# Sub-standard language- ever acceptable?



## ayupshiplad

Evening all 

Was recently shopping about for Portuguese grammars, and came across a review of one that claims to give written (formal) variations and colloquial ones so you get a better feel of the language.

However, it gives the 'colloquial' example of:

"Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado". 



I ask you, is this _ever_ acceptable?! If so, is it acceptable enough that it should be included in a Portuguese grammar for foreigners?

Thanks!


----------



## Outsider

That's Brazilian Portuguese and, I think, somewhat regional. Some speakers won't pronounce the final esses when they are semantically redundant. I will let our Brazilian friends give their opinion on the appropriateness of such constructions.


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

No, it is NOT acceptable. 
For me, there is a differnce between Colloquial language and Wrong language. I mean, colloquial languae is more flexible than formal, of course, and some 'mistakes' or mmm 'soft usage' is tolerated, but, something like this, a great errors of 'agreement' (concordância) should be really forbid. 

Perhaps, the book shows 'usually errors' that you should not commit, if this is the goal, it is not so bad. 

Até.:


----------



## mnajan

That's, unfortunately, used by those who don't know their own language (and that is not rare in a country that almost doesn't incentive culture). This phrase is wrong. That should be written this way:
"Esses alunos ficaram muito motivados."


Just to be clear: this is not acceptable in any classroom anywhere in Brazil.


----------



## ayupshiplad

mnajan said:


> This phrase is wrong. That should be written this way:
> "Esses alunos ficaram muito motivados."


 
I find it really interesting that you said this, given that in the example there is an equal number of plurals and singulars...is it because of the verb being plural and this is the most dominant feature? 

Thank you all for such great reassurance! I was really surprised to see it in a book for people learning Portuguese.


----------



## Outsider

Which book was it?



ayupshiplad said:


> "Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado".


The first word, _esses_, already indicates the plural. Pluralizing the others is redundant, from a purely semantic point of view. (Yet it is standard in Portuguese.)


----------



## ayupshiplad

Outsider said:


> Which book was it?
> 
> The first word, _esses_, already indicates the plural. Pluralizing the others is redundant, from a purely semantic point of view. (Yet it is standard in Portuguese.)


 
Ah ok. Such logic never occured to me! I just saw 2 singulars and 2 plurals!


----------



## Outsider

_Esse*s* aluno*s* ficara*m* muito motivado*s*._ 4 words are pluralized in the standard Portuguese version.
Th*ese* student*s* *were* very motivated. --> In English, you only have to pluralize 3 words. ​I understand that in some other languages it may happen that only one, or even none of the words, is pluralized.


----------



## Ayazid

Well, I am afraid that we should firstly define the right meaning of the words "acceptable" or "wrong", at least in this context. Myself I can´t understand what is unacceptable in showing how *certain* people in *certain* Brazilian regions speak (obviously the uneducated ones, without proper knowledge of formal language). If a considerable number of these people speak this "caipira" way (droping final ´s), shouldn´t we rather ask if it is acceptable *for them* although it is regionally and socially limited and therefore stygmatised feature (BTW, a few days ago I found a reference to this "wrong" usage in one English written compendium of Portuguese grammar from 1920s, being mentioned as an example of uneducated Brazilian speech)? Maybe in sociolect of such capiau or matuto it is perfectly acceptable construction!


----------



## ayupshiplad

Ayazid said:


> Well, I am afraid that we should firstly define the right meaning of the words "acceptable" or "wrong", at least in this context. Myself I can´t understand what is unacceptable in showing how *certain* people in *certain* Brazilian regions speak (obviously the uneducated ones, without proper knowledge of formal language).


 
But is it acceptable to teach this to foreigners as a standard colloquial sentence? Personally, I don't think so. 



> Some speakers won't pronounce the final esses when they are semantically redundant.


 
Ah, Out, now I know what you mean!!! By 'esses' you meant the plural of s...ok, that makes perfect sense now. I don't think I would have ever understood why it went plural automatically without such an explantion. I would most likely be wondering for quite a long time whether this person really wanted to talk about one pupil or two


----------



## Outsider

ayupshiplad said:


> Ah, Out, now I know what you mean!!! By 'esses' you meant the plural of s...


Yeah, sorry about the confusing wording!


----------



## Ayazid

ayupshiplad said:


> But is it acceptable to teach this to foreigners as a standard colloquial sentence? Personally, I don't think so.



No, but it might be mentioned as an example of how uneducated people in certain Brazilian regions speak, with information that it is a stygmatised feature, otherwise it would be written in misleading way, but if it was mentioned as a general example of Brazilian coloquial speech it really *was* misleading and author´s inaccuracy.


----------



## Frajola

I would say that this construction is more of a _*social*_ than a regional variation. 

I assume that the author of the book was pointing out the kinds of constructions a learner of Brazilian Portuguese might be exposed to if they ever set foot in good old Brasil. And it is a very accurate account of how a considerable number of Brazilian speakers render their own language. 

