Talk:Portuguese conjugation

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 10 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of keep. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Portuguese_verb_conjugation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move

I suggest that this should be moved to Portuguese conjugation. "Portuguese verb conjugation" is redundant. — Chameleon 08:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Haver, ter, ser, etc.

Is there any real need to list the conjugations of so many verbs? Any online conjugator will provide them. In my opinion, the entry should focus on general conjugation paradigms, and on the singularities of Portuguese with respect to other languages. By the way, I also see no need to explain notions like 'infinitive' or 'subjunctive' here. There are specific entries in the Wikipedia for them.

There are specific articles in the Wikipedia about e.g. Spanish and French verbs that include far more detailed/extensive conjugation tables than their Portuguese counterpart. Contrary to what you propose, I believe the article should be actually expanded, rather than trimmed down. 161.24.19.82 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

For a comprehensive overview of Portuguese verb conjugation, I suggest dividing the article into 4 sections:

1. Strictly regular verbs (model conjugations: falar, bater, partir) plus (regular) vowel-alternating verbs of the first, second and third conjugations (model conjugations: apostar/acertar; comer/meter; dormir/ferir; Note: show IPA transcription for vowel-alternating verbs).
2. Anomalous or otherwise highly irregular verbs: ser, estar, ter, haver; pôr, ver, vir; querer, fazer, dizer, saber, trazer, caber, poder, dar, and their compounds.
3. Verbs with irregularities in the present tense only: perder; medir; pedir; ouvir; valer; frigir; subir (sumir, sacudir, acudir, bulir, fugir, cuspir,consumir); agredir (prevenir, denegrir, progredir, regredir, transgredir); odiar (mediar, ansiar, incendiar); destruir (construir); ler (crer); sair (cair, rir); incluir (and other -uir verbs except destruir/construir); frear (and other -ear verbs), etc...
4. Otherwise regular verbs with irregular past participles only (e.g. escrever, abrir, cobrir) or with two past participle forms, respectively regular and irregular (e.g. prender, acender, suspender, imprimir, eleger, morrer, aceitar, entregar, pagar, ganhar, pegar, gastar, etc...).

Mbruno 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of irregular verbs (if that can be counted) could be mentioned... 80.186.202.63 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen other pages on conjugation in other Languages and they all have very detailed tables. In this article it's just a list. For an example, see Spanish conjugation. I'm pretty sure that expanding this article to be more user-friendly would be a good choice. Frozenfire71 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Vowel Alternation in Portuguese

The issue of vowel alternation in Portuguese present indicative verb forms has not been sufficiently emphasized in the article. For example, one cannot simply list a conjugation table for "comer" and ignore that the stressed "o" is pronounced differently in "como" (closed, high-mid ?) and in "comes/come/comem" (open, low-mid ?). Likewise, in many 3rd conjugation verbs with "o" or "e" in the stem (e.g. "dormir", "cobrir", "ferir", etc...), there is a regular vowel change pattern (compare e.g. the pronunciation of "durmo/dormimos/dormis" with the pronunciation of "dormes/dorme/dormem"). Those vowel alternations are fully grammaticalized in Portuguese and an important feature of the language that applies also to noun and adjective morphology (contrast e.g. the pronunciation of "ovo" and "ovos" or "novo" vs "nova/novos").

I would add that the IPA transcription of "absorvemos" and "absorveis" in the article is IMHO wrong. At least in Brazil, we pronounce both "absorvo" and "absorvemos" with a closed (high-mid) unstressed "o" in the root. "Absorve" and "absorvem" on the other hand have an open (low-mid) "o". 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Person Singular and Plural Forms

Are the second person singular and plural forms of verbs only used in Portugal? I was wondering because they are not mentioned in a Brazilian Portuguese book I have. 66.168.54.166 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They are used in some parts of Brazil (Nordeste and Sul). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.119.113.93 (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read the relevant Wikipedia articles and it follows that both in Portugal and Brazil the 2nd person plural forms are only ever used in literature, especially older and religious texts, or some dialects. This seems to be more or less the same situation as with English thou, but no one normally includes -st forms in English conjugation paradigms. Aren't the current conjugation tables and examples speciously "Latinized"? Apparently all 2pl forms should be marked with "†" (and 2sg with "EP & educated BP only", if I'm not mistaken). 46.186.34.99 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cluttering the tables with †s and such will lead nowhere good. Better would be to explain the (dis)use of the second person in the article's introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

