# Confusion over use of pretérito perfeito and imperfeito- completed or habitual action?



## el escandalo

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the use of preterite and imperfect for the past (and I learned and speak Spanish pretty well, so the concepts aren't foreign to me).

When I learned Spanish I generally thought of imperfect as an action occurring in the past over a period of time, and preterite (perfect) as a specific action in the past.

Now I'm learning Portuguese and I'm being taught that "perfect" means "completed" or "no longer occurring". But I find many examples of completed actions where it just feels more correct to use imperfect (though I acknowledge I have no real idea what I'm talking about). For example:

Eu estava no brasil no ano passado. (the action is clearly completed, but imperfect feels better to me as the action occurred over a period of time). Or:

Eu estava estudando todo o tempo na faculdade. (to me the implication is I'm no longer in college, so if it's completed I should use preterite, but again imperfect seems more correct to me). 1 more:

Quando eu era criança, vivia numa pequena casa. (it's completed, so I should use preterito perfeito? "Quando eu estive criança, vivi numa pequena casa.")

Basically one hand I'm being taught that the difference between "perfect" and "imperfect" is that action has completed. But to my humble, novice ears, I feel like the usage I've seen has more to do with the action being a specific instance (preterito perfeito) or recurring (preterito imperfeito). But my usage of the "imperfect" has had nothing to do with the action being completed (as there are lots of habitual actions that occurred (and recurred) all in the past, and are completed "i was partying a lot on vacation", "we were living in a tent that summer" etc. etc.

Thanks for any insight!!!

Andrew


----------



## pfaa09

We use the past perfect for something we did or have done, and the imperfect for something that we was doing in the past.
Eu estava no brasil no ano passado = I was in Brasil last year when I saw her the very first time.
Eu estive no Brasil no ano passado a gozar férias = I have benn in Brasil last year for a vacation/to enjoy my vacations.
Eu já estive no Brasil = I have already been in Brasil ( Is past, something that you've done and that's it, end of the story )
Estava eu no Brasil, quando de repente me aparece uma amiga = I was in Brasil, when suddenly a friend of mine showed up.

Eu estudava todo o tempo na faculdade. ( with this construction, we get the idea that college was the place where you were studying )
Quando andava na faculdade estudava o tempo todo ( When I was in college I was always studying )

You wrote:
"Quando eu era criança, vivia numa pequena casa. (it's completed, so I should use preterito perfeito? "Quando eu estive era criança, vivi numa pequena casa.")"
"Quando eu estive era criança, vivi numa pequena casa.") = When I was (ser) a child... To be, as you know, goes for being or place.
By the way, in this case, you can use both verb tenses for the place where the child was living or has lived. It as to do with the rest of the conversation.
We use the imperfect a lot to say: I was doing that while/when I... same to: He was doing this while/when...
However, this is not so simple to explain in few words, I'm just trying to give you an idea.
In Portuguese it would be easier to explain with more accuracy, obviously.


----------



## Tony100000

Quando eu era criança, vivi numa casa.
(This sentence doesn't make much sense, at least to me, using first the Imperfect and then the Perfect.)
Quando eu era criança, vivia numa casa.
(This, to me, makes much more sense)

1. The Imperfect is usually used when we are refering something in the past, contemporary with something else.
*Eu comia bolachas quando ia para a escola.
Eu estava no Brasil no ano passado no momento em que havia uma crise económica.*

2. The Imperfect is also used when something happened in the past and stayed in the past, long actions or states, and it's not happening now.
*Eu detestava falar com pessoas ignorantes no meu tempo de escola.
Quando eu era criança, vivia numa casa.
Eu (estava estudando - sounds strange to my ears) estudava todo o tempo na faculdade.
*
The 1st and 2nd are somewhat intertwined with each other.