That said, it is a honest approach to learning. I can't remember the number of times I had people leaning American English ask me what the heck the word 'ain't' means. No such word in their textbooks, they'll tell me, and it seems to be quite a pervasive word once they go out there in the real world. 

Should that Brazilian Portuguese construction be there in the first place? Maybe. If you are looking for a straightup apporach in a book that won't leave you hanging out there with bookish Portuguese, who knows, this might be good one to hold on to. In learning a foreign language, it is arguably as important to learn what you don't want to say as what you do want to say.

On the native speaker side of the spectrum... Granted, people will judge you by how you write and how you say things. But to claim that this construction is wrong or unaccpebtable or that it should be fordibben (!), that I think is an oversimplication of the matter.


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

I understand that for some social, economic and so on reasons some language errors are unavoidable, and, for that I said that, if the intention of the book was to point out what foreigners may meet/hear to their comprehension and not speaking, it is a good idea. 

The problem is that it is not very rare to see people with what we would consider 'high-education', as a university degree, speaking badly. Sometimes, the 'culture' (perhaps 'technical' is a better word) has nothing to do with the language level of one. 

I agree with Frajola that expressions like English´s 'Ain´t' should be taught, but foreigners should avoid it. It is not a matter of using bookish language, it is only 'standard', not that hight, not that low. I think, at least foreigners have a good confidence, they should avoid some regional expressions, slangs, it may lead to some misunderstandings.

Até.:


----------



## Denis555

I think that it's wrong to write a sentence like this. But at the same time we have to understand that a lot of people would speak like that. So we have to see it as a way of pronunciation not spelling. 
Even when someone who usually speaks like this would have to write this sentence s/he would put the S's there.

In French it happens all the time! The S's for the plural are not pronounced, only written. The only difference is that EVERYBODY uses the language this way, then it becomes OK. 

The S's in Brazilian Portuguese can be dropped specially by uneducated people or in the casual speech of the educated. 

As usual I agree with _Outsider_ for the reason why for that: *Semantic redundancy.* "Esse*s* aluno ficaram muito motivado". Observe that the first "*s*" is never dropped because it's the marker of the plural, but the other S's are semantically irrelevant.

In most languages(including our European variant with the vowels) you can find something that can be dropped in pronunciation. 
English is no exception:
I don't know -> Usually the "t" is dropped. Sometimes even written: I _dunno ._
Another case of what I'm saying is: *I'm lovin' it* Where the dropping of the "g" changes the pronunciation.


----------



## ayupshiplad

Denis555 said:


> In French it happens all the time! The S's for the plural are not pronounced, only written. The only difference is that EVERYBODY uses the language this way, then it becomes OK.


 
Yes, but this is standard pronounciation! 



> English is no exception:
> I don't know -> Usually the "t" is dropped. Sometimes even written: I _dunno ._
> Another case of what I'm saying is: *I'm lovin' it* Where the dropping of the "g" changes the pronunciation.


 
I would have to disagree with your saying that the 't' is usually dropped...perhaps it is a question of English variants, I really don't know, but I certainly would never talk like this unless I was particularly tired or feeling melancholy!! It might be more common in AE though (similarly with 'ain't' which is understood but never used in BE)

I haven't actually read this book, just read a review of it which slated it. From what I can gather, I don't think the book was just highlighting that this dropping of the s can be often heard in certain areas of Brazil, rather advocating its use. Of course I agree that such things should be brought to the attention of learners, to avoid confusion when trying to understand a native that speaks this way, but I don't think that foreigners should be advised to talk this way, which is what I think the book was doing.


----------



## Vanda

Just to compare, many English books for foreigners (especially a famous - I dare say the most famous British one in the area, widely adopted all around the world) bring what is wrong and write in English. Some columns of Dos and Donts of the language. It is really helpful for students! I've learned a lot from those lists!


----------



## ayupshiplad

Vanda said:


> Just to compare, many English books for foreigners (especially a famous - I dare say the most famous British one in the area, widely adopted all around the world) bring what is wrong and write in English. Some columns of Dos and Donts of the language. It is really helpful for students! I've learned a lot from those lists!


 
Ahh but that is the point! Obviously such things are really useful for learners of any language, but the book was saying it was a 'do' and not a 'don't'!


----------



## Outsider

Be careful, you haven't actually read the book. It might be interesting to increase your knowledge of the language, but I would start by looking at books with a more traditional approach.


----------



## Dona Chicória

On the other hand I have noticed some misprinting (typing) problems in books printed in English, or Portuguese in...China, or Spain, respectively.

I would suggest that you check where the book has been printed:  it might be the answer.


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

This matter about what foreigners should do or not reminds me of two things.
First, when I was preparing myself for Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) exams. A classmate of mine asked the teacher "Can we use slangs in the speaking part?" she replied "No?" he "But even the new ones? to show that we are updated?" she "No, Cambridge doesn´t want to know if you know all the new hip-hop slans and so on, perhaps, they even do not understand you."

Second, what is written in one of the books that I use to learn Czech in the paragraph "Non-standard Czech" : "Foreigners using these features may expect sometimes to attract criticism - even from Czechs who habitually speak like this themselves (...)". 