--187.0.126.98 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Present participle

The Portuguese wiki says that Portuguese no longer has a present participle. It says that although the -nte suffix is productive, the results are all nouns and adjectives with specific meanings rather than straight-up verb forms which serve a grammatical purpose. The role of the present participle has in Portuguese been taken over by the gerund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Native Portuguese speaker here. This is the first time I've ever heard of a "present participle" in Portuguese, and the Portuguese Wikipedia indeed says it is no longer a thing, but on further inspection, one of the references in said page makes a great point as to how it is, indeed, still used quite frequently in Portuguese. It seems to be interchangeable with "que + verb on 'third person present form of the indicative mood'" (i.e. pagantes = que pagam, constantes = que constam) or the gerund form (i.e confiante = confiando), just like how the pluperfect form is interchangeable with "ter verb on 'imperfect form of the indicative mood' + verb on past participle" (i.e tinha feito, tinha comido, tinha andado). Perhaps the present participle shouldn't be removed, after all. 187.0.126.98 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Participles & further elaboration on my edits just now

I have decided to dig around the internet for more information on these participles. After all, no one had ever told me anything about them before, they literally are not included in any dictionaries, papers, school subjects or even formal studies. By doing so, I have discovered that there are actually not one, but THREE of these "hidden" participles:

• The present participle, which is actually still used rather commonly (pagantes, constantes... See topic above). It's not used for all verbs, though, which is why I didn't add them to the comer and partir tables: I actually don't know what's the present participle for those verbs. Since they're regular, I'd guess it's "comente" and "partinte", but I can't be sure...
• The future participle (nascituro, morituro, vincituro). This one means "about to (verb)", and is used in Portuguese strictly in its periphrastic form, "que + verb estar on 'third person present form of the indicative mood' + para + verb in its 'infinitive form'" (i.e que está para nascer, que está para morrer, que está para vencer). I had literally never heard any of these words before doing this little research.
• The passive future participle (dividendo, diminuendo, despiciendo). This one means "that has to be (verb)", and is still used, but mostly in its periphrastic form, que + verb dever on 'third person present form of the indicative mood' + ser + verb in its past participle (i.e que deve ser dividido, que deve ser diminuído, que deve ser desprezado). These words (with the exception of despiciendo, which I had never heard before) are actually used nowadays, but only as nouns with specific meanings, rather than straight-up verb forms which serve a grammatical purpose.

These forms are all from Latin. Considering how two out of these three forms are never used by your average person (or even an educated person), and how none of the three are ever directly mentioned as verb forms, I believe they should NOT be in the table (the table is called basic forms, after all), but they SHOULD be in the page somewhere. I'd like to propose a section dedicated to them, just like how we have a section about the imperative form.

Talking about the section about the imperative form... It's inaccurate, and every single verb listed in the page proves that. The section says that the affirmative imperative is just present indicative, but without the -s at the end. However, the vowels also change. For example, the singular third person in the indicative mood is "come", but it's "coma" in the affirmative imperative. So that's why I changed the table to include every single imperative conjugation. Even though some of them are 1:1 to some other conjugation, that's also the case with future subjunctive and personal infinitives, but they're both properly included in the tables regardless. So please don't revert it or something. 2804:22C:F650:B900:CC9F:6E43:4B18:407A (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Vós

I know vós itself (but not vos) is archaic, but are the corresponding forms of verbs archaic as well? I found a Facebook group called Falais Português, for example. Esszet (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the two alternative pronunciations???

In the tables in the section "Pronunciation of present inflections", what do the two alternative pronunciations in many table cells represent? Simple alternatives? European vs. Brazilian? (If the latter, which is which?) This should be made explicit somewhere. (The answer may be buried in the introductory text; if so, I can't make it out.) 2603:9000:AC08:A600:885D:2254:F3CA:F6F3 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I can´t find the verb lenir anywhere

can someone tell me what it means.. im assuming something to do with soothe from the italian 170.85.6.177 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Perfect vs preterite?

The article doesn't explain what the perfect (tenho feito) expresses, how it differs from the preterite (fiz), what it corresponds to in English, why it isn't classed as a tense, and why the preterite is said to correspond to both the English past tense (I did) and to the English present perfect tense (I have done), whereas the perfect isn't said to correspond to the English perfect. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)