Hi guys,

Beginner  here. Looking at the conditional tense endings, need some clarification if you can spare your time and knowledge.

Eu falaria – I would speak

Nos falariamos – we would speak etc etc.

If I wanted to say, for example, ‘I could speak’, how would I go about doing that? And what would the endings be for he, we, you (pl.) and they of ‘could speak’?

 

Thanks in advance

FJ, get your hands on some good books to read through and then practice speaking with Brazilians (just reading books and websits is not enough for 99% of people). I recall seeing a torrent file a while back that was a very impressive collection of language materials. The Portuguese directory was filled with lotsa good books.

About your questions, it's poderia/podia. Just remember though, this tense (conditional) is usually "coupled" with the imperfect subjunctive (fosse, estivesse, fizesse, etc...)

here's an enteraining example.. ahhh.. the Brazilian mind!

Se a irmã de vocês fizesse um filme pornô vocês teriam a curiosidade de vê-la em cena?

Surprisingly, only a couple of people say NO WAY!

http://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126060959AAWLzFV

Originally posted by jacare [QUOTE=FJLondon]Now someone please tell me how to translate the American English phrase, 'coulda, woulda, shoulda'.

It is correctly:

  "could have, should have, would have."

and there is still all auxillary verbs, so we need to add a main verb still:

  "could have done it, should-have done it, would-have done it."

The tense/time-aspect is all present perfect ("to have done"), let's translate with composite past: "ter feito"

Now we have 3 moods, constructed in English by taking the verb

 - potential ("could")
 - deontive ("should")
 - conditional ("would")

Now these are still verbs in English, but they are defective, meaning they don't have an infinitive in English. But if we know other European languages we know that they are full verbs there:

 - could - past tense of can - German können (to be able to) ich könnte - Portuguese poder -.eu podia
 - should - past tense of shall - German sollen (to be required to) ich sollte - Portuguese dever - eu deveria
 - would - past tense of will - German werden (to be going to) - Portuguese ir - eu iria

The overlap between simple past tense and this conditional/conjunctive/subjunctive form is notable in all those languages. And it's not actually really correct. Is it "eu podia" or not rather "eu poderia"? Is it "eu iria" or not rather "eu ia"? I am not sure the native speaker gets it right any more most of the time. The upside of it might be that you don't have to sweat those differences because you'd still be understood.

So, now let's put it back together in both variants: Futuro do pretérito:

 - eu poderia ter feito
 - eu deveria ter feito
 - eu iria ter feito

and the other variant using Pretérito imperfeito:

 - eu podia ter feito
 - eu devia ter feito
 - eu ia ter feito

And I don't think I have heard "eu poderia" nor "eu devia", but have heard "ia" and "iria". But "ia" only in poetry.

So I would have said:

 - eu podia ter feito
 - eu deveria ter feito
 - eu iria ter feito

And certainly I only heard "eu queria" not "eu quereria".

So to bring it back into some short form as the English saying:

 "podia, deveria, iria"

I am sure this is not quite exactly right. But I bet it's pretty close, and it is fascinating how much logic is embedded into natural languages.

"If I spoke with natives more often, I could speak better Portuguese."

"Se eu falasse mais com os Brasileiros, eu podia falar Portuguese bem melhor."

But then again more correctly I think it should be "..., eu poderia", and now saying it, may be I even heard the natives speak it.


Edited by Squiddie - 18 August 2012 at 23:28

Squid, thanks for the most excellent post on grammar!  You've saved me R$60 on a lesson.  Perhaps you and Megabyte should join forces?  You both seem to have similar.... er, uh, teaching styles.  

Originally posted by Squiddie Originally posted by jacare [QUOTE=FJLondon]Now someone please tell me how to translate the American English phrase, 'coulda, woulda, shoulda'. It is correctly:   "could have, should have, would have." and there is still all auxillary verbs, so we need to add a main verb still:   "could have done it, should-have done it, would-have done it." The tense/time-aspect is all present perfect ("to have done"), let's translate with composite past: "ter feito" Now we have 3 moods, constructed in English by taking the verb  - potential ("could")  - deontive ("should")  - conditional ("would") Now these are still verbs in English, but they are defective, meaning they don't have an infinitive in English. But if we know other European languages we know that they are full verbs there:  - could - past tense of can - German können (to be able to) ich könnte - Portuguese poder -.eu podia  - should - past tense of shall - German sollen (to be required to) ich sollte - Portuguese dever - eu deveria  - would - past tense of will - German werden (to be going to) - Portuguese ir - eu iria The overlap between simple past tense and this conditional/conjunctive/subjunctive form is notable in all those languages. And it's not actually really correct. Is it "eu podia" or not rather "eu poderia"? Is it "eu iria" or not rather "eu ia"? I am not sure the native speaker gets it right any more most of the time. The upside of it might be that you don't have to sweat those differences because you'd still be understood. So, now let's put it back together in both variants: Futuro do pretérito:  - eu poderia ter feito  - eu deveria ter feito  - eu iria ter feito and the other variant using Pretérito imperfeito:  - eu podia ter feito  - eu devia ter feito  - eu ia ter feito And I don't think I have heard "eu poderia" nor "eu devia", but have heard "ia" and "iria". But "ia" only in poetry. So I would have said:  - eu podia ter feito  - eu deveria ter feito  - eu iria ter feito And certainly I only heard "eu queria" not "eu quereria". So to bring it back into some short form as the English saying:  "podia, deveria, iria" I am sure this is not quite exactly right. But I bet it's pretty close, and it is fascinating how much logic is embedded into natural languages.

Edited by Gringo.Floripa - 19 August 2012 at 11:20