The Perfect basically expresses something in the Past that happened in one moment.
*Eu joguei futebol com os meus amigos.
Ela comeu fruta estragada.*


----------



## pfaa09

pfaa09 said:


> You wrote:
> "Quando eu era criança, vivia numa pequena casa. (it's completed, so I should use preterito perfeito? "Quando eu estive era criança, vivi numa pequena casa.")"
> "Quando eu estive era criança, vivi numa pequena casa.") = When I was (ser) a child... To be, as you know, goes for being or place.
> By the way, in this case, you can use both verb tenses for the place where the child was living or has lived. It as to do with the rest of the conversation.


Pode usar os dois tempos verbais. Tem a ver com o resto da conversa.
Quando (eu) era criança, vivi numa casa que tinha uma bela e enorme varanda.
Estranho é dizer-se: Quando era criança, vivia numa casa.
É suposto viver-se numa casa, seria preciso um contexto para uma declaração destas.


----------



## Tony100000

Of course you're supposed to live in a house. I didn't give any context.

Nonetheless, I would say "Quando era criança, vivia numa casa que tinha uma bela e enorme varanda". Using "vivi" sounds strange to me.


----------



## pfaa09

Eu penso que o Tony100000 (acho que estão todos os zeros, lol) analisa bem os tempos verbais de ser e viver. Tudo bem, entendo perfeitamente isso.
Isso é estranho porque não se diz: "Quando eu fui criança, vivi numa casa..." e isso é estranho porque nós continuamos a crescer e falamos de um passado que nos retrata.
Mas é um facto que se viveu naquela casa, isso, no meu ponto de vista, não pode ser posto em causa. A pessoa era criança, mas viveu naquela casa que tinha aquela varanda...
Eu estou com a minha esposa em frente à casa onde vivi em criança e digo:
- Quando eu era criança, vivi nesta casa.
Por que razão não posso usar aqui o imperfeito (era) e o perfeito (vivi) na mesma frase?

nota: el escandalo, I'm sorry for writing in Portuguese, if you need any translation, be my guest, please.

Cumps


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

Ah, eu agora fiquei intrigado com a diferença entre "Quando era criança, _vivia_..." e "Quando era criança, _vivi_..." Eu instintivamente empregaria a primeira... mas a segunda me deixaria a careca irritada, pois eu a coçaria até descobrir a diferença.

No meu achismo "morava naquela casa" (I used to live in that house) e agora "não estou mais nela porque me mudei"; na segunda, "morei naquela casa entre 1960 e 1966" (I lived in that house from 1960 to 1966) e agora não mais, pois, sei lá, o teto desabou na minha cabeça, matando não só a mim, mas todos os amigos que eu havia convidado para uma festa. Vou morrer tentando resolver este jogo de xadrez.


----------



## Tony100000

I'll try to give some logic explanation, even though I don't know if I'm right. 

Vivia (Imperfeito - a long state that happened in the past)
Vivi (Perfeito - a state that happened at a point in time)

Quando era criança, vivia naquela casa.
(I lived there some / many years)

Quando era criança, vivi naquela casa durante 2 dias, porque tive uma inundação na casa dos meus pais e tive de ir viver na casa dos meus vizinhos.
(I lived there 2 days. Is this consided a long state? I don't think so.)


----------



## AlexSantos

O verbo depois de "quando" é totalmente dispensável. "Quando criança, eu morei naquela casa" ou "Quando criança, eu morava naquela casa" me soam igualmente bem.

E acho que eu só usaria o verbo *"morar" *nesse contexto. Não usaria o verbo *"viver"*. "Eu vivia naquela casa" mais me parece um hábito, tipo "Quando eu era criança, vivia na casa do vizinho" (_When I was a child, I'd often go to my neighbour's house_).


----------



## el escandalo

Obrigado!!! 

Yes, this is general confirms my understanding of the usage... My confusion stemmed from the specific difference my teachers were currently telling me, that "perfect" basically means "completed", whereas "imperfect" means "not-yet completed". But from these answers, it does seem to me that the usage of perfect/imperfect is determined by other usage-factors, such as when @pfaa09 wrote "We use the imperfect a lot to say: I was doing that while/when I... same to: He was doing this while/when..."

