Talk:Differences between Spanish and Portuguese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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/.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 /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. 161.24.19.82
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 /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 /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

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)

[edit] '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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Congrats!

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

[edit] "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 eram felizes 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/f/Talk%7EDifferences_between_Spanish_and_Portuguese_e8a1.html"