Talk:Differences between Spanish and Portuguese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dative se in Spanish

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that se is an alternative form of le in Spanish -- just as el can be an alternative form of la in certain phonetic conditions, el agua está fría? FilipeS 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. "El Agua" responds to a cacophony rule, not to a grammatical one. The ambiguity between "se lo dijo" is present only if two "third persons" are in game (one told the other, or one told himself), therefore I wouldn't consider it an alternative form. "El" and "La" are sometimes mixed (mostly poetically: i.e. "El mar"/"La mar") as an alternative use without being considered wrong, but "le-lo" is absolutely out of the question. Mariano(t/c) 07:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

‹la á…› → ‹el á…› is indeed a cacophonic type rule, however, the ‹le lo› → ‹se lo› is based on the language’s development from Latin, although often high school Spanish teachers will say that Spanish-speakers don’t like the sound /le lo/.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guifa (talk • contribs)

Well, we truly don't like the sound of /le lo/. In fact, lelo means "mentally challenged" [1]. Mariano(t/c) 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

About cacophony rule: I'm not sure of this I write below, but I think is a better explanation than a "cacophony" rule. Archaic Spanish, like most of Romance languages, had these definite articles: elo, ela, elos, elas (modern el, la, los, las). Both initial "e" and final "o" and "a" are unstressed vowels. So, note these sentences: elos cuerpos > los cuerpos, ela casa > la casa, but ela águila > eláguila > el águila, elaS águilas > las águilas, ela água > elágua > el agua, elaS águas > las aguas. You can easily verify all these examples in archaic texts. So, "cacophony rule" or "phonetic evolution"? I think more the second thing than the first one.

Well, what's interesting about that one is that the rule was the opposite in Golden Age texts, la águila, but el actitud. Perhaps it represented some other shift (although that is the most frequently cited non-cacophonic reasons). However, the ‹le lo› → ‹se lo› follows the following pattern (using IPA for the later ones to show the sound changes): illi illum → li illum → li ello → ljelo → yelo → ɬelo → ʒelo → ʃelo → selo

You are right, but El siglo de oro is a little far away from the age I am talking about. Renaissance and Baroque were ages of "not-so-normalized" standards (and "language experimentation"), it can explain apparent rarities like "el actitud" or "la águila", in fact, it should be "la águila" since "águila" is a femenine noun. Besides, for instance, in El siglo de Oro confusion between "b" and "v" in spelling was greater than in past ages. A thousand years is really too much time.

Definite articles in Brazilian Portuguese

The use of definite articles before personal names (e.g. O João saiu) is common in spoken southeastern Brazilian Portuguese (BP), including the standard dialects of the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. By contrast, northeastern dialects (which are known for their conservative traits) avoid the use of the definite article not only before personal names, but also before possessive adjectives (e.g meu livro vs. o meu livro). In fact, the "omission" of the definite article is a common marker of northeastern Brazilian speech, commonly used for example by actors from Rio when they play northeastern characters on television or movies. It should be mentioned also that in written BP (especially formal writing), the definite article also tends to be omitted since prescriptive school grammars in Brazil consider constructions like "O João" ou "o meu irmão" to be "sub-standard" even though, as I said, they occur almost universally in the spoken language of São Paulo and Rio (maybe due to the influence of European Portuguese immigration into those regions). 200.177.13.54 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good material for the articles on Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese grammar. Feel free to add it there. In this one, I think we should focus on a broad comparison of Portuguese with Spanish. Regards. FilipeS 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very important to say that in Portuguese the use of definitive article before personal names are only correct when this person is close with the speaker. e.g. members of his family or close friends. If you don't know very well someone you can not refer to this person using definitive article before of his/her name.

Exemples:

A Amanda (my sister) voltará amanhã. Amanda (my client) voltará amanhã. Amanda will be back tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.123.72 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Language Origin

it is said "Spanish and Portuguese have been diverging for over one millennium." I am not sure there is data to support this statement. I suppose early spanish and early portuguese were never a single language from which both derived but instead they are the result of the Latinization of two diferent areas of Iberia. Different peoples were then Romanized in different areas and after that different influences came into each geographic area. A fact supporting this theory is that galician is closer to portuguese than to spanish although it was never part of Portugal, suggesting a commun origin with portuguese from before Portugal independence from the kingdom of Leon 900 years ago. An interesting fact arises from the fact that non-latin-derived "popular" words (some not in dictionaries) are common to Portuguese and Galician, while latin-derived words approach Portuguese and Spanish. Fernao. 15.6.2006

Yes, of course, but Galician and Portuguese are, in fact, the same language, as it is Flemish and Dutch, or Catalan and Valencian, i.e, it is a question of politics more than a matter of Linguistics. What you call "Latin-derived" are "cultismos", words re-taken from Latin in Renaissance and Baroque ages, and they are similar in all languages, including not Romance ones: Universidade, Universitate, Universidad, Université, Universität, University... What you call "non-Latin-derived-popular" words are the proper words of any language, and of course being Galician and Portuguese the same language and Spanish a different one, it is not rare nor strange such "coincidences". You of course are right, ALL Romance languages have been diverging for over one and a half millennium... and none of them has been approaching to other, being replaced by other, yes, but other thing than diverging, of course not.

The comparison betwixt Galician and Portuguese is not equivalent to Catalan and Valencia. The Academies in both autonomous communities agreed that it is the same language. However, there is no such accordance with Galician and Portuguese — there are different words, different orthographies, different phonemes. Also, please remember to sign your comments by using four tildes Matthew Stuckwisch 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is not exactly equivalent, like it is not Flemish and Dutch. As I said, it is a political matter (exactly the case of Catalan/Valencian), more than a linguistic one. From the portuguese side, simply Galician does not matter at all, from the galician side, even the supporters of Galician a different language does not speak at all of different words (no different words, check by yourself), of course there is different spelling, the fact is the difference is just spelling, and it is not a secondary matter: for instance, Galician, like Portuguese, has opened and closed vowels, while Spanish hasn't, so , what is the reason to use in (official) Galician the accent system of Spanish which does not make difference between "lôbo" and "lóbo"? ...and different phonemes, yes , like in any other dialects of any language. No serious scientist supports that Galician and Portuguese are different languages. I don't know how to sign my comments, would you mind tell me how?

This discussion has already been covered many times over in Talk:Galician_language. Catalan and Valencian is even less a political and more a (actally, exactly that) a technicality, because of the wording of the Spanish Constitution. Conjugations for verbs, for instance, are different in Galician and Portuguese, there are slight tense differences. Secondly, scientists don't study language (well, at least not in this capacity), linguists do, and yes, many serious linguists claim it a separate language. There is indeed lexical differences. The fastest way for an American tourist (in my experience) to infuriate a Portuguese shop owner is to say gracias afterwards. Portuguese is obrigado, whilst Galician is grazas or graciñas. Now, I know the words can sometimes have different orthographies but the same phonetics, but I don't think grazas sounds anything like obrigrado. Galician also lacks nasality, a key feature of Portuguese. You sign by typing in four tildes in a row: ~~~~. This will put down your username and the time of the comment. Also, you might want to register for wikipedia so that your edits and posts can be kept and references from one place. Matthew Stuckwisch 21:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this discussion have been covered many times, and believe me I am no interest at all in it. I know Galician well since I am a Galician, I speak Galician and many of the linguists you say do not, and by the way, I thought a linguist was a scientist, they are earning quite fine money for to say what they say and, as you must know, if I write Galician with Portuguese spelling I am automatically excluded from any kind of public subvention, and worse things. I imagine if all these differences are enough for you to say Galician is a different language from Portuguese, then Argentinian Spanish is a very different one from the Standard Spanish, because it shares slight tense differences, a very peculiar phonetics, and, more than Galician, a complete system of pronouns different from standard Spanish, not to say the lexicon, for instance. Ancarase dialect of Galician, are fully nasalated, and today is still spoken in regions in Asturias and Leon provinces. Any tourist in Galicia does not need to know Galician at all, Spanish is the key language at all levels, the fact is "Gracias" is a Spanish word, and "Graciñas" a local feature of such word. 212.51.52.5 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Trying to sign...

it is said "Spanish and Portuguese have been diverging for over one millennium." I am not sure there is data to support this statement.

The earliest written samples of Portuguese date from the 9th century. Same thing for Spanish. Do the math.

I suppose early spanish and early portuguese were never a single language from which both derived but instead they are the result of the Latinization of two diferent areas of Iberia. Different peoples were then Romanized in different areas and after that different influences came into each geographic area. A fact supporting this theory is that galician is closer to portuguese than to spanish although it was never part of Portugal, suggesting a commun origin with portuguese from before Portugal independence from the kingdom of Leon 900 years ago.

There's no need to look for facts to support your theory. Any book on historical Romance linguistics will tell you that's precisely what happened. FilipeS 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Check out the entry on Galician-Portuguese. To sign your comments, write four tildes. FilipeS 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to Phonology section

I've left the following new additions as they are for now, but I have several problems with them:

Spanish has a smaller phonemic inventory than portuguese: it lacks completely the /?/, /?/, /v/ and /z/ consonants, features /d?/ only in some dialects, has a a different set of rhotic consonants and uses only the five basic vowels (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/) and only one semivowel (/j/, sometimes produced as /d?/ instead).

In contrast, Portuguese only lacks one consonant present in Spanish (/?/), knows both Spanish rhotic consonants and has two more and uses a complex vowel inventory featuring eight basic vowels (/a/, /?/, /e/, /?/, /i/, /o/, /?/, /u/) two semivowels (/j/ and /enwiki/w/) and at least five nasal vowels (/ã/, /~e/, /i˜/, /õ/ and /u˜/). Some dialects may have nasal pairs corresponding to /a/ and /?/, /e/ and /?/ and /o/ and /?/ -- which are allophones.

This should be carefully worded. While Spanish lacks some of the phonemes of Portuguese, the reverse is also true: Portuguese lack the affricate "ch", and the fricative "z". Looking in the Spanish phonology article, I count 18 consonant phonemes in Spanish, while Portuguese has 19. Not much of a difference. The really significant difference is in the vowels: 5 phonemes in Spanish, but arguably 9 in Portuguese (though only 7 in Brazilian Portuguese, which is likely more conservative in this respect).

Well, I am no linguist and am writing from my own viewpoint (I am familiar with most Portuguese dialects and am a Spanish teacher, having been to Spain to perfect it). Spanish appears to have less consonants than Portuguese because some of the "different" phonemes are actually different dialectal realizations of the same base phoneme (consider the three "different" eñes).

For example...?

Concerning Brazilian Portuguese vowels, contrary to most older grammars (those written decades ago), we do make distinction between rounded and unrounded A (/a/ and /ʌ/). The A of "cAsa" is not the same as the A of "cAma" and nasalisation has nothing to do with. At least not in the pronunciation most people are using today.

They are different phones, but they are allophones of the same phoneme. Incidentally, Portuguese has no rounded vowels, aside from the back vowels /o/, /?/, and /u/.

I am not so sure about the two A's in BP being simply allophones of the same phoneme. Most Brazilian dictionaries now transcribe as different phonemes.

I think they do that because the phones are different. However, I don't think there are minimal pairs for them, in Brazilian Portuguese. Do correct me if I'm mistaken. FilipeS

Also, the phoneme inventory I was alluding to was that found in Standard Spanish grammars. If the phoneme inventory is broadened to include any possible phoneme occurring in any dialect of both languages then perhaps there is not a single consonat that is not present on both languages, but would that be relevant to a rough and broad comparison of the languages? What are we comparing here? BTW, how much is Standard Spanish artificial, even in comparison to actually spoken Castillan Spanish? I wrote that paragraph comparing Standard Brazilian Portuguese and Standard Spanish but am aware that the phoneme inventory of Portuguese in Portugal is only slightly different (they only use the phonemes in a different way).

Read Spanish phonology and Portuguese phonology carefully, and you will see that what I wrote is right: 19 consonant phonemes in Portuguese, 18 in Spanish.

I am fixing the part about Spanish having no /enwiki/w/ (that was a sad mistake due to the late of the night) but I insist that nasal vowels should be counted apart (no, a foreigner would never guess /ã/ is an allophone of /a/ unless his native language also features nasals. I know this from seeing how foreigners, especially those from US, Germany and Italy react to nasals). If we count nasals separately, then we have 16 vowels in Portuguese (I forgot that there's a different /i/ in Portugal somewhere).jggouvea 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree that Spanish has no /enwiki/w/ phoneme (as does Spanish phonology). As for the nasal vowels of Portuguese, they are different phones from the oral vowels, but they can be regarded as realizations of the same phoneme. See Mateus, Maria Helena & d'Andrade, Ernesto (2000) The Phonology of Portuguese ISBN 0-19-823581-X.

Anyway, I do not question that Portuguese has more vowels than Spanish. What I do question, vehemently, is that is has (much) more consonants.

But that finally boils down to the same basic question: the presence of these vowel phenomena in Portuguese (opposition between oral/nasal and between front/back vowels) IS what puts obstacles to mutual intelligibility and makes it assymetric (as Spanish speakers do not know them). The amount of phonemes does not actually mean everything. If you re-write the section that way it will be OK to me, as I have said I am no linguist and am only adding information previously absent and took it from readily available sources. BTW, thanks for the comments. ;-) 201.59.1.129 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The opposition between front and back vowels (e, i versus o, u) also exists in Spanish. You probably meant to say "the opposition between mid-high and mid-low vowels" (ê, ô versus é, ó). Anyway, I see what you are saying, and I do agree that the larger number of vowel phonemes and allophones in Portuguese than in Spanish can be an obstacle for Spanish-speakers learning Portuguese. I am not so sure, however, that it "IS what puts obstacles to mutual intelligibility". There are other possible explanations, for example the fact that Spanish speakers are typically less exposed to the Portuguese language than vice-versa. This is why I think the theory that the imbalance in the number of vowels is what makes intelligibility difficult should be proven before being asserted.

But, regardless of these differences of opinion, I think you've made an invaluable contribution to the article. Thank you. FilipeS 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, only one of the rhotic phonemes truly differs between Portuguese and Spanish; both languages have the alveolar flap.

But Brazilian Portuguese has a "soft" R that sounds exactly like an aspirate (/h/) and a "harder" R that is identical to Spanish J. They are found in different dialects, OK, but they are a permanent source of confusion for mutual intelligibility. I remember having a lot of fun telling my students that "puedes comer jamón, pero no puedes comer Ramón" and seeing how they struggles to get the difference.jggouvea 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "soft R", but most dialects of Portuguese have the alveolar flap (the sound of the r in caro), as does Spanish. They do not differ in this respect. FilipeS

"Soft R" is a realization of the "thrill R" that is quite similar to the Spanish J, to the point that it causes confusion. It masks words in both ways. A Spanish speaker, hearing a Brazilian pronounce carro ("car") will think he is saying cajo (short form of carajo). That's what I meant. 201.59.1.129 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But then Portuguese and Spanish do not have a "different set of rhotic consonants". Only one of the two rhotics differs. FilipeS

The following I have deleted:

This the chief reason why Portuguese speakers can understand Spanish (and Italian) easier than the other way around: they don't have to struggle to understand phonemes they don't know.

It's an arguable hypothesis that needs to be backed by evidence. FilipeS

Spanish is one of several Indo-European languages using the basic 5-vowel set, often referred to as the "Classical Latin vowels": /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/.

How many more Indo-European languages have only the 5 vowel phonemes /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/? Not many, I believe... And, Classical Latin had 10 vowel phonemes, not 5.

Classical Latin had five vowels which were distinguished for length. See Latin spelling and pronunciation. I am no polyglot, isn't the five-vowel set found in these languages: Spanish, Standard Italian, Modern Greek, Macedonian. Four sounds like several to me but I concede that "several" should not be used here. Especially because I wanted to stress the fact that the five vowels used by Spanish are those that are more common accross the Indo-European family. Then, for better clarity, you are right. 201.59.1.129 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you are not a polyglot, you should be careful with what you say about "several Indo-European languages". Italian has seven vowels. You should read your own links. Greek and Macedonian are hardly close relatives of Spanish. Here's the number of vowel phonemes in several Romance languages:

Spanish, 5;

Italian, 7;

Romanian, 7;

Portuguese, 7 or 9 oral (arguably +5 nasal);

European French, 12 oral + 4 nasal

Hardly a homogeneous picture! FilipeS

I am not so sure that modern French really has 12 oral vowels. Parisian French for example no longer distinguishes between /a/ (as in patte) and /ɑ/ (as in pâte). In Meridional French on the other hand, /o/ and /ɔ/ have merged. In the long run, the trend is that the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ will also disappear in French. See French Phonology.161.24.19.82 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it clearly has more vowel phonemes than Spanish. FilipeS 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest of this section needs to be rewritten. See discussion above. FilipeS 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You said above that "I made an unvaluable contribution". That is precisely why I don't want to spoil it up by engaging on a neverending argument about obscure aspects of phonology -- a subject I merely dabble in. I am ready to accept your changes to my contribution, when you feel like actually committing them. I say this because I feel that you know MUCH better than me what you are saying in most things you say. So, please, go and fix things you think are not 100% OK. ;-) The only thing I cannot accept is your rendition of the Portuguese phonetic system: "/ʎ/ (sometimes written ch) and /ɲ/ (written j/g)". Perhaps you made a slight mistake because of copying and pasting, but this should read (as I fixed it): "/ʎ/ (usually written "lh", sometimes "li") and /ɲ/ (written "nh")". Notice that the "sometimes written 'li'" is really a concession: I don't know "li" is actually pronounced "lh" anywhere else but my town... :-). Also, in spite of not touching it, I think your assessment of the /x/ phoneme is a bit too detailed. If you think the changes I have made are OK, then do your fix in the rest and I am sure we'll have, then, made, together, that "unvaluable contribution". BTW, I am a History teacher and know quite a lot about Portuguese literature (I am a writer myself). Maybe we could cooperate on some other pages about Brazil and Portugal (check my contributions to Constitution_of_Brazil). And just in case, are you from either country or, well, você fala português? Thanks for the comments. jggouvea 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I am Portuguese. You may be right about the phonetic transcription. I've had to use a browser that does not display unicode characters, of late. I tried to copy the code from the pages for each phoneme, but I may have made a mistake. However, please notice that the phonemes written ch and j/g in Portuguese (the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative and the voiced palato-alveolar fricative, respectively) are palato-alveolar, not palatal, and the phonemes written lh and nh (the palatal lateral approximant and the palatal nasal) are palatal, not palato-alveolar.

With respect to the phoneme /x/ (or inverted /R/, the broad transcription used in the Portuguese Phonology article), I added the other regional variants for two reasons. First, because you had written that the phonemes of Portuguese did not have much dialectal variation, but this one does. And, second, because it's difficult to decide which representative sound should be used in a comparison with Spanish. On one hand, it's interesting to note that Portuguese /r/ corresponds to Spanish /r/. On the other hand, it's also interesting to point out that /x/ is spelled differently in Spanish and Portuguese (j/g versus r(r)).

About your latest changes to the article, I added the spelling of some phonemes because I saw you had done the same. But I think we should only do that when the pronunciation is different in Spanish and Portuguese. In the other cases, it can be left understood that there is no difference. After all, both languages have specific articles with more information on their orthography.

You may be interested in this entry. FilipeS 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'Zero-morpheme long'...?

I don't get what the following sentence is supposed to mean.

The inflected infinitive is mandatory in a few infinitive clauses and forbidden in some others, because some Portuguese verbal inflections are zero-morpheme long (see Luft, pp 112), which means that that particular inflection does not add morphemes to the root. The choice between the inflected and the uninflected infinitive is not always existent and sometimes very subjective, and governed by stylistic criteria.

Either way, this is not the place for an in-depth discussion of the Portuguese personal infinitive. Do that at Portuguese grammar. This article is about the differences between Spanish and Portuguese, and the presence/absence of a personal infinitive certainly is one. FilipeS

Apples to oranges?

Don't get me wrong, I think the article is useful, but to compare Iberian Spanish with non-Iberian Portuguese strikes me as an odd choice, especially in phonetic terms. It also leaves the doubt if some of the differences are between spanish and portuguese or spanish and brazilian portuguese.--195.245.185.32 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is geared towards a particular variety of either language. Can you be more specific in your criticism? FilipeS

I was refining my "criticism" when you replied, damn you're quick :). What I was about to add was that, while I think its valid to use Brazilian Portuguese, a comparison between two languages that were "born" in Iberia and developed there for centuries before being spread to the world would more logically be made by using the Iberian versions of both languages (since one of the reasons the languages are mistaken sometimes is the geographical proximity of Portugal and Spain). The article is careful to note some cases where the usage of the brazilian version makes a difference though, so in the end nothing major would probably change. I was just mildly surprised to see two languages native of two countries in a peninsula having different "versions" compared, even if all of them are as valid as the other (I want to be clear here, this is not some hidden "attack" on brazilian portuguese or, for that mather, south-american spanish). The article beings by clearly saying that the comparison will be made by using Standard Brazilian Portuguese and Standard Castillian Spanish. Wrong? Not al all. Just slighly odd for the reasons above.

When I wrote the first version of this article, it was never my intention to compare only one variant of Portuguese with only one variant of Spanish. I wished to make a broad comparison between all variants of each. However, one of the editors who added the most to the article focused on Brazilian Portuguese, since he was Brazilian. Anyway, I will take a look at the article when I have the time, and see if there's anything that is too regional for a fair comparison.

On a final note, I have to say that I don't necessarily agree with your presumption that, because Portuguese and Spanish originated in Iberia, their Iberian dialects should be closer to each other than other dialects. In some ways, the opposite is true... FilipeS 10:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on my observation; please note that I understand perfectly that the article is made by people that use whatever they feel more confortable with. I just found it "odd", in a way, not "wrong". As for the closeness, I agree, geography isn't a guarantee of specific differentiation or not... I just find it more "natural" to compare two languages that are of the same linguistic family - and so, closely related - using the versions that originally suffered the process of divergence due to cultural and historical processes. Again, nothing wrong with using the brazilian version of portuguese, but it can, for example, lead people to think that be the choice made Brazilian Portuguese diverges more from Spanish than European Portuguese, and that the latter is indiferentiated from Spanish. Forced thinking, I know, so to sum it up I appreciate your modifications - I talk a lot, but I am in no position to actually make changes - and I honestly think that the article is a good survey of the differences and it's helpful to readers.--89.26.156.94 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a start. Hopefully it will be improved. But thanks for your kind remarks. :-) FilipeS 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was too Brazilian-centric. I hope it's better now... FilipeS 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of the definite article with possessives

Someone has edited the article to:

In addition, in European Portuguese the definite article is generally used before possessive adjectives, which is not possible in Spanish. E.g. Eng. "This is my brother", Sp. "Éste es mi hermano", Portuguese: "Este é o meu irmão"; in Brazil, the article is generally ommited.

I don't think this is the whole story. In reality (and I have heard this from Brazilians), the definite article is not used before possessives in some regions of Brazil, but it is used in others. Namely, the use of the definite article before possessives is common in the region of Rio. FilipeS 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The definite article is almost never used before possessives in northeastern dialects (Bahia, Pernambuco, Ceará,etc.). By contrast, it is almost always used in the urban middle-class speech of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, which corresponds in turn to "standard Brazilian Portuguese" or "general Brazilian" as heard on TV. One possible explanation is that northeastern dialects are more conservative and, accordingly, like classical Portuguese, avoid the definite article. On the other hand, in the cities of São Paulo and especially Rio, the large influx of "recent" (early 20th century) Portuguese immigrants may have contributed to a "re-lusitanization" of the local speech, introducing innovations such as definite articles before possessives. Mbruno 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Subject of interrogatives

FMSZ has made some good additions to the article recently, but I've decided to remove the following, because I do not agree with it:

In Spanish, the subject noun or pronoun may either precede or follow the verb. Portuguese prohibits the latter, thus in the example below *Prefere você...? is not allowed. Often, rising intonation (spoken) or an ending question mark (written) is the only differentiation between a Portuguese statement and question.

¿Usted prefiere té o café? or ¿Prefiere usted té o café? (Spanish)

Você prefere chá ou café? (Portuguese)

Do you prefer tea or coffee?

It is true that in colloquial Brazilian Portuguese you are not likely to see a subject-verb inversion in this kind of sentence. However, if you search the literature, or if you consider European Portuguese, I don't think you can state categorically that Portuguese prohibits this kind of construction. It's just a little more unusual/old-fashioned than in Spanish. And then you have sentences such as "Digo-lhe eu, ou dizes tu?", which are perfectly colloquial, at least in Portugal. FilipeS 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been studying Brazilian Portuguese at the university for a couple weeks now (previously, I didn't know any) and it's been decades since my last (Mexican) Spanish class. Any changes in the grammar between the two languages have been easy for me to spot. Perhaps, as I'm in a beginning course, I found a few items that have flown under everyone's radar screen, or no one has had time to include them. If anything more comes up that's not already mentioned here, I'll post it. Sorry, I don't know any European Spanish or Portuguese. (They're not widely taught in the USA.) FMSZ 8:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's O.K. It's just that I'm trying to ensure that this page remains a broad comparison between Spanish and Portuguese, rather than focusing on this or that variety of each language. (See the discussion above.) In any case, your contributions are welcome. Regards. :-) FilipeS 10:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is very minor, but I am Portuguese and I do not think usual the use of the subject (sujeito) when using direct speech. In :Você prefere chá ou café? (Portuguese)
we say "Prefere chá ou café?" or when using "tu": "Preferes chá ou café?". We use the subject when we are not speaking to the person "Ele prefere chá ou café?". It sounds too confrontational and so, unpolite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbsantos (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

definite article before possessive adjective in Italian

Regarding the sentece:

In addition, in some dialects of Portuguese the definite article is used before possessive adjectives (like in Italian), which is not possible in Spanish.

In Italian the definite article is used in very few example, mainly for close relatives ('la mia mama', 'il mio marito'), while in Portuguese (peninsular at least) it is orthogonally used. I'm not sure it is wise to reference Italian on this. Mariano(t/c) 06:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this Wiki article, it's the opposite of what you said. The article is normally used before possessives in Italian, and only omitted in very few cases. FilipeS 11:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't drink spritz while editing... Mariano(t/c) 13:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hehe! No problem, no harm done. :-) FilipeS 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

fuera/fuese

I believe these two are equivalent and used Indistinguishably [2] [3]. Mariano(t/c) 08:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm using an oxford dictionary and it puts the Future Subjunctive for ser as (yo) fuere, (tu) fueres, (el/ella) fuere, (nosotros) fuéremos, (vosotros) fuereis, (ellos/ellas) fueron in the irregular verbs section but at the same time, it lists "fuese, fuésemos, etc" but only says "see ir, ser" and not what tense/mood that would be. We can probably get some other sources to see if maybe one form is more dialectical or more prestigious. Those links you provided were helpful in gaining some insight on the perceptions of a few speakers but they are not good sources for an encyclopedia. Ƶ§œš¹ ^{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. "Fuese" and "fuera" (which is not the future subjunctive, beware!) are indeed interchangeable in the examples which are in the article. However, as I understand, "fuera" tends to be preferred in spoken as well as written Spanish. "Fuese" often sounds a little archaic to many Spanish speakers (though not always). I hope this clears it up. FilipeS 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit. I already gave my source, the section is clearly talking about the future subjunctive, and you yourself have just said that fuera is not the future subjunctive. I don't see anything in your edit that explains your revert. Care to explain? Ƶ§œš¹ ^{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I thnk we are not understanding eachother. "If I were king" is not future (at least not in Spanish), thus nobody would ever use fuere but either fuera or fuese (as stated in the paragraph prior to the example:"Spanish will use the present tense in this type of clause"). Mariano(t/c) 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, on closer inspection I see that it mentions that past subjunctive is used. My bad. Ƶ§œš¹ ^{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The -re forms (fut. subj.) sound very archaic, though inteligible, to most native speakers. -ra is indeed more common as the past subjunctive, though in literary works it can retain its previous status (as in Portuguese it is always) as a synthetic indicative past perfect tense. -se is less common, and for sentences with a single past subjunctive, I'm not aware of a model to show which is chosen, though again the exception (IME) is literary, where it seems to be used with more frequency. However, in certain constructs where two past subjunctives are used, one most be -ra, and one must be -se, although I can't think of an example off hand. Matthew Stuckwisch 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Si yo fuera rey, y dios me lo permitiese, acabaria con el hambre.

There is, nevertheless, something that doesn't sum up. The section is about the future subjunctive, yet the first paragraph starts saying that it is not very used in Spanish, giving a first example in which it is used in Portuguese. But I believe this example is not a good one, because it is not future neither in English nor in Spanish. "Si yo fuera rey" could express something like "had I been born king", or an idea of what would have happend if things were different. You are really not likely to become king overnight. That is the impression I get from the Spanish sentence, no sence of future at all. Wereas "Si yo fuere presidente", even though archaic and seldom used, does express a future tense. Mariano(t/c) 07:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the first example is to make the bridge between the past subjunctive -- which exists in all three languages -- and the future subjunctive, which is only used in Portuguese. In other words, all three sentences in the first example are in the past subjunctive; there is no future, there. Have I worded that section too ambiguously? FilipeS 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to realize, when you write something, that the context is not so clear. As an introduction to future subjuntive is perfectly valid; It seams much clearer now. Mariano(t/c) 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A mistake at the top of page.

I dont want to change it because some idiot will probably change it back, but there is a mistake at the very top of the Wikipedia entry. Spanish and Portuguese are not the most widely spoken languages; Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language. Portugeuse is no where near being the most widely spoken language.

In this case, the idiot would be right. "wide" is not "common." It's really a geographic issue. (Native) Spanish and Portuguese speaking areas exist in Europe, South America, North America, Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa. Chinese speaking ones are all in China. Ƶ§œš¹ ^{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, what the intro says is "two of the most spoken languages", not "the two most spoken languages". FilipeS 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider moving phonology to bottom of page

This article is excellent, outstanding, and has kept me from making a mistake more than once. I agree, that from an academic point of view, the phonology section should come first. However, the first rule of writing is to know who your readers are. The average person on Wikipedia can't read Latin or understand the terms used in phonology. They have busy lives and won't waste their time with something they're not interested in. I'm concerned that too many have dropped out before they ever get to orthography and grammar. These are the sections in which someone studying Portuguese or Spanish with a prior knowledge of the other really needs to read.

I would expand on the couple sentences at the beginning of the page, and provide a direct link to phonology, which would go below the grammar section. The rest of the article is in good sequence, with future subjunctive at the end, as it's probably the last verb tense that will be studied after all the others. Mark Johnson 08:30, 08 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been meaning to revamp the Phonology section, making it simpler and more appealing. I will leave it as it is for the time being, and see what feedback I get after I make the changes. But thank you very much for your kind words and your feedback. I'm glad you reminded me that not all readers are familiar with phonetic symbols. Regards. :-) FilipeS 18:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Great article, Filipe! Congratulations!
Velho 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Todo" versus "tudo"

I removed the erroneous terms as FilipeS suggested, but I still can't find or think of any Portuguese sentence in which tudo refers to people, or, conversely, todo (as a pronoun) does not. If so, perhaps one more sentence saying thus would be justified. FMSZ 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tudo does not refer to people. It refers to things. FilipeS 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some corrections to your edit, and removed the following example for the time being:

Todos eran felices que no llovió. (Sp.)

Todos estavam felizes por que não choveu. (Pt.)

All were happy (that) it didn’t rain. [definite pronoun]

The Spanish sentence does not seem right to me. I think you should use estar with felices, in this context. The Portuguese sentence is definitely wrong. Since I'm not sure how to correct the Spanish, I left it out. FilipeS 17:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Is Spanish tien the European spelling of tiene? I've never seen it before. FMSZ 19:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a typo. :p I've fixed it. FilipeS 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal "a"

I like the changes that were made. The article is much more clear now. One slight problem, though, is in the Personal "a" section. The sentence "...but in the Portuguese version Convidei a Joana para jantar em nossa casa it is a definite article." isn't fully explained. The Spanish speaker is left wondering what's happened, and how is this so different from the personal "a"? Only after two sections further in Use of the definite article is it explained:

"In many varieties of Portuguese, personal names are normally preceded by a definite article, a trait also found in Catalan."

I think the readers could use that statement a little sooner. Thanks.

Mark Johnson 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've reordered the sections. Thanks for the feedback. FilipeS 14:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, most native speakers (at least in southeastern Brazil) would say

Convidei a Joana para jantar na nossa casa.

"Convidei a Joana para jantar em nossa casa", although strictly speaking not ungrammatical, sounds nevertheless very odd to me ! 200.177.29.210 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Section

I think it's just about complete, except for the use of que and its variations (Spanish qué and Portuguese o que and quê). I really can't think of anything else that's missing, including the type of things in the sections that I've added recently. While there's little or no difference between muy and muito, it's a common mistake to confuse it with the adjective muito(s)/muita(s), as Spanish uses separate words. Dois is often incorrectly used by beginners instead of duas. Also, on my Portuguese mid-term, I made the mistake of writing "São onze para as quinze," instead of "São quinze para as onze"

If the grammar Section grows too large, we'll have to shorten it, or move it to a separate page (though I'd prefer not to move it.) In any case, I'm done with the couple of minor things I forgot to add earlier, and see no need for more.

Feliz Natal. FMSZ 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Internal variation

One of the most stunning features of the Portuguese language is the enormous difference between the Continental and Brazilian spoken versions, especially as regards the use of unstressed pronouns. Thus, where a Portuguese would say "Dei-lho", a Brazilian would utter "Dei (isso) para ele" (I gave it to him).

Other examples: Pt. "Mantenha-a limpa" / Br. "Mantenha ela limpa" (keep it clean); Pt. "Ninguém o agüenta" / Br. "Ninguém agüenta você" (no-one endures you); Pt. "Disse-mo" / Br. "Falou isso para mim" (he told it to me).

In other words, third-person weak (unstressed) pronouns have disappeared altogether from spoken Brazilian Portuguese.

An obvious reply to this is that the article is about differences between Spanish and Portuguese, not between Brazilian and Continental Portuguese. But muy point is, precisely, that a NOTABLE difference between Spanish and Portuguese is that while the grammar of Spanish is more or less the same in the whole Spanish-speaking world, the grammar of (spoken) Portuguese shows a very high degree of internal variation, especially between Brazil and Portugal.

Mention of this would be extremely useful to many readers, especially those with a knowledge of Spanish trying to cope with colloquial Brazilian texts. --200.43.37.44 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that explains this and this. :p FilipeS

Well, you can't actually grasp the difference between the internal variation of Spanish and that of Portuguese if you're not well acquainted with both. Variation in Spanish is moderate, while in Portuguese it is extreme, with some believing Brazilian to actually be a semi-creole Portuguese-based language. That's not to say that either language is better; it's simply to state a fact, which linguistic pride should not preclude us from perceiving.--Abenyosef 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from what you've posted elsewhere, you don't know much about Portuguese, yourself, so get off the high horse. FilipeS

Quote: Variation in Spanish is moderate, while in Portuguese it is extreme. Comment: I believe whatever variations there are within Portuguese are not more "extreme" than the differences between, let's say, African-American vernacular English (a.k.a "ebonics") and standard British English (Queen's English). Certainly the variations within the Portuguese language are actually small compared with the situation found, for example, in German, Italian, or Dutch-speaking countries where different "dialects" (in reality separate languages like Platt and Hochdeutsch, or Tuscan and Milanese) are often not mutually intelligible. In fact, I would say that, even taking into account the stereotypical examples like Encontrei ela na praia or Me dá um copo d'água, the differences between southeastern urban middle-class BP (a.k.a "general Brazilian") and standard EP are by no means "extreme" (otherwise, Globo telenovelas would be subtitled in Portugal, which, of course, is never the case). Mbruno 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clitics on verb forms?

I don't speak Portuguese, and I haven't read all of the article carefully, but it seems to me that there is one particular difference that is missing in this page: the conditions for which clitics are put after verb forms. In Spanish, it is very old fashioned to say something like "dícese" instead of "se dice", "dióse" instead of "se dio", etc. As I understand it, this is still common in Portuguese. I could be wrong though. –Andyluciano 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's a fair comment, and one that another person justly made above. I hesitated to say anything about pronoun placement, even when I wrote the first version of the article, and eventually decided not to say anything. Let me try to explain why.

The placement of clitic pronouns in Portuguese:

• Is not as rigidly defined as in Spanish. In several instances, two different positions are possible for the pronoun, where Spanish only allows one.
• Quite different in European Portuguese and (spoken) Brazilian Portuguese. This is one of the greatest grammatical differences between them.
• While the European usage follows complex rules and is very different from Spanish usage, the Brazilian usage follows very simple rules, and is, overall, pretty similar to Spanish usage (though there are still a couple of differences).

So I thought that emphasizing the differences between Spanish and Portuguese in this case would give undue weight to one of the varieties of Portuguese (the European one), while the other variety (Brazilian) is really not that different from Spanish. FilipeS 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree. Speakers of Spanish are quite baffled to learn that in Brazilian you can't say "vou me fazer um bife" and must say "vou fazer um bife para mim", or that you can't say "lhe dei um bilhete" and must say "dei um bilhete para ele", or that you can't say "Anime-a, dona Júlia!", but must say "Anime ela, dona Júlia!".

Spanish pronouns are fundamentally different from both Brazilian and Portuguese ones. And the article should say so. --Abenyosef 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever told you you can't say "lhe dei um bilhete" or "Anime-a, dona Júlia!" in Brazilian Portuguese lied to you. As for "vou fazer um bife para mim" instead of "vou me fazer um bife", that's a general difference between Portuguese and Spanish. FilipeS 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that "Anime-a, dona Júlia!" is a phrase that could be spontaneously heard from a Brazilian???

Maybe you could find a poster saying "Esta é a sua cidade. Mantenha-a limpa", but you would never hear "anime-a" in spontaneous speech. There's no place for unstressed 3rd-person personal pronouns in spoken Brazilian, unless you're delivering a speech. --Abenyosef 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny that the constructions are unusual. I just do not like to see dogmatic statements that one "cannot" use them. Who are foreigners to tell Brazilians how they can or cannot speak?

Nor do I see any good reason to claim that "Spanish pronouns are fundamentally different from both Brazilian and Portuguese ones". There are some differences of usage, just as there are between any two Romance languages, but it's non-natives who tend to see them as bigger than they actually are, for some reason.

Still, there is a good point to make from your intervention. There is a discussion of pronoun usage in Portuguese at Portuguese pronouns. I guess a link to it could be included in the article. FilipeS 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When a Brazilian uses an unstressed 3rd-person pronoun (other than se) in speech, it's not because the spoken language permits it; it's just a case of code-switching between H (Standard Portuguese) and L (Spoken Brazilian Portuguese). Of course, since the grammar of SBP hasn't yet been officially established, nothing is forbidden, but anime-a does sound awkward.

I don't think the article's spirit would be lost if we added a small paragraph about pronouns, maybe pointing out the complicated Continental Portuguese system, the simplified Brazilian Portuguese one, and the fact that Spanish lies in-between, with a few examples.--Abenyosef 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, why not? I'm lacking in inspiration, but something tells me you have something on your mind... When you're done, I'll give my opinion here in the talk page. Let me just suggest that you try to keep the discussion simple. FilipeS 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anime-a, dona Júlia probably wouldn't occur in spontaneous Brazilian speech (not so much because of the clitic, but rather because, out of context, it is an odd sentence anyway). Lhe comprei um bilhete does occur however in spontaneous Brazilian speech, but with the pronoun "lhe" meaning "to you" rather than "to him/her". In fact, sentences like Eu lhe disse que as crianças não tinham aula hoje or Lhe comprei um presente are actually quite common (probably standard) in Northeastern Brazil (Bahia, Pernambuco, etc.). Southeastern speakers on the other hand would probably say Eu te disse que as crianças não tinham aula hoje (standard in Rio and also preferred among upper-class speakers in the city of São Paulo), or Eu disse para você que as crianças não tinham aula hoje (more common in Minas Gerais and the São Paulo countryside). I guess "lhe" meaning "to him/her" or "lhes" meaning "to them" are used in Brazil mostly in writing, especially narratives or journalistic texts, e.g. O governador prometeu aos grevistas que lhes daria um aumento.200.177.29.210 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also on the subject of clitics, it might be worth mentioning in the main article that se in Portuguese is both the 3rd person clitic pronoun (like Spanish), as well as the equivalent conjunction of Spanish si (if). Since both are often placed just before the verb, it could be confusing. I can't think of an example, but if the verb were the same in both languages, and Portuguese didn't use the reflexive form for whatever reason, it would change the entire meaning to a conditional sentence. Mark Johnson 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. FilipeS 13:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hours of the day

The article says: Hours of the day are also similar in both languages, though Portuguese has a construction with "para as" which does not occur in Spanish. (...)

Son las nueve menos quince. (Sp.)
São nove menos quinze. / São (or Faltam) quinze para as nove. / É (or Falta) um quarto para as nove. (Pt.)
It’s a quarter to nine. (8:45)

This is not correct. Spanish can use a form that is very similar to the form used in Portuguese. Also, it's the more common form used (at least here in Chile). Example:

Son las nueve menos quince. / Son (o Faltan) quince para las nueve. / Es (o Falta) un cuarto para las nueve.(Sp.)
São nove menos quinze. / São (or Faltam) quinze para as nove. / É (or Falta) um quarto para as nove. (Pt.)
It’s a quarter to nine. (8:45)

Please correct it or change it.--201.222.235.157 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. FilipeS 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that, as far as I know, Brazilians always say São quinze para as nove, never São nove menos quinze or Falta um quarto para as nove. 200.177.29.210 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

b, d, g

Another important difference between Spanish and Portuguese is the pronunciation of b, d, and g between vowels. In Spanish they're approximants with a distinctively smooth sound. In Portuguese, they're very tightly and tensely pronounced occlusives.

Of course, the problem is, once again, that this applies only to Brazilian Portuguese. In Portugal, these sounds are approximant, like in Spanish. But I think we should be realistic in that Brazil accounts for more than 90% of native speakers of Portuguese. After all, we're reporting the sound of Castilian z as one of the differences between the two languages... why not b, d, and g.--Abenyosef 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement above. I am portuguese and I cannot see any difference between brazilian and portuguese in respect of the b,d,g pronounciation (except the modification d->dj in some brazilian dialects). In opposition they seem almost silent in spanish to my untrained ears. So there is a difference...Japf1 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the plosives as approximants is not universal in Portugal. (See Mateus, Maria Helena & d'Andrade, Ernesto (2000) The Phonology of Portuguese.) Moreover, the same speaker will often alternate between the two pronunciations randomly. (See examples here.) So it's not a trait as definite in European Portuguese as it is in Castilian Spanish. I guess you could say this is a more or less general difference between Spanish and Portuguese (assuming all varieties of Spanish soften their plosives that way, which I'm not sure is the case). However, I would suggest that this article should not attempt to be that specific, discussing differences in what are mere allophones. If we start doing that, there will be no room left for anything else (cf. the various dialectal realizations of Spanish "s" in the syllable coda, or the various dialectal realizations of Spanish "j" and "ll"). FilipeS 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reason for insisting on b, d, g.

To an Argentinian (for instance), "vou comprar umas botas" sounds almost like "vou comprar umas potas." It does cause incomprehension. It's a difference that fundamentally affects the sound quality of both languages, which is "whip-like" in Portuguese, and smooth in Spanish.

It's not a minor difference, irrespective of whether it's a phoneme or an allophone. Spanish-speaking persons are used to distinguish b and p based on: (a) voiced/voiceless; (b) approximant/plosive; (c) relaxed/tense. In Brazilian, only (a) above separates b and p. Spanish-speakers find themselves at a loss when differentiating between Brazilian b and p, and that's one of the reasons why a Brazilian understands better an Argentinian than the other way round.

In my view, that's a difference just as important as differences in how the time is told -- if not more.--Abenyosef 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think the phonetics section is a little too large as it is, compared to the rest of the article? I do. I just haven't had the time to trim it down, as I'd like to. FilipeS 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sir. The section is too long, and I think the problem is that it describes the full sound inventories, instead of focusing on the differences between the inventories. I would suggest that you trim it down to a few fundamental differences. Following is a list, in decreasing order of importance with regard to affecting mutual comprehension:

• Spanish has five vowels. Portuguese has between 12 and 13, featuring oppositions not found in Spanish, such as close-open and oral-nasal. Dialectal differences in vowel pronunciation are found in Portuguese, but not in Spanish.
• In Portuguese, stressed vowels are much longer than unstressed ones. In Spanish, there's no noticeable difference in length.
• rr is pronounced differently in Spanish than in most Portuguese dialects. In Spanish it's a trill, in Portuguese it's a uvular fricative.
• Intervocalic b, d and g are plosive in Portuguese, but approximant in Spanish.
• Spanish has the rising diphthongs ie and ue where Portuguese uses e and o. On the other hand, Portuguese has more falling diphthongs than Spanish, for instance ui, ou, iu.
• Portuguese relies heavily on the voiced/voiceless opposition in fricatives, such as j/ch, z/s, v/f. Spanish knows no such opposition between fricatives.
• In Portuguese, final -e is transformed into either i (Brazil) or schwa (Portugal), and final -o is transformed into u. No such neutralization is found in any dialect of Spanish.
• In Spanish 'll' has been completely replaced by 'y' (in any of its realizations). No such merger has taken place in Portuguese between lh and i.

Maybe a reference could be made to Castilian Spanish z, as one of the three phonemes, with ch and rr, that are very different to anything to be found in General Portuguese.

Hope that helps.--Abenyosef 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About the assimilation of lh and i (or better lh and the semivowel [j]), it does exist in some Brazilian regional pronunciations, especially in Rio de Janeiro, the North-East and Minas Gerais (where it is a distinctive trait of the local dialect). In southern Brazilian dialects, there is some sort of assimilation between lh and li, which has come to effect in standard Brazilian portuguese as well. jggouvea (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of that is already in the article. It's the structure that needs some work. I agree that the full list of phonemes is not necessary, given the present state of the article. FilipeS 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Less diachronical, more synchronical: that would be my general advice. Focus on how the phonetics of both languages are different, rather than why. Also, focus on the biggest hindrances to mutual comprehension. I think differences in vowel length, as explained above, are a major obstacle when, for instance, an Argentinian tries to understand a Brazilian. --Abenyosef 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vowel length is irrelevant in most Romance languages. I have never heard of such a thing. What are your sources? FilipeS 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no source -- just knowledge of the two languages.

I'm not saying vowel length is phonologically relevant within either Spanish or Portuguese, God forbid. What I'm saying is that in Spanish all vowels are equally long, while in Portuguese unstressed vowels are much shorter than stressed vowels. The vowel length order would thus be:

Unstressed Portuguese vowel < Spanish vowel (any) < Stressed Portuguese vowel

This is not important at the intra-Spanish or intra-Portuguese level (i.e. vowel length doesn't affect meaning in either language), but is important as regards mutual comprehension. Spanish speakers expect all vowels to be equally long, and when faced with the devilishly short unstressed vowels of Portuguese they have a hard time making them out. To me, that's the most important reason why Portuguese speakers understand Spanish speakers better than the other way round. --Abenyosef 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you notice that in Brazilian Portuguese, too? I think it's called timing. FilipeS 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that holds true for BrP too. For instance in the word "fita" the i is noticeably longer than the a. However, it's true that in EuP the difference is even more noticeable. --Abenyosef 02:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In BrP the unstressed i may disappear entirely when the previous consonant is fricative or africate. In the Brazilian south-east, mainly MG and RJ, the word plástico is pronounced ['plas.tʃku]. jggouvea (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lexical differences

I've added this to the lexical differences:

• Words that have two forms in one language, but just one in the other: Portuguese criar corresponds to both Spanish crear "create" and criar "raise", while Spanish sueño corresponds to both Portuguese sonho "dream" and sono "sleep."

Also, I would remove the reference to words of Arab origin. I don't believe it's true that Spanish has more words that come from Arabic than Portuguese -- not at least in common vocabulary:

Pg. alface, Sp. lechuga

Pg. faca, Sp. cuchillo

Pg. garrafa, Sp. botella

Pg. algoz, Sp. verdugo

Pg. açougue, Sp. carnicería

I don't know of any statistical survey on this, but I would be inclined to think that both languages have more or less the same number of Arabic-derived words. --Abenyosef 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read about statistical estimates, and it is true. I will post relevant links when I have the time to look for them. FilipeS 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources: FilipeS 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• around 1000 Arabic words in Portuguese
• around 4000 Arabic words in Spanish

These sources do not tell us how many of these words are actually used in everyday speech. The 4,000 Arabic words in Spanish include such terms as alcázar, which, although understandable to an educated speaker, are hardly if ever used in either writing or conversation. I suggest that we simply state that sometimes Spanish uses the Arabic word and Portuguese the Latin one, and some other times it's the other way round.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's best not to make such generalizations. FilipeS (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of syllables

Any source for this, either? I have never heard of this difference between Spanish and Portuguese. You claim that Portuguese has in general fewer syllables per word than Spanish. You give a few examples, but I think you may have overlooked other classes of examples, such as libertad, verdad, necesidad vs. liberdade, verdade, necessidade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

You're right and the statement might be refined, citing -dad/-dade as one important category of words in which Spanish uses, at least theoretically, less syllables than Portuguese.

As for sources, well, these are things that have been said to me so many times I've never bothered to actually look for a source, especially since my experience as a native speaker of Spanish well-acquainted with Portuguese fully confirms the thesis that, by and large, Portuguese has less syllables.

Maybe it would be wise not to make any judgment as to which language uses more syllables, but state the plain fact that there are clearly defined categories of words in which the number of syllables is different. --Abenyosef 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I do not find the number of syllables to be a very important comparison criterium between lenguages (unless we're talking about very striking differences, like in Chinese, where most words are monosyllabic). Here's a suggestion: take a look at how other languages do it: Differences between Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish, Differences between Malay and Indonesian, Differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. FilipeS 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(It's criterion.) Maybe there is no noticeable difference in the number of syllables between those languages? I don't speak any of them.

All this article is necessarily very subjective: aspects which are relevant to some may be irrelevant to others. The same is true for the general tone of the article: should it contain a lot of information (that can anyway be accessed elsewhere in Wikipedia), or should it be amusing? Do we seek completeness, or do we want to outline the major differences in a way the reader can readily assimilate?

Be it as it may, I think differences in the number of syllables are important; especially those that result from the loss of l and n. Words such as gado, pá, tido, geral, céu, cãibra are fully incomprehensible to a Spanish speaker. --Abenyosef 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's why we say they're two different languages. The Phonology section already explains how intervocalic Latin -l- and -n- evolved differently in Portuguese and Spanish. FilipeS 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this article based on bibliography that directly compares Spanish and Portuguese? --Abenyosef 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The books by Carrasco González and Vásquez Cuesta include some direct comparisons. FilipeS 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to delete this section, possibly reusing some of the examples in other sections, if there are no objections. Comparing two languages on the basis of the number of syllables makes no sense. FilipeS 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've substantially rewritten an reframed some of the material, and deleted what I felt was not pertinent. Overall, I managed to keep quite a lot of Abenyosef's contributions. Thank you. FilipeS 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stressed personal pronouns

I've deleted the following:

There are two important differences between the use of the Spanish personal pronouns él "he", ella "she", ellos "they (masc.)", ellas "they (femin.)" and that of their Portuguese counterparts ele, ela, eles and elas:

• While both Spanish and Portuguese are null subject languages (i.e., the subject of a sentence can be omitted), Spanish is much more null-subject than Portuguese, and stressed personal pronouns are never used as subjects unless required because of a lack of context. In Portuguese, however, stressed personal pronouns are very frequently used even if unnecessary according to context:

¿Dónde está Juan? Está en la oficina. (Spanish)

Onde está o João? Ele está no escritório. (Portuguese)

Where's John? He's in the office.

• In Spanish, stressed personal pronouns are not used for inanimate subjects, except in the most formal writing. Portuguese knows no such restriction:

¿Dónde están las llaves? Están en la mesa. (Spanish)

Onde estão as chaves? Elas estão na mesa. (Portuguese)

Where are the keys? They're on the table.

The reasons are as follows:

1. It's not sourced.
2. It's dubious. While it may be true that subject pronouns (not "stressed pronouns", which may also be objective) are omitted less often than in Spanish in some dialects of Portuguese, this is by no means a universal feature of Portuguese.
3. The same applies to the use of subjective pronouns for inanimates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

My response:

1. 95% of this article is not sourced. That said, the restrictions I mention for the case of Spanish are to be found here: [4]. I've never seen similar restrictions described for the case of Portuguese, but if they do exist, please enlighten me and give me the source.
2. It's not dubious. In Brazil (90% of all speakers) unnecessary ele, ela, eles, elas are heard and read all over the place and on all occasions. While I'm not aware of the situation in Portugal (feedback welcome), surely characteristics pertaining to 90% of a language's speakers are worth mentioning?
3. Subjective pronouns for inanimates are also discussed in the source I mentioned above.--Abenyosef 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. From my point of view, a normal answer to a question like "cadê o João?" ("where's John?") would be like "'tá no escritório" or just "no escritório" ("in the office"). "ele 'tá no escritório" sounds to me like an emphasized answer. Another illustrative example is the very common phrase "'tá na mesa!", which usually implies "o almoço está na mesa" ("the lunch is on the table", literally). So I don't think there's a significant difference between Portuguese and Spanish in this matter. Eumedemito 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that subjective pronouns are used a bit more often in Brazilian Portuguese than in European Portuguese or Spanish, but it's nothing to get worked up about. It may be conspicuous to a Spanish speaker, but it's not a hindrance to mutual understanding. IMHO, it's not a crucial difference. FilipeS 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One case that may be notable enough is the case of questions. "Fala português?", besides sounding unusual, may also be a bit confusing, or even impolite. In questions in the second person, be it singular or plural, a personal pronoun is usually present, stressing that a second person is the subject, and also stressing what kind of second person (você / o senhor). It's important to notice that these small differences concerning particles or small words may be subtle enough in spoken language to pass unnoticed by a foreigner. E.g.: dependending on accent and context, "'s'á fazen'qui?" may well be understood as "o que você está fazendo aqui?" ("what are you doing here?"). In this case, "o que você" is reduced to a single phoneme, /s/, but still interpreted as "o que você". Eumedemito 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In European Portuguese, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "Fala português?" FilipeS 00:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the subsection. With reference to elas (the keys) estão na mesa, the difference between Spanish and Portuguese is that in Portuguese the use of the stressed personal pronoun is possible (although not mandatory, which now has been clarified), while in Spanish it is impossible. So that Portuguese is "optionally null-subject," while Spanish is "compulsorily null-subject." And that's a difference that, in my view, is worth mentioning.--Abenyosef 15:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Compulsory null-subject"? Where did you dig that from? Null-subject is by definition never compulsory. It's governed by pragmatic considerations. FilipeS 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't say "Compulsory null-subject"; I said "Compulsorily null-subject".) No, null-subjectness is NOT governed by pragmatic considerations. In Spanish, you can't use subjective pronouns for things other than people and animals even if it would be very convenient to use them to clarify the meaning of a sentence. It's simply a no-no. We have thus three different kinds of languages:

English: the subject is compulsory: They (the keys) are on the table.

Portuguese: the subject is optional: Elas estão na mesa / Estão na mesa.

Spanish: it's compulsory to drop the subject: Están en la mesa.

The difference between a language in which you can either use or drop a subject and another one in which you have to drop the subject is important enough to be noted here, even if the name for the latter is not "compulsorily null-subject". --Abenyosef 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "null-subject" doesn't just refer to inanimates. FilipeS 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's not talk at all about null-subject-ness, but the fact remains that stressed personal pronouns are never used for inanimates in Spanish, while such usage is perfectly normal in Portuguese. I've documented this, so if there's no objection, I'll restore the subsection, but leaving out the comment on the languages being null-subject. By the way, it was very impolite to delete it without discussing it here, whoever did it. Always IMPROVE, not delete.--Abenyosef (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, deleting is the only (or the easiest) way to improve an article. I am uneasy about making this statement that using personal pronouns for inanimates in Portuguese is "perfectly normal". Acceptable, perhaps, but it's not that common in Portugal, at least. (I do think it's more common in Brazil than in Portugal, but still not that common, I should say...)

Another thing I have noticed is that demonstratives (este, esta, etc.) seem to be unacceptable for people in Spanish, whereas in Portuguese there would be no problem with talking about someone this way, in the proper context. Regards. FilipeS (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Variations of “que/porque”

I've deleted the following:

As a conjunction often translated as “that”, both Spanish and Portuguese use que in a similar manner with no accent mark. The comparative form (i.e. "than" in English) also uses the non-accented que.

Creo que estamos perdidos. (Spanish)

Acho que estamos perdidos. (Portuguese)

I think that we are lost.

When used as an interrogative, Spanish adds an accent mark, while Portuguese places an ‘o’ before que, followed by an optional é que which is never used in Spanish, and by only a minority in Brazil.

¿Qué va a hacer usted? (Spanish)

O que (é que) (você) vai fazer? (Portuguese)

What are you going to do?

However, the ‘o’ in Portuguese is dropped (along with é que) if precision is requested, as in Que horas são? “What time is it?”

Similarly, the interrogative por qué (why) in Spanish has an accent mark, while in Portuguese it does not, and this can be spelled as one word or two (porque or por que). Porque as a conjunction meaning “because” is used in both languages.

At the end of a sentence, the acute accent is used in Spanish, while the circumflex is used in Portuguese.

El coche no comenzará y no sé por qué. (Spanish)

O carro não pegou e não sei porquê (or por quê). (Portuguese)

The car won’t start and I don’t know why.

The reasons are as follows:

1. The difference between por qué and porquê is not well explained. This is a messy subject anyway, because of spelling differences between European and Brazilian Portuguese.
2. The phrase é que is optional, and avoided in writing, so this difference doesn't amount to much. FilipeS 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no official differences as far as I know in the use of "por que", "por quê", "porquê", and "porque" in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Differences that are found in written excerpts arise mostly from EP or BP speakers' lack of knowledge of proper orthography.161.24.19.82 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken. FilipeS 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's anything like Spanish, Porque and Por que are two very different things. --Mariano(t/c) 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat different from Spanish, especially in the European orthography. FilipeS 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am completely mistaken, please explain to me how the rules to use "por que", "por quê", "porque", and "porquê" differ in Brazil and Portugal. Cunha and Cintra's "Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo", which covers both EP and BP, mentions no difference at all ! BTW, what is your statistical evidence to say that "é que" is used only by "a minority" in Brazil ? 161.24.19.82 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have been wrong about the amount of Brazilians who use "é que". Do you have a source that says otherwise?

As for the other issue, I like Cunha and Cintra's grammar very much, but that is one thing which they get wrong. In Portugal, most writers do not use porque, por que, porquê and por quê as in Brazil. See for yourself:

«Porque não?» (e não “por que”)

Porquê, mas porquê?

What's more, different writers don't always write these words the same way, in Portugal. FilipeS 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but the examples below show the proper usage of different variants of "por que" as taught in Brazilian schools:

1. Por que (é que) o carro não pegou ? (Note: é que is actually quite common in southeastern Brazilian speech)
2. Não sei por que o carro não pegou.
3. O carro não pegou porque a bateria estava descarregada.
4. O carro não pegou e não sei por quê.
5. O carro não pegou e não sei o porquê.
6. Não sei o porquê de o carro/do carro não ter pegado.
7. O motivo por que (= pelo qual) o carro não pegou ainda é desconhecido.

Note that the interrogative por que (why) cannot be spelled (BrEng spelt) as a single word (porque) in proper Brazilian Portuguese orthography. Likewise, in example 4 above, one could not write "O carro não pegou e não sei porquê" in standard Brazilian Portuguese. Mbruno 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Still on the subject of é que, speakers of standard BP (i.e. paulistano or carioca) often make a liaison between the final "e" in "que" and "é que" such that O que é que [...] in fast speech sounds, I believe, more like /uke ki/ than /ukiɛ ki/. Can anyone confirm that ? Mbruno 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mbruno, here's how most authors would write those sentences in Portugal:

1. Porque (é que) o carro não pegou ?
2. Não sei porque (é que) o carro não pegou.
3. O carro não pegou porque a bateria estava descarregada.
4. O carro não pegou e não sei porquê.
5. O carro não pegou e não sei o porquê.
6. Não sei o porquê de o carro/do carro não ter pegado.
7. O motivo por que (= pelo qual) o carro não pegou ainda é desconhecido. FilipeS 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can both see, the differences are nothing special, but they do pop up everywhere. It's the sort of thing that immediately tells you whether a text is written in BP or EP. But the rules are rather abstract, and a pain to explain. One thing did leave me wondering, though: saying por que é que (with the addition of the expletive interrogative é que) is apparently more common in Brazil than I thought. If so, then that might be worth mentioning in the article. FilipeS 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, FilipeS. Isn't the Brazilian usage similar to the rules to use "por qué" versus "porque" and "porqué" in Spanish? Would that be an example where BP orthography is actually closer to Spanish than EP spelling ? BTW, I was told that Portuguese writer and Nobel prize winner José Saramago favors (BrEng favours) "Por que" in interrogative sentences. Is that true ? Mbruno 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, the Brazilian spelling is indeed closer to the Spanish spelling. But it's still not quite the same. In Spanish, you always accent the interrogative adverb when it's in a question (¿por qué?); in Brazilian Portuguese, you only do this at the end of sentences (...por quê?, but Por que...?)
• Yes, Saramago and a few other Portuguese authors do prefer to split the adverb into two when it's in a question, as in Spanish, and like Cunha and Cintra do in their grammar. But I think C&C were being kind of prescriptive when they ignored the other spelling (illustrated by me above), which is actually much more common in Portugal. FilipeS 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Pronominal Verbs section

Pronominal verbs are more frequent in Spanish than in Portuguese, especially with actions relating to body parts.

Me quebré la pierna jugando a la pelota. (Spanish)

Eu quebrei a perna jogando à bola. (Portuguese)

I broke my leg playing football.

So far, so good.

They are also sometimes used to indicate a passive object. Unlike the previous example, the Spanish verb now agrees with this object, while the Portuguese verb does not.

Ya no me gusta mi trabajo. (Spanish)

Ja não gosto do meu trabalho. (Portuguese)

I do not like my job anymore.

Se me perdieron las llaves. (Spanish)

Perdi as minhas chaves (Portuguese)

I lost my keys.

The Spanish constructions here are pronominal, not passive. Definitely not passive! And this is not a particuarly striking difference between the two languages. The different syntax of gustar concerns just one verb! As for the second example, it is indeed true that the ethical dative is used more frequently in Spanish than in Portuguese, though it can also be found in Portuguese, in other kinds of sentences.

This can even result in a reversal of the grammatical person with respect to the pronoun and verb, such as Spanish Me gustas (I like you) becoming Te gosto in Portuguese. However, not all Spanish pronominal verbs with a passive object behave in this manner. For example, Te cuido (I look after you) is the same in both languages.

Never in my life have I heard anyone say te gosto! Neither Portuguese nor Brazilians. And "reversal" is biased language. The Spanish construction is itself a "reversal" of the English one, for example. FilipeS 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Apparently there's a lot of bad information on this subject on the web. I’ll be more careful in the future, and check the author's credentials first. Thanks for the prompt fix. FMSZ 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen in the Web about Portuguese over the years, you would do well to be skeptical of it. Sometimes even otherwise serious and accurate sites have glaring mistakes. There is no doubt better information about Spanish. FilipeS 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cola

Cola is still extensively used to mean "glue" in Spanish but not all kinds of glue (i.e. not for contact adhesive). --Asterion^talk 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a suggestion on how the article should be rephrased, or should we just remove that example? FilipeS 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The example should be removed, since Portuguese/Spanish "cola" 'glue' is not a cognate with Spanish "cola" 'tail'. The first comes from the Latin COLLA, the second from the Latin CAUDA. My suggestion is that we mention false friendes without suggesting that they are necessarily cognates, and that we use a better example, i.e. one in which the same word has altogether different meanings in both languages. One good example could be rato.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a good suggestion. I didn't know they weren't cognates (but can't Spanish cola also mean "glue"?) FilipeS (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Você

I've been told that "você" is used in Portugal the same way "usted" is used in Spanish speaking countries. But I think it would be interesting to mention that it's not used the same way in Brazil, where "você" is used as a second person pronoun for everyday conversation, and is widely understood as such. The use of "tu" is generally recognised as a regional feature. Nationwide, the usual expression for formal situations is "o senhor/a senhora", and the use of the plural pronoun "vós" is considered archaic, being "vocês" used instead (most Brazilians don't even know how to properly conjugate verbs in classical second person plural -- and I belong to that group). Eumedemito 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of "você/uested" and "tu/tú" is very complex. I think discussing it here will risk confuding the readers. For example:

• in Portugal and the Portuguese-speaking Africa, tu is absolutely not regional.
• in Portugal and the Portuguese-speaking Africa, você does not correspond to Spanish usted. The Portuguese equivalents to usted, in both Portugal and Brazil, are o senhor and a senhora.
• in several Spanish-speaking countries, tú is not used either.

This topic needs to be carefully thought out before any additions are made. FilipeS 12:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... I believe you must be right. Anyway, is there any direct equivalent in Spanish for "dele/dela"? (To make things clear, I'm definitely not fluent in Spanish...) If indeed there's no such equivalent, maybe this fact could be noted without risking too much into the "você/tu" topic. It may be helpful for Spanish speaking people who are learning (Brazilian) Portuguese, because, over here in Brazil, it's essential to learn that using "seu/sua" as a possessive for "ele/ela" may be confusing, since it's usually associated with "você". Besides that, I think the obsolescence of verbal forms (the second person plural, in special) in (Brazilian) Portuguese could also be noted without risking into complicated topics. What do you think? Eumedemito 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All Spanish countries use either tu or vos, some use both but prefer vos and traditionally some countries such as Guatemala never used tu, only vos as many countries like Spain still only use tu and never vos becuase it woul;d be like satying thou in English, ie terribly antiquated. I always understood that você is the equivalent of tu or vos and never of usted which is O Senhor etc. I thionk in Spanish dele would be de el but I dont know much protuguese, just a beginner, SqueakBox 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many Brazilian commentators seem to have a "paulista-centric" view on the use of "tu" that may cloud their judgment. Traveling recently in the Brazilian Northeast, I was struck to see how widespread the use of "tu" still is in the coastal areas of Pernambuco and Ceará for example. Second-person present tense forms generally tend to coincide with 3rd person forms (e.g. tu acha vs. standard European Portuguese tu achas), but a distinction is still retained in the preterite foms (e.g. tu visse/perdesse versus standard European Portuguese tu viste/perdeste). It should be also mentioned that, even in Brazilian dialects that have completely replaced tu with você , the oblique te is still widely used, often together with você and the corresponding (standard) 3rd person verb forms (e.g. Você gostou do presente que eu te dei ontem ? cf. standard EP Gostaste do presente que te dei ontem ? ). A few Brazilian dialects with heavier European Portuguese influence like the "carioca" dialect of Rio also retain the possessive forms teu/tua and the con- form contigo, again used with the subject pronoun você and the oblique te. Therefore, any claims about the death of second-person pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese are largely premature. 189.102.169.18 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Atlantic influence

Is there some common trait of the American versions not shared by the European versions (or inverse)? For example, American Spanish has extended the meaning of some sailor terms like playa. Does this happen in Brazilian? --Error 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate languages

I am very tempted to delete this section. It has nothing to do with differences between Spanish and Portuguese. Also, the expression "intermediate languages" is tactless to say the least. FilipeS (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lexical Examples at top

I took the liberty of switching one example (hope nobody minds too much). I traded the sample of 'carpet' for that of 'store'. It's just that since spanish has both 'alfombra' AND 'tapete', I thought this sample would be stronger in showing a difference in basic vocabulary since they both bear no cognates with the same meaning of 'store'. (I'm sure portuguese has the word "tenda" for 'tent' while spanish uses 'carpa', but in port. 'tenda' never referes to a 'store'. Does anyone know where 'loja' comes from?

¿Órfano(a)?

In the Word ending section it says that orfão (orphan) belongs with órfano(a) in Spanish but I'm not sure that orphan is called órfano in Spanish, I think it's huérfano(a), right?

Right. Corrected. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is my first post on wikipedia, I just want to say that in this article under the Vocabulary, then Overview section someone put "i think these are reall syupid words stupidento--209.244.187.138 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)." I'm pretty sure this is vandalism and I read I was supposed to report it here, so here I am.

Use of 3rd pers pronouns for inanimates

The link which supposedly justifies the assertions made in this section does not actually justify them. It needs to be replaced with a better one, or the section will be scrapped. FilipeS (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1