I also have to say (and maybe this is a different, almost philosophical question) but the use of the verb Ser "to be" with past-perfect seems limited, as unless someone has died, their existences is an ongoing thing. I can understand it with estar "Eu estou com a minha esposa em frente à casa..." because it's referring to a temporary location. But I'm having trouble thinking of examples with Ser, the more-permanent concept of "to be". Any examples of ser with past-perfect?

Thank you to all!!!


----------



## Tony100000

Do you mean something like this?

If I had been a king, I would have bought a golden sword.
Se tivesse sido (um) rei, teria comprado uma espada de ouro.

If he had been a bird, he could have flown to you.
Se ele tivesse sido um pássaro, poderia ter voado até ti.

He talked as if he had been a millionaire.
Ele falou como se já tivesse sido (um) milionário.


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

Past perfect ~ Pretérito mais-que-perfeito? Ou não?

Severina _had been_ the last to know.
Severina _fora_ a última a saber.

The robber in black _had been_ with the one who knew the meaning of each charm on the victim's bracelet.
O ladrão de preto _fora_ aquele que conhecia o significado de cada atrativo do bracelete da vítima.

Mr. Cunha _had been_ the only one left behind.
O sr. Cunha _fora_ o único deixado para trás.


----------



## el escandalo

Marcio_Osorio said:


> Past perfect ~ Pretérito mais-que-perfeito? Ou não?
> 
> Severina _had been_ the last to know.
> Severina _fora_ a última a saber.
> 
> The robber in black _had been_ with the one who knew the meaning of each charm on the victim's bracelet.
> O ladrão de preto _fora_ aquele que conhecia o significado de cada atrativo do bracelete da vítima.
> 
> Mr. Cunha _had been_ the only one left behind.
> O sr. Cunha _fora_ o único deixado para trás.





Tony100000 said:


> Do you mean something like this?
> 
> If I had been a king, I would have bought a golden sword.
> Se tivesse sido (um) rei, teria comprado uma espada de ouro.
> 
> If he had been a bird, he could have flown to you.
> Se ele tivesse sido um pássaro, poderia ter voado até ti.
> 
> He talked as if he had been a millionaire.
> Ele falou como se já tivesse sido (um) milionário.



It's subjunctive no?


----------



## el escandalo

Marcio_Osorio said:


> Past perfect ~ Pretérito mais-que-perfeito? Ou não?
> 
> Severina _had been_ the last to know.
> Severina _fora_ a última a saber.
> 
> The robber in black _had been_ with the one who knew the meaning of each charm on the victim's bracelet.
> O ladrão de preto _fora_ aquele que conhecia o significado de cada atrativo do bracelete da vítima.
> 
> Mr. Cunha _had been_ the only one left behind.
> O sr. Cunha _fora_ o único deixado para trás.



Thanks to all! @Marcio_Osorio 

I meant the "Indicativo Pretérito Perfeito Simples". Could that form be used with your examples? Such as:

Severina foi a última a saber.

In either case, the examples helped!


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

Yes, it could.

Severina _was_ the last one to know.
Severina _foi_ a última a saber.

The robber in black _was_ with the one who knew...
O ladrão de preto _foi_ aquele que conhecia...

Mr. Cunha _was_ the only one...
O sr. Cunha _foi_ o único...

They _were_ the winners.
_Foram_ eles os vencedores or Eles _foram_ os vencedores.

And yes, it appears Tony100000 used the composite pluperfect subjunctive.
E, sim, parece que Tony100000 usou o pretérito mais-que-perfeito composto do subjuntivo.


----------



## el escandalo

Thank you!


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

Marcio_Osorio said:


> [...]
> The robber in black _was_ with the one who knew...
> O ladrão de preto _foi_ aquele que conhecia...


Sorry, I mistranslated one of the sentences.

Tradução certa: O ladrão _estava_ com o que sabia...

Nesse caso, esse exemplo não serve.

The robber in black _was_ the one who stole the victim's bracelet.
O ladrão de preto _foi_ o que roubou a pulseira da vítima.

Desconsiderando o verbo _ser_, não escreveríamos melhor:

O ladrão de preto roubou a pulseira da vítima.
The robber in black stole the victim's bracelet?


----------