This Cambridge-ESOL really wants you to speak standard language, you cannot say there "O, but this mistake I commited, every native does too, you cannot penalize me for this..." They do not care. 

So, Native language not always is the correct language, althought it may sound weird. 

Até.:


----------



## Macunaíma

É verdade o que o Denis disse: esses "erros" muitas vezes são apenas preguiça de pronunciar como se escreve. São erros cometidos mesmo por quem sabe como a gramática normatiza. Na minha fala, por exemplo, eu quase sempre digo _esse/essa _mesmo quando o correto seria _este/esta_; isso simplesmente porque acho mais fácil pronunciar _esse/essa _e todo mundo entende. São fatos da vida. Eu nunca omito s's nos plurais (o que, aliás, é extremamente estigmatizado), mas quando os plurais me chateiam eu recorro a um "plural singularizado" muito comum na fala brasileira. Exemplos: 

- Nunca tinha visto *tanta mulher bonita *junta como num fim de semana que eu passei em Búzios!
- Eu compro mais* livro *do que consigo ler.
- Minha avó paterna tinha 22 irmãos! Minha bisavó *tinha filho *igual uma preá! (_igual_ sem a preposição _a_, para ficar mais fiel ao realismo lingüístico )
- Eu tenho* amigo *de tudo o que é jeito.
- No Natal eu ganhei *um monte de roupa *da minha mãe e nenhuma me serviu... 
- Eu sei de* história *do meu ex-chefe que até Deus duvida.

Isso, sim, se ouve _muito _na fala coloquial no Brasil. Em todos os casos, é óbvio que se tratam de plurais.

A frase do livro em questão me parece estranha. Tem quem fale assim, claro, mas não me parece que sejam tantos e nem isso seja tão difuso que justifique ser ensinado para estrangeiros. E, como Tagarela disse, certos erros comuns, produzidos pela simples preguiça de falar certo, passam despercebidos quando cometidos por um nativo mas saltam às vistam quando cometidos por um estrangeiro. É injusto, eu também acho...


----------



## Frajola

ayupshiplad said:


> I haven't actually read this book, just read a review of it which slated it. From what I can gather, I don't think the book was just highlighting that this dropping of the s can be often heard in certain areas of Brazil, rather advocating its use.


 
I am 100% sure the author was rather trying to make a whole different point. Not even the most liberal Portuguese language teacher would _*advocate*_ using that construction. Let alone a book aimed at the non-native speaker. 

Now, if I am 100% wrong, someone out there please slap me out of my delirium!


----------



## Nikola

I think that these informal ways of speaking should be taught to intermediate and advanced students once they have learned the proper structure of the language. They should be presented as what they are, generally unofficial, informal and often incorrect forms of the language. It should be clearly stated whether these forms are used only by the uneducated or if they are also used by the educated in informal situations. I teach English in an English speaking country so my students are exposed to all forms of the language and I explain to them when some expressions are common even if they are not standard or correct.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

A few comments, if I may:
- I have nothing against a book that teaches foreigners how to speak - and, for that matter, how to avoid - bad Portuguese. My only contention is that such a book should not be marketed as a 'grammar', because it is not about grammar. It is, by all means, about linguistics.
- I read somewhere that the influence of Italian immigrants is not to be discarded as one of the causes behind the *s-*dropping tendency in Brazil. The point is, their original language has no plural finishing with 's'. However far-fetched this theory may appear, I share it with you for the sake of polemics.


----------



## Nanon

Not to speak about the surrounding influence of Spanish speakers que se comen la' ese' finale' (lah eseh finaleh, laj esej finalej) en lo' plurale'...


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Nanon said:


> Not to speak about the surrounding influence of Spanish speakers que se comen la' ese' finale' (lah eseh finaleh, laj esej finalej) en lo' plurale'...


Good point, but if any influence from our surrounding _hermanos_ is to be detected, it seems to be confined to the Southernmost part of Brazil, where the Argentinians and Uruguayans are very close, both geographically and culturally, to the _gaúchos_ (you can hear _gaúchos_ saying _che_, just like their neighbours across the border). On the other hand, I think the Rio Grande do Sul people pronounce the s-ending plurals rather clearly. Am I wrong, _che_? 

BTW, let me add that I find Macu's post # 22 particularly enlightening.


----------



## ronanpoirier

Did I read gaúcho? 

Well, I can tell you some people drop the final S, except from the main word that indicates the plural. However, it's seen as a low-educated people feature, even if not everybody speaks like that. Extremely estigmatized in here!

If that can be an Italian influence? Of course, since we have Italians everywhere in Brazil (Hello, Vanda ). If that can be a Spanish influence? I doubt so, since the dialects from Uruguay and Argentina don't have the aspiration of the S (maybe in some areas of inner Argentina, but that'd be too far away from the borders of RS or SC). But  we can't forget the French language which a long time ago doesn't pronounce the final S and shares another similiarties with Portuguese phonetics.

And my opinion about the main topic, I'd never teach something like that to someone! I'd say it happens but they should avoid it.


----------



## SofiaB

ronanpoirier said:


> Did I read gaúcho?
> 
> Well, I can tell you some people drop the final S, except from the main word that indicates the plural. However, it's seen as a low-educated people feature, even if not everybody speaks like that. Extremely estigmatized in here!
> 
> If that can be an Italian influence? Of course, since we have Italians everywhere in Brazil (Hello, Vanda ). If that can be a Spanish influence? I doubt so, since the dialects from Uruguay and Argentina don't have the aspiration of the S (maybe in some areas of inner Argentina, but that'd be too far away from the borders of RS or SC). But  we can't forget the French language which a long time ago doesn't pronounce the final S and shares another similiarties with Portuguese phonetics.
> 
> 
> And my opinion about the main topic, I'd never teach something like that to someone! I'd say it happens but they should avoid it.


Many Argentinos and Uruguayos pronounce "s" like "jota espanhol"


----------



## ayupshiplad

Thank you all for your varied and interesting replies!

I agree with Dom Casmurro #25 that it shouldn't market itself as a grammar.

Also, as Tagarela said in #21, I think it's very different if natives make a mistake than if foreigners do  Would it be correct to assume that a foreigner would sound as ridiculous making mistakes like 'esses aluno...' as it would be to hear a non-native of English using words like 'wanna' 'gonna'* etc?

*I know these are used commonly in some places, mostly in some areas of America I think, but I couldn't state where and don't want to generalise!


----------



## MarX

Outsider said:


> _Esse*s* aluno*s* ficara*m* muito motivado*s*._ 4 words are pluralized in the standard Portuguese version.
> Th*ese* student*s* *were* very motivated. --> In English, you only have to pluralize 3 words. ​I understand that in some other languages it may happen that only one, or even none of the words, is pluralized.


Exactly.
In Indonesian, the sentence would look like:

*Murid-murid ini sangat termotivasi.

*_Murid-murid_, plural of _murid_ (aluno) is enough.
The word _ini_ (esse) and _termotivasi_ (motivado) don't need any plural markers anymore. 

Salam,


MarX


----------



## Vanda

Pois eu continuo duvidando de que seja ensinado num livro para estrangeiros, a não ser como_ donts_, mesmo que na fala popular isso aconteça.


----------



## MarX

Tagarela said:


> Olá,
> 
> This matter about what foreigners should do or not reminds me of two things.
> First, when I was preparing myself for Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) exams. A classmate of mine asked the teacher "Can we use slangs in the speaking part?" she replied "No?" he "But even the new ones? to show that we are updated?" she "No, Cambridge doesn´t want to know if you know all the new hip-hop slans and so on, perhaps, they even do not understand you."
> 
> Second, what is written in one of the books that I use to learn Czech in the paragraph "Non-standard Czech" : "Foreigners using these features may expect sometimes to attract criticism - even from Czechs who habitually speak like this themselves (...)".
> 
> This Cambridge-ESOL really wants you to speak standard language, you cannot say there "O, but this mistake I commited, every native does too, you cannot penalize me for this..." They do not care.
> 
> So, Native language not always is the correct language, althought it may sound weird.
> 
> Até.:


In Indonesian, even though the standard language is easy enough, there are further simplifications in the spoken language.

Some countries where there is a considerable discrepancy between the written and spoken languages:
1. Indonesia
2. The Arabic-speaking countries
3. German-speaking part of Switzerland
4. Norway

In most parts of Indonesia and the Arab world, it would be very strange for someone to speak exactly like the written language, even the most educated people don't do that (except in formal situations or when reading, of course).
In many daily situations it is even quite "inappropriate" to speak the written language because, well, the written language is written, whereas the spoken one is different.

A foreigner who speaks the written language will be understood, but if s/he adjusts to the spoken language, it won't be considered bad at all. In fact, it'll make the situation more natural since speaking the written language in situations where no Indonesian would do that produces a certain "stiff" atmosphere.
A foreigner staying in Indonesia for a longer time will automatically adjust to this since s/he will have noticed by no time that you don't speak "bookish" in most of daily situations, and this applies to all educational or social levels of the society.

Salam,



MarX


----------



## MarX

ayupshiplad said:


> Thank you all for your varied and interesting replies!
> 
> Also, as Tagarela said in #21, I think it's very different if natives make a mistake than if foreigners do  Would it be correct to assume that a foreigner would sound as ridiculous making mistakes like 'esses aluno...' as it would be to hear a non-native of English using words like 'wanna' 'gonna'* etc?
> 
> *I know these are used commonly in some places, mostly in some areas of America I think, but I couldn't state where and don't want to generalise!


I personally don't think it is ridiculous to hear non-native English speakers using words like "wanna", "gonna", in appropriate, informal situations.

I don't know about Portuguese, but in Indonesia, for natives to speak the written language in many daily situations where no other Indonesians would do that is a mistake in a way.
It's like speaking the language of Shakespeare today. A bad comparison but just to give you an idea.
To use Shakespeare language, or highly judicial or literary language in situations where it isn't appropriate is a "mistake".
Nobody would say that Shakespeare language is wrong. Quite the contrary. But it can be inappropriate in the wrong settings.

Salam,


MarX


----------



## olivinha

MarX said:


> I personally don't think it is ridiculous to hear non-native English speakers using words like "wanna", "gonna", in appropriate, informal situations.
> MarX


 
I totally agree with you, MarX, especially because _gonna_ and _wanna_ are so much part of everyday language (in the US), I daresay sometimes it would be even weird to *say* _going to_ instead of _gonna,_ unless you wanted to emphasize _going to_. For example, it's much more common to hear _what are you gonna do_ than _going to_. Of course, I'm talking about AE.

Now that I live in Spain, sometimes I catch myself dropping the "d" in past participles, for example, I'd say _está cerrao_ instead of _está cerra*d*o_. It's not something that I try or plan to do. It just happens. I hear Spaniards (and non-Spaniards ) constantly pronoucing participles without that "d", that by osmosis, I end up doing it also. And, I think there is nothing ridiculous about that.

Sem preconceitos e sem senso de ridículo, dude!


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

Well, I am didn´t mentioned that foreigners should speak literary or bookish way. It is just that somethings should be avoided even in coloquial languages. For sure some of them are only matter of pronnunciation, but we must be careful, to see wether this pronnunciation is affecting some important points or not. For example, now, people here in Brazil amost do not speak 'viR' anymore, they say 'vim' - then, it creates some very ugly senteces as 'ele vai vim'. 
For sure, that speaking in a bookish way on the streets is not very 'correct', but the colloquial language also has rules to be followed. 

Good bye.:


----------



## olivinha

Yes, Tagarela, there are things that are acceptable in coloquial speech that are not in written language, i.e. _wanna_, _gonna_, and even _ain't_. And that's my point, there is nothing wrong if a foreigner use those terms even if they are classified as don'ts in a grammar book, as long as he/she knows how and when to use them. 
Learning a language is more than _them_ grammar rules. 

PS: _There ain’t no mountain high enough/ Ain’t no valley low enough/ Ain’t no river wide enough/ To keep me from getting to you._


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Olivinha, 
I don't seriously disagree with you, but I think foreigners should exercise caution when they acquire a second language, start using it on a daily basis and feel so confident about it that they are tempted to emulate the natives. I really think he or she should be reminded at the outset that whatever the outcome of his learning process, he could occasionally be at risk of sounding ridiculous if he uses colloquial, slangish or vulgar language. Nothing is more embarassing than being greeted by a gringo with something along the line of "Olá, tudo jóia?". You know what I'm talking about.


----------



## olivinha

> You know what I'm talking about.


Hi, my dear Dom.
I know what you are talking about and agree. In my post #37 I do write "as long as he/she knows how and when to use them". 
I can't imagine myself not being _allowed_ to speak colloquial (sometimes slangy, why not?) Spanish in my daily life. Should that be considered ridiculous, it is also something the flows naturally out of my ways of communicating in Spanish. I'm a foreigner here, and my Spanish does have an obvious Brazilian accent, something I can't help it. Another thing I could not have helped it yesterday was that _!Joder!_ which came out of my mouth after the unfortunate incident I had in the kitchen which cost me my beautiful white blouse. 
I cannot start premeditating what I am going to say to avoid being ridiculous. Where should we draw the line?
O


----------



## Vanda

_Nothing is more embarassing than being greeted by a gringo with something along the line of "Olá, tudo jóia?". You know what I'm talking about._

Ah, Bentinho, don't say so! I'd love to be greeted this way, sooo mineiro! On the contrary, I'd think this gringo really knows my language! So it all comes to personal likes and dislikes.


----------



## Frajola

I think that learning a foreign language is a lot about having the courage to stick your neck out. Confidence does play a key role but there's only so much you can control.

Eventually you'll have to use what you learned on others and see for yourself how it all goes over with them, no matter how forewarned and cautioned you've been.

The usage of words and phrases may also involve how your pronounce them, how you deliver them and the context. And a lot things can "go wrong" while you are at it. 

What's more, people speaking their native language will always be picked out for the kind of language they speak. So you might as well be glad be picked out as a learner of English.

As for the structure in the original post, you might be looked down on for using it. So I'd personally chalk it up as a don't for non-native speakers.


----------



## Macunaíma

Vanda said:


> Ah, Bentinho, don't say so! I'd love to be greeted this way, sooo mineiro! On the contrary, I'd think this gringo really knows my language! So it all comes to personal likes and dislikes.


 
I agree with you there, Vanda. Let's take Que Trem Doido as an example (sorry for dragging you into the spotlight ): I find it really cool when he uses diminutives like we _mineiros_ do; makes him sound so much nicer and so familiar! 



Frajola said:


> As for the structure in the original post, you might be looked down on for using it. So I'd personally chalk it up as a don't for non-native speakers.


 
I'd say it's a don't for natives speakers as well


----------



## ayupshiplad

MarX said:


> I personally don't think it is ridiculous to hear non-native English speakers using words like "wanna", "gonna", in appropriate, informal situations.


 
Yes, but as I suspected and as was confirmed by Olivinha, this occurs in the US. If it was said in the UK (I do not know enough to comment about other English speaking countries) it would just sound bizarre. It wouldn't be the case of a foreigner trying to emulate natives when they don't have enough mastery of the language to know when it is appropriate or not, it would just sound really, really odd. 



> It's like speaking the language of Shakespeare today. A bad comparison but just to give you an idea.
> To use Shakespeare language, or highly judicial or literary language in situations where it isn't appropriate is a "mistake".
> Nobody would say that Shakespeare language is wrong. Quite the contrary. But it can be inappropriate in the wrong settings.


 
D'accord. No-one speaks like Shakespeare anymore, though  (By the way, it is surprising how many English natives can't spell Shakespeare).


----------



## Nanon

olivinha said:


> Now that I live in Spain, sometimes I catch myself dropping the "d" in past participles, for example, I'd say _está cerrao_ instead of _está cerra*d*o_. It's not something that I try or plan to do. It just happens. I hear Spaniards (and non-Spaniards ) constantly pronoucing participles without that "d", that by osmosis, I end up doing it also. And, I think there is nothing ridiculous about that.



On the contrary, many people would find maintaining the "d" over-correct or even foreign-sounding.
Worse than that: in some parts of the Spanish-speaking world, you would even hear " 'tá cerrao". Now, which one is standard and which is sub-standard depends on the country, context, social factors...
From a teacher's point of view (I was one a looong time ago)  "está cerrado" would still be the first form to teach to beginners.  But like any question about correction, we are on slippery ground here. 



olivinha said:


> (...) In my post #37 I do write "as long as he/she knows how and when to use them".
> I can't imagine myself not being _allowed_ to speak colloquial (sometimes slangy, why not?) Spanish in my daily life. I cannot start premeditating what I am going to say to avoid being ridiculous. Where should we draw the line?



Exactly, Olivinha!   Indeed, what would be _ridiculous_, with the command of Spanish you have, would be restricting yourself and not saying _¡Joder!_ in that situation!



ayupshiplad said:


> It wouldn't be the case of a foreigner trying to emulate natives when they don't have enough mastery of the language to know when it is appropriate or not, it would just sound really, really odd.



This is exactly the point - mastery of the language. A foreigner with not enough mastery will either sound hypercorrect or out-of-place forms, and will not be able to identify forms that may be criticised (like Ayup's example in post 1). 

I also would not accept, as a learner, not to have the right to exclaim or to use colloquial terms _whenever appropriate_... Just to take an example, Olivinha says something that sounds absolutely natural and the word goes out effortlessly. Should she be thinking "I am a foreigner, thus not allowed to swear when I stain my nice white blouse? And should I control myself at all times and complete all my sentences and demand more of myself than native speakers do in similar circumstances..." Aaaargh!...


----------



## ayupshiplad

Nanon said:


> This is exactly the point - mastery of the language. A foreigner with not enough mastery will either sound hypercorrect or out-of-place forms, and will not be able to identify forms that may be criticised (like Ayup's example in post 1).
> 
> I also would not accept, as a learner, not to have the right to exclaim or to use colloquial terms _whenever appropriate_... Just to take an example, Olivinha says something that sounds absolutely natural and the word goes out effortlessly. Should she be thinking "I am a foreigner, thus not allowed to swear when I stain my nice white blouse? And should I control myself at all times and complete all my sentences and demand more of myself than native speakers do in similar circumstances..." Aaaargh!...


 
Ah but then isn't this the point? That Olivinha could say it effortlessly and it sounds natural, but doesn't this just come with enough mastery of the language to be able to use colloquial forms, swear etc? 

I mean that when people who don't know a language well enough use colloquial forms or slang it can sound really contrived and unnatural, as if they're trying to sound 'normal' but are better of sticking to the standard varient of that language until their 'level' is better. For example, there's a guy in my French class that insists on talking in verlan all the time...which just sounds so (funnily) ridiculous, especially given that he only discovered a month ago that to say 'I think that' you say 'Je pense que' and not 'Je pense ça'


----------



## MarX

ayupshiplad said:


> Ah but then isn't this the point? That Olivinha could say it effortlessly and it sounds natural, but doesn't this just come with enough mastery of the language to be able to use colloquial forms, swear etc?
> 
> I mean that when people who don't know a language well enough use colloquial forms or slang it can sound really contrived and unnatural, as if they're trying to sound 'normal' but are better of sticking to the standard varient of that language until their 'level' is better. For example, there's a guy in my French class that insists on talking in verlan all the time...which just sounds so (funnily) ridiculous, especially given that he only discovered a month ago that to say 'I think that' you say 'Je pense que' and not 'Je pense ça'


It depends on the language and/or the country.
For most of native English speakers it may be hard to grasp the concept of the situation in Arab countries and in Indonesia.
The language taught in the textbooks are practically only written, or used in a very formal occasion, it's almost like a diglossia, in fact.
Two persons may use the written language within a formal interview on TV, and as soon as they're finished interviewing, they return to the spoken language.
No normal Indonesian, no matter how educated s/he is, would speak the standard written language in most situations of his life.
I don't know the exact situation in Brazil or in Scotland.
In Jakarta, a foreigner who continues speaking the standard written language after living for a month certainly hasn't had enough interactions with the natives.
All being said, the difference between the written and spoken registers of Indonesian can be learnt quite easily, but it definitely involves some grammatical changes, like the simplification of most affixes.

Salam,


MarX

PS: A thread about Arabic might give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. I don't know if the situation in Brazil is similar.


----------



## ayupshiplad

MarX said:


> It depends on the language and/or the country.
> For most of native English speakers it may be hard to grasp the concept of the situation in Arab countries and in Indonesia.
> The language taught in the textbooks are practically only written, or used in a very formal occasion, it's almost like a diglossia, in fact.
> Two persons may use the written language within a formal interview on TV, and as soon as they're finished interviewing, they return to the spoken language.
> No normal Indonesian, no matter how educated s/he is, would speak the standard written language in most situations of his life.
> .


 
Very interesting! In general (I'm sure someone will contradict me ), there is not that much difference between written and spoken English, I don't think.


----------



## MarX

ayupshiplad said:


> Very interesting! In general (I'm sure someone will contradict me ), there is not that much difference between written and spoken English, I don't think.


That's also what I think.
Some examples in Indonesian, the words for _no(t)_ and _(formal) you_ in the written language are: *tidak* and *Anda*.
But you don't use them in the spoken language.
Hard to believe, but saying *tidak* for _no(t)_ in the spoken language sounds veeery weird. And a foreigner should notice this after a couple of weeks.

I may be getting off topic here. If the moderator think this should be split, I wouldn't mind.


----------



## Frajola

ayupshiplad said:


> Very interesting! In general (I'm sure someone will contradict me ), there is not that much difference between written and spoken English, I don't think.


 
We must keep in mind that register in both spoken and written language may vary widely. 

Two blokes having a smoke and chatting on their lunch break, for example, may not sound quite like two businessmen discussing the terms on a deal. The same applies to written language, I think. 

So it all depends...


----------



## Nanon

No, the difference between spoken and written English or Portuguese is not as wide as it is in Arabic (or Indonesian) which seem like extremes to me. It is much more than a change of register: pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax... many things change! And another thing about Arabic - one does not need to switch to the "classical language" even if the context is formal. Two Arab businessmen can negotiate the terms of a deal in their dialect, even in their respective dialects if they come form different countries (although the actual contract will be redacted in "Modern Standard Arabic"). 
I was going to add comments about Arabic but that would be  off-topic (the thread posted by Marx will give you a better idea).


----------



## Frajola

Nanon said:


> I pretty much doubt anybody will say that the difference between spoken and written English or Portuguese is as wide as it is in Arabic. It is much more than a change of register: pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax... many things change!


 

I don't know one iota about Arabic, Nanon, but I think you're right about both Portuguese and English.


----------



## Nanon

Nossa, Frajola, that was fast (if it is admitted for this humble learner to exclaim!)


----------



## Nanon

Back to the topic: how would you rate this one?
Sub-standard? Acceptable from whom? Teachable or not? To whom?...
Sooner or later learners of BR-PT come across such forms - so how long will it take for them to be allowed to use them?
OK, bad question. Brazilians (and why only Brazilians? Portuguese speakers in general - BR-PT comes from the link) are extremely tolerant and grateful towards anybody learning Portuguese. However I am also extremely grateful for anybody (anything - forums, books...) teaching me all existing forms from formal to colloquial.


----------



## Frajola

Nanon said:


> Back to the topic: how would you rate this one?
> Sub-standard? Acceptable from whom? Teachable or not? To whom?...
> Sooner or later learners of BR-PT come across such forms - so how long will it take for them to be allowed to use them?
> OK, bad question. Brazilians (and why only Brazilians? Portuguese speakers in general - BR-PT comes from the link) are extremely tolerant and grateful towards anybody learning Portuguese. However I am also extremely grateful for anybody (anything - forums, books...) teaching me all existing forms from formal to colloquial.


 


You have a very interesting and ubiquotous feature of spoken Braz Portuguese right there, which is the contracted form of the verb 'estar'.

I suggest that people learning Braz Portuguese should try to get their tongue around that form right off the bat. It'll definitely make their Portuguese sound a lot more natural. That's one case in point, and as it happens this one is absolutely not seen as sloppy or anything.

As for the shorthanded forms, I'm not big on online chatting either way, but I guess one can pick it up as they go along.


----------



## Nanon

Thanks Frajola - just to point out I was talking about "tô", not about shorthand / SMS language (obviously both out of topic and out of the rules here).
I don't feel guilty for using that form... in the appropriate context. Although even in PMs to our Moderadorável  I tend to write (over-)correctly and use "estou"...  But my writing style is also formal in other languages, even in PMs.


----------



## Denis555

Nanon said:


> I was going to add comments about Arabic but that would be off-topic (the thread posted by Marx will give you a better idea).


 
I think we'd pretty much welcome your examples in other languages to enlighten us on this topic. After all, we(Portuguese speakers) aren't alone in this world. 

By the way, thank you ->thanks ->than*x** Mar*x*.

*Ever acceptable?


----------



## ayupshiplad

Denis555 said:


> I think we'd pretty much welcome your examples in other languages to enlighten us on this topic. After all, we(Portuguese speakers) aren't alone in this world.
> 
> By the way, thank you ->thanks ->than*x** Mar*x*.
> 
> *Ever acceptable?


 
Quite simply, no  Well...in my experience, English tends to be less tolerant of 'internêtes', but I guess it's acceptable as long as you know the person you are talking to is not intellectually challenged. Some of my (intelligent) friends write this way, but I personally refrain! 

The to/ta/tava thing etc has always confused me. Is it just BP? I think it's a good example of something I have hesitated to say in speech for fear of just sounding ridiculous (because my Portuguese is not, as yet , fantastic, not because it sounds stupid in itself).


----------



## Nanon

Please don't overrate me - my Arabic is incipient to the point I don't even add it to my profile. I'm just getting started.
I will take an example from the thread given by Marx instead. I think it is relevant.
Cherine, an Egyptian speaker, says:


> If a friend of mine (also Egyptian, I assume) says:
> sabaa7u'l khayri, kayfa 7aaluki (Hello, how are you? - Modern Standard Arabic) instead of
> sabaa7 elkheir, 3amla eih/eih akhbarek... (same sentence in Egyptian Arabic)
> I would laugh, I'll think (s)he's either joking or has gone nuts.


With the transliteration (don't be afraid about the numbers) you will notice that the two sentences are somehow related but they look different. Modern Standard Arabic is out of place in a dialogue unless a non-Arab is speaking, because it is the only form he/she knows (the only form that is taught unless the learner is exposed enough to an actual form of Arabic spoken in a given country). There are some precise circumstances (written documents, proverbs, the Quran, radio and TV etc...) where classical Arabic ("Modern Standard Arabic", "fus7a") is not out of place. 

Like all learners that are not heritage speakers, I am learning Modern Standard Arabic myself but when I know enough I will have to choose between a) going on speaking like a foreigner or b) expose myself to a variant of Arabic, to an extent that will enable me to handle both forms.
Pfff! Between us, Portuguese is a thousand times easier than that dilemma, even with the countless mistakes I make. Esse (*) negócio de estudar árabe acabará comigo...

(*) acceptable?


----------



## Dom Casmurro

This discussion of ours reminds me of a former American ambassador to Brazil who spoke perfect Portuguese, with a Brazilian accent so good that the people around him would easily mistake him for a Brazilian. He owed such skills to his childhood experience as the son of some guy who worked for the Peace Corps in Brazil or something of the like. He was doing well in Brasilia, but, in spite of his language proficiency, he had difficulties in maintaining lasting relationships with such people as the members of the Supreme Court, militaries, ministers, senators, and the president (who was a military himself, as those were years of military rule). The ambassador was always willing to be nice, so he just couldn't figure out what was wrong about those guys. He was intrigued by the fact that, while he would cater them with all the array of his language skills, they just showed no sign of felling at ease in his company. Why? Because the ambassador seemed to be always ready to speak just like any other urban Brazilian, with all the colloquial and fashionable phrases he could afford to store in his mind. If "tudo joinha?" was the fad of the day, then the ambassador would keep saying "tudo joinha?" ad nauseam, to as many Brazilians as he could see - including the head of state. He never seemed to realize that "tudo joinha?" was OK in certain social gatherings, but was definitely not OK within presidential or ministerial premises. Nobody had told him that the president and his ministers could regard him as disrespectful - or, much worse, as a dumb, clownlike ambassador.


----------



## Nanon

ayupshiplad said:


> The to/ta/tava thing etc has always confused me. Is it just BP? I think it's a good example of something I have hesitated to say in speech for fear of just sounding ridiculous (because my Portuguese is not, as yet , fantastic, not because it sounds stupid in itself).



I also hesitated. Till the day I decided to use it in the very same context the person I was talking to had used it before. No reaction (no "Waow, your Portuguese is improving" or "You shouldn't say that in just any circumstances"). That absence of reaction was the perfect validation for that use!
However, it is true that I try (hard) to avoid informal speech whenever I am not sure of its use. If somebody has not said "tudo jóia" before to me, I doubt I will use these words when speaking to that person (not to mention "tudo joinha") . I say I try hard because it is practically impossible and artificial to avoid informal speech at all. However since I use Portuguese not only for pleasure but for work, I need to avoid embarrassing situations!...


----------



## MarX

To answer the original question:





ayupshiplad said:


> I ask you, is this _ever_ acceptable?! If so, is it acceptable enough that it should be included in a Portuguese grammