synthetic+analytic table). Well, i you already know where my preference lies. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Just curious, how do you analyze

ficar parado não é uma boa idéia

ter mentido custou-lhe caro

tenho sempre feito isto (i think occurs in BP, not sure)

ele me quer ver

Thanks, Jorge Stolfi 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the non-understood joke.
1) Yes, I guess it is possible to give a short summary.
2) We could put the compounds after all the synthetic ones; I have nothgin against that.
3) Please note that I just wanted to change your definition of infinitive!
4) I doubt that the way you put the difference between "verbal morphology" and "verbal semantics" is fair. There are lexical, morphological and syntactical semantics. In any case, all general structures belong to "grammar", rather than to "lexicon", and so they have a place in this article.
5) I'm sorry for my "past participle" argument. I should have said "ter" or "haver" plus "past participle". That solves your first example. As for the second and third, I think those are compound forms. The "sempre" between "tenho" and "feito" can't be the sole criterion. For instance, "ter" doesn't select any argument ("feito" does). As for the last example, I guess it is an argument for my position and against yours... and even if it isn't, I guess the problem lies more with the mobility of weak pronouns than with anything else.

But please note that I only want to change the definition of "infinitive"!!
Thank you! Velho 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as for the infinitive, i didn't quite understand what is wrong with the current text nor what is your proposed fix. Please just go ahead and fix it. Jorge Stolfi 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix it (but not now). Velho 17:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Compound verbs vs. subordination

As for my examples, i don't understand your reply, either. Would you consider "ficar magoado" to be a compound tense of "magoar", or not? In "ele tinha enviado a carta", why can't we say that "enviado a carta" is a subordinate noun clause that is the object of "tinha"?

Thanks, and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "ficar magoado" isn't a compound tense; I think the best way to describe it is to see "ficar" as a copula. As for "tinha enviado a carta", I suppose that you know better than me the tests for "auxiliarity" of verbs. One of them regards the selection of arguments. "Tinha" doesn't select anything; only "enviar" does. Another argument against the view of "enviado uma carta" as a subordinate clause is that "enviado" doesn't agree with "carta": compare "ele tinha embrulhado a caixa" and "ele tinha a caixa embrulhada" (or even "ele tinha embrulhada a caixa"). I think this is a clear case against your position.
Best, Velho 17:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I do not know the test for a compound verb. (I am just a computer scientist after all!)
Agreed that "ficou magoado" is a copula because the "magoado" has to agree with the subject of the clause.
However, that same argument seems to say that "feito" in "tinha feito" is a subordinate clause. Compare

1. ele tinha enviado as cartas sem os selos
2. ele ia enviar as cartas sem os selos
3. ele queria enviar as cartas sem os selos
4. ele pensou em enviar as cartas sem os selos

Surely you agree that, in #4, "enviar as cartas sem os selos" is a noun phrase, consisting of a subordinate clause.
That seems a good explanation for #3 too: "enviar as cartas sem os selos" is a noun phrase that is object of "queria". I hope you agree with that.
Now, to me #2 seems to be the exactly same construction as #3: just think of "ir" as having, besides the normal intransitive sense "to go", also a transitive sense similar to "querer" or "planejar" or "pretender". Then "enviar as cartas sem os selos" is again a noun phrase that is the object of this special sense of "ir". But I gather that for you #2 is a single top-level clause, with subject "ele", compound verb "ia enviar", and object "as cartas".
Finally, for #1, I see little difference between that and #2-#4 (and we both seem to agree that #1 is like #2!). Namely, to me "enviado as cartas sem os selos" looks a lot like a noun phrase which is the object of "tinha" and consisting of a subordinate clause, with indeterminate elided subject, verb "enviado", object "as cartas", and the adverbial phrase "sem of selos" modifying "enviado".
That is, for me #1 is pretty much the same structure as ele tinha pós-poliasigiloepistulomissivite, which is defined as the state which a person falls into after having mailed several letters without stamps 8-)
So where is the catch?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Perhaps we should go back to discuss this in the Talk:User pages, since it is mostly speculation... Jorge Stolfi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's better to go on here; it's simpler. We can erase it afterwards.
The most recent comprehensive Portuguese Portuguese grammar (Mateus, Maria Helena Mira et al. Gramática da língua portuguesa, 5.ª ed., Caminho, Lisboa, 2003.) defends that there are auxiliary verbs (like "tinha" in 1.), main (actually, and don't remember the exact name and I would have to stand up to check it) verbs (like "pensar" in 4.) and semi-auxiliary (like "ia" and "queria" in 2. and 3.); I was convinced when I read it; they give good arguments. Let me put it this way: in 1. and 2., all the "semantics" is in "enviar", except for time and aspect, which are tipical for verbal inflections. Now you may think that semantics has nothing to do with this, but I think that your reading of 4, 3 and 2 is essentially semantical. But I think that you should be ready to accept that 1 behaves syntactically in a very different way from the other three. E.g., if we had a subordinate clause in 1., "enviado" would agree with "cartas". Now, I know that there are syntactical differences between 2/3 and 4, and this differences allow the triple distinction I was talking about. If you want, I can check it for you. But not now. (If you want, I'll send you an email; just give me your address; I would also prefer to speak in Portuguese. It's faster for me). Best, Velho 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gender determination

Spending five paragraphs on this is a waste of space. Many languages around the world have grammatical gender. This is not the right place to explain what that means. FilipeS 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to question about articles

"Unlike English and some other Romance languages, the written form of the Portuguese articles is the same, independently of the next word. < !--WHAT ABOUT PHONETICALLY?-- >" There is no phonetic change in the articles, either. Caveat: since many articles end in a vowel, their last vowel may be elided, or merge with the next vowel, if the following word begins with another vowel. But this happens to all words that end in a vowel. FilipeS 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese ?

It appears to me that one of the most striking features of Brazilian Portuguese syntax compared to other European Languages is the possibility of null objects. Compare for example:

French: Tu as vu ton père ? Non, je ne l'ai pas vu.

Spanish: Has visto a tu padre ? No, no lo he visto.

German: Hast du deinen Vater gesehen ? Nein, ich habe ihn nicht gesehen.

English: Have you seen your father ? No, I haven't seen him.

Brazilian Portuguese: Você viu o seu pai ? Não, não (null object) vi.

Note also:

English: Where did you buy the book ? I bought it at Barnes and Nobles.

Brazilian Portuguese: Onde você comprou o livro ? (Null subject) Comprei (null object) na Livraria Cultura.

I wonder if those null objects also occur in spoken European Portuguese. If the answer is yes, I believe that information should be included in the Portuguese grammar article as it is linguistically relevant. Otherwise, I believe null objects should be at least mentioned in the Brazilian Portuguese article.Mbruno 14:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, the answer is indeed "Yes", although the omission of object pronouns is probably a little more frequent in BP. However, there may be regional variation within Portugal, so I prefer not to take responsibility for the statement. FilipeS 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of article with Espanha

I have deleted the following:

":Este avião vai para Espanha (European Portuguese)

Este avião vai para a Espanha (Brazilian Portuguese)

"This plane goes to Spain".

However:

Esta proposta veio da Espanha (European Portuguese)

"This proposal came from Spain", where Espanha stands for the state as a political active entity, and not for the geographical region."

This is false. I have heard "vai para a Espanha" and "veio de Espanha" in Portugal. FilipeS 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have deleted it. I live in Portugal and I never heard the use of the article with "Spain", understood as a place (on the contrary, the use of the article with "France" is common, even if minoritary and/or less educated). In particular, the sentence "Este avião vai para a Espanha" is unacceptable in European Portuguese. Even if some people sometimes say "a Espanha", the difference between Brazilian and European Portuguese in this matter is very clear. And the European difference between "Espanha" as a place and "Espanha" as a political entity is also very clear. The lines you deleted should be kept because they show that the uses of the article before proper nouns are complicated, diverse and subtle. Velho 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a little arrogant to claim that "Este avião vai para a Espanha" is unacceptable. I would not have any problem with using that sentence, myself. In my opinion, mentioning minute little semantic distinctions that some people like to make but others ignore, and that are only valid in a small area of the Portuguese speaking world, anyway, is pointless hairsplitting. FilipeS 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is "arrogant". I didn't mean to give my opinion on the subject, but my opinion on the widespread opinion on the subject. Obviously, I may be wrong in my metaopinion, but I don't think I am, or I wouldn't have it. Anyway, it is a matter of fact. Velho 03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Preterite vs. present perfect

why was the paragraph about a preterite made with verb "haver" deleted? It is not a common construction but it exists, especially in litterary portuguese. ex.: eu falei = eu hei falado.

In all my life, I have never heard anyone say "hei falado". I doubt it was even used in old Portuguese, which typically used the synthetic form falei, instead. FilipeS 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is not common but if you search for it in portuguese grammars you will find it. In any case, i can show you part of a poem by F.Pessoa that uses it: "Andaime" ("O tempo que eu hei sonhado | Quantos anos foi de vida! | Ah, quanto do meu passado | Foi só a vida mentida | De um futuro imaginado! | ...).

Even in literature, however, it's a very uncommon construction. Much more so than, say, "havia falado", which is also unusual in the spoken language, but often found in writing. It seems to me that a Wikipedia article cannot aspire to be more than an overview of the language. As such, it's perfectly understandable that it disregard such extremely rare constructions. Particularly when the current version of the article doesn't even mention another contruction like "hei-de falar", which is much more prevalent than "hei falado". Just my 2 cts. FilipeS 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "hei falado" was quite common in medieval (en-GB mediæval) Portuguese.

Changes made by user 81.84.189.6 Reverted

I have reverted all of them. Some were just plain wrong (see article history). Others, while not wrong, "corrected" examples from Brazilian Portuguese into examples in European Portuguese, which seems a questionable action. FilipeS 22:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have reverted all of them. Many of them were correct. This article is mainly focused on brazilian and spoken european portuguese instead of correct formal portuguese.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. That someone has decided this article is about Brazilian and spoken European portuguese? Who? That Brazilian and spoken European portuguese are always incorrect? Why should that be?... FilipeS 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Porquê or Por quê

"In this case, o que and por que are to be replaced by their stressed counterparts o quê and porquê." Isn't por que replaced by por quê at the end of sentences? From what I remember, porquê is a noun that means reason, like in "A gravidade é o porquê da queda das maçãs.". --TigerTjäder 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is actually a messy subject, I'm afraid. First of all, there are differences between the European and the Brazilian spellings (and pronunciation differences as well, I've been told). Secondly, I know for a fact that even in Portugal not all "authorities" agree on when porque and porquê should be written as one, and when they should be written as two words, por que and por quê. FilipeS 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter a fact, Portuguese "authorities" agree on porquê (I suppose por quê is the accepted form in Brazil). The controversies concern por que/porque. Velho 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In Brazil, only porquê exists, and it's a noun. In all other cases, either porque or por que are used -- but Brazilians often pronounce them as we would pronounce porquê/por quê! FilipeS 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, and what we use here is this: por que is used in questions when not at the end, por quê in questions at the end, porque in answers and porquê as a noun meaning reason. Examples: "Por que você foi lá?" "Você quer isso? Por quê?" "Porque seria útil para mim." "Eu gosto de saber o porquê das coisas." --TigerTjäder 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the correction! :-) FilipeS 11:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian "di" and "da"

I deleted "For example, the Italian prepositions di ("of") and da ("from") map to the same word in Portuguese, de.", since da often means "by" (Portuguese: por) and hence is a wrong example. Velho 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On the spelling of "prò", "prà", etc.

Velho, I think the following is too strong:

They may, however, appear when transcribing colloquial speech, for example in comic books. In the latter case, the grave accent is often omitted in Brazil, and it is also often mistakenly replaced with an acute accent elsewhere.

I know that these contractions should be spelled with the grave accent, but let's be honest: even in Portugal, you read pró and prá more often than not. And I don't know if the official spelling is the same as ours in Brazil -- remember that we still have different orthographies! FilipeS 11:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept the change. I noticed it was a bit strong, but nothing different occurred to me. Anyway, what the sentence still means (I hope) is that the accent is correctly omitted in Brazil, and incorrectly omitted elsewhere. Velho 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, and I had never seen "prà" or "prò", even in my portuguese school books, so it's probably not wrong to write "pra" and "pro" in Brazil. TigerTjäder 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, but it is wrong outside Brazil. The article should give notice of the difference, but not ignore it. I suppose the article is okay as it is, but I don't oppose to any change, as long as no information is lost. Velho 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about all varieties of Portuguese, isn't it? If something is wrong in one variety of Portuguese, but not wrong in another, I think the article should not state categorically that it is a mistake. It may or may not be one. FilipeS 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is more correct to state that it is a mistake in some places and it is not a mistake (but the rule) in the other places. What wrong can you see in this solution? Velho 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

The contractions in the last row are common in speech, though not used in formal writing. However, they may appear when transcribing colloquial speech, for example in comic books. The grave accent in these four contractions is not used in Brazil, and in Portugal it is often replaced with an acute accent in practice (though this is non-standard). FilipeS 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a difference:

.....and in Portugal it is often replaced with an acute accent in practice, though this acute accent is non-standard).

Velho 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a little repetitive, to be honest ("acute accent... acute accent"). But reword it a little, and it should be fine. FilipeS 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Descriptive grammar of Portuguese at Orbis Latinus

I'm not very sure about this link. I start reading its diphthongs article and immediately found two mistakes: fastio as having an ascending diphthong in io and muito as having an oral diphthong in ui. That's not good. Velho 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do have some mistakes, but some of their pages are useful. For examples, the conjugation tables, the tables of pronouns, and the tables of determiners. Do you think a more specific link would be better? FilipeS 11:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Diminutives and augmentatives

I took the liberty to enrich the diminutives/augmentatives' section with other common endings. --LeRobert 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) FilipeS 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Compound perfect tenses - some remarks on the recent additions

Tenses with ter/haver + past participle:

temos falado ("we have been speaking", haver is rarely used. May also be equivalent to the simple preterit "we have spoken", though this is now rare, except for some fixed expressions, such as Tenho dito/concluído)

tínhamos/havíamos falado ("we had spoken")

tivéramos/houvéramos falado ("we had spoken", literary use only)

teríamos/haveríamos falado ("we would have spoken")

teremos/haveremos falado ("we will have spoken")

desde que tenhamos/hajamos falado ("provided that we have spoken")

se/que tivéssemos/houvéssemos falado ("if/that we had spoken")

se/quando tivermos/houvermos falado ("if/when we have spoken")

We may still find, like in French, the anterior preterit (tivemos falado), though it has now fallen into disuse - the simple preterit is used instead.

• I would drop the versions with "haver" entirely. They are very uncommon in the spoken language. Sure, they are often used in writing, but why make the article unwieldy with archaisms?
• I disagree with the claim that temos falado "may also be equivalent to the simple preterit "we have spoken", though this is now rare, except for some fixed expressions". There is no simple correspondence between temos falado and any one English tense. Sometimes, it's best translated with the present perfect continuous, but other times the present perfect (not "preterite"!) is quite adequate.
• Tivéramos/houvéramos falado. I'm not sure I even remember encountering this one! Please check.
• The past anterior. This tense is moribund in Spanish. In Portuguese, I have never, ever heard or read it in my life. Even if it was used at some point in the past, I suggest that such an unusual and arcane form need not be mentioned in a brief article for an encyclopedia. FilipeS 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, I shall address your points one by one:

• Sure, compound forms with haver are uncommon in oral speech, but calling them "archaic" is quite a stretch and since you agree it is quite common in writing, I see no reason to omit them. After all, so is the future simple of the indicative rare in oral speech (not to mention the pluperfect simple...), where it is usually replaced by the present ("Amanhã como lá") or periphrastic constructions with ir ("Amanhã vou comer lá") or haver ("Amanhã hei-de comer lá") and I think we both agree on mentioning this tense.
• Yes, you are right on this point. When I read what was written in the revision before, it didn't occur to me those uses of the present perfect and I thought it was referring to those few occasions where the composed perfect preterit is still equivalent to the simple ("tenho dito"). Deleting the references to "haver" in this tense alone would probably be wise. I can't remember seeing it in modern Portuguese, except for some bad translations (e.g. to avoid the use of "fostes", which many would -erroneously- deem incorrect, they would use "haveis sido/ido" instead).
• It's called the anterior pluperfect. Yes, it's not very common but you will no difficulty finding several occurrences with google, for instance.
• Well... it does exist and you can find it in some classics, e.g., "E logo, sem muita tardança, depois que chegou ao logar, e houve comido, mandou dizer ao bispo que fosse ao paço, que o havia mister por cousas de seu serviço." (Fernão Lopes) [1]. There also examples in João de Barros, Fernão Mendes Pinto, etc. As to whether it belongs in this article... yes, I can understand you might find it redundant. Certainly, more important things are left unsaid, such as the several values the tenses can take ("que fora (=seria) dele, tivera (=tivesse) o plano sido executado") but I think a brief reference (since it exists in the literature) with a clear warning wouldn't hurt.

--Cataphract 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think there could be a note about the constructions with haver in a separate paragraph above or below the list of verb forms. But they should not be on the main list. It makes it look complicated and unappealing to readers. The future and the conditional are at least still used regularly when expressing doubt (Será que...?, Seria que...?), which is more than can be said about the periphrases with haver. Furthermore, the future and the conditional are synthetic tenses, so it makes sense that they be listed even if their use is rare. With periphrases, on the other hand, I think only the most frequently used should be mentioned, otherwise we'll be here until the year 2050.
• The anterior pluperfect is one of those uncommon periphrases which I would leave out. I have never seen anyone use it outside literature, and it's a pretty redundant tense, anyway. Tínhamos dito means exactly the same as houvéramos dito, with less pedantery.
• I disagree with the inclusion of the anterior past. This article is about modern Portuguese, not Old Portuguese. I don't see the article on French listing the cases of Old French, or the article on English listing the conjugation of shall. There are specialized articles for that. You should remember that this is an encyclopedia that will be read by mostly "laymen" people. If you include too much in it, they will not be able to separate what is common in today's Portuguese from the historical curiosities, and they'll just get confused and bored. FilipeS 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Filipe. Cataphract, mentioning constructions used by Fernão Lopes and other +600 year-old writers to describe modern Portuguese is like quoting from Chaucer to describe modern English, it's just absurd, and doesn't work.Giorgioz 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish vs. Castilian

I'd like to question the usage of "Spanish" (language) rather than "Castilian" in this article. Typically, when discussing an Iberian language, such as Catalan language, I've seen the latter term used. Keep in mind that the Latin term Hispania refers to the entire peninsula. Thoughts? samwaltz 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's entry is for "Spanish language". "Castillian" might be correct when we're talking about other languages from Spain, but not when there is a comparison to the language of a different country. Check it here. Velho 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

True - the English Wikipedia's article is at Spanish language. The Portuguese WP article, however, is at pt:Língua castelhana, showing a Eurropean Portuguese, if not World Portuguese tendency to say Castilian. I know that EN/WP is not bound by admin decisions made at PT/WP, but I think this constitutes reasonable grounds for a switchover. samwaltz 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should check it here again. The bad quality of PT/WP isn't an argument for anything. Brazilians never talk about "Castilian"; most Portuguese use "Spanish" except for historical (Middle Ages) subjects. The explanation for that article on PT/WP will certainly consider the pretentiousness of people who have recently come to learn the difference between "Spanish" and "Castillian". Velho 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the majority of native speakers are woefully undereducated about a subject doesn't justify the inappropriate categorisation of an article. The fact that the average US citizen says "nucular" is not adequate justification to move the page nuclear. In any case, I don't feel that calling people pretentious for striving for more education and precision to be appropriate in an encyclopedia. samwaltz 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypercorrection, which is just a milder word for "pretentiousness", is an important subject. Velho 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I can presume you'll be moving the PT/WP article shortly? samwaltz 23:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Count me in as another vote against the use of "Castilian". That word is sometimes useful for distinguishing Spanish from "las demás lenguas españolas". It is pointless to distinguish it from the language of another country.

Furthermore, not only is "Castilian" not the most common term in Portuguese, it is almost never used as a synonym of Spanish in English, and this is the English Wikipedia, not the Portuguese Wikipedia. Don't believe me? Go read one of the endless discussions about the name of the Spanish language at Talk:Spanish language.

It's a shame that some people are so woefully undereducated about the English language. FilipeS 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazilians nowadays may never use the term "Castilian" to refer to the Spanish language, but our Spanish-speaking neighbors/neighbours do. In fact, Argentinians always refer to their language as Castilian, as opposed to Spanish. The fact that the word "Spanish" is used more often than Castilian in English only reflects Anglophone ignorance of the political and historical reality of the Iberian Peninsula, namely that Spain is an artificial nation-state that was actually forged by submitting the Catalans, the Basques, and the Galician-Portuguese to Castilian rule. Toeplitz 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to be morally or linguistically prescriptive. And, even if it were, this article is not about Spanish. FilipeS 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

article links

I'm not sure if we should link to an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia. In the English Wikipedia, it is probably better to link to an English article. Perhaps we should make a comprehensive chart of the Portuguese prepositions in contracted form, but with description in English. learnportuguese (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject, object, and complement

The two main points to be made in this section are (1) that the verb in a clause can be accompanied by three possible nominal elements, and (2) that the usual order of elements is SVO(C). Unusual orders like "A casa construiu o pedreiro" are (should be) beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article; that's "expert" information, perhaps appropriate to a treatise instead. And I can't accept the "A" of "A Maria" as an "accusative preposition" in the presence of "o Paulo", where they both look like cases of "Article with personal names". Kotabatubara (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerund vs. a + infinitive

Although it is already mentioned in the infinitive section that various uses of it in Portuguese would be translated to the gerund "-ing" form in English, but both the infinitive section and the gerund section fail to mention the distinct feature of European Portuguese where the infinitive preceded by "a" is preferentially used in place of the gerund form for the present participle. I think this deserves mention in either (or quite possibly both, via a section link) the infinitive and gerund sections. I'm fairly new to editing, so I'm not certain of the proper formatting, but I think we should have something to the effect of the following (probably, in my opinion, in the infinitive section at the end of the first paragraph):

European Portuguese also has the distinct feature of preferentially using the infinitive preceded by the preposition "a" in place of the gerund as the typical method of describing continuing action:

Estou indo.

"I am going." (Brazilian Portuguese)

Estou a ir.

"I am going" (European Portuguese)

Estavam dormindo.

"They were sleeping." (Brazilian Portuguese)

Estavam a dormir.

"They were sleeping." (European Portuguese)

The gerund ""-ndo"" forms are still correct in European Portuguese, but relatively uncommon (although its adverb uses and the other participle forms are not). On the other hand, the ""a""+infinitive is virtually nonexistent in Brazil, and considered an improper use in Brazilian Portuguese.

And by the same token, I feel like a simple sentence under the gerund section to the effect of "In European Portuguese, the gerund is often replaced by the infinitive when used to express continuing action." could be added to the first paragraph of gerund and participle section, with the word "infinitive" being a link back to the infinitive section. I think this deserves mention for two key reasons: One, as a European speaker, it was the way I was raised talking, the way most of my friends and family speak, and an issue of discussion and clarification often necessary when speaking with Brazilian family and friends. Two, it is unique from the other listed forms of the infinitive standing for the equivalent of a gerund in english (e.g. cantar é bom ("singing is good"), trabalhe sem parar ("work without pausing")), in that it has no more literal translation that makes sense. Where as "cantar é bom" could be translated more literally as the sensible though slightly archaic "to sing is good", and " Trabalhe sem parar" is perhaps not only more literally but more accurately translated as "work without pause" or "work nonstop", there is no translation of "Estou a ir" or a similar phrase where sense can be made of the phrase without knowing that it is taking the place of the gerund. This just seems like a highly typical issue which fails to have any mention in the article, but is important not only for non-speakers learning the language, but speakers trying to understand each other. Époção (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Accusative preposition"?

The section "Noun", in its second line, refers to an "accusative preposition". I presume this refers to something like the Spanish "personal a". I understand that Portuguese does not use a personal a except in the phrase "louvar a Deus". (1) Is this an accurate statement? (2) If so, is this single exception worth mentioning in an article about Portuguese grammar? (3) If an "accusative preposition" is mentioned at all, shouldn't it be qualified by (a) a note about the extreme limitation on its use and (b) its identity, namely "a"? Similarly, the description of "a" in the section on prepositions mentions its use as an "accusative preposition". Is there really such a thing in everyday spoken or written Brazilian or European Portuguese? Kotabatubara (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

Maybe not. I'm seeing word-for-word correspondences (and some duplicated grammar errors!) between this article and a book published in 2010, but this article already had them in 2009. So it seems the plagiarism was committed by the book authors, not by Wiki. They are Anna Feldman and Jirka Hana, A Resource-Light Approach to Morpho-Syntactic Tagging (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010), accessible in Google Books. Paragraphs on p. 178 look like ours under "Gender determination". Is this of concern to us Wikipedians? Kotabatubara (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Plural?

It never says in the article how the plural of nouns and adjectives is formed in Portuguese. That seems to me quite important.Merijn2 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portuguese grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920015915/http://www.african.gu.se/aa/pdfs/aa02027.pdf to http://www.african.gu.se/aa/pdfs/aa02027.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New section, Adverbs

One thing leads to another. I saw the reference to phrasal verbs, located under "Prepositions", but saw "embora" and "fora" as adverbs, not prepositions. This led me to look for a section on adverbs. Finding none, I borrowed (I confess) from Spanish grammar. Once my section on adverbs was established, I noticed "adverbs of place" also under a wrong heading, so I moved that passage also into the adverb section. Kotabatubara (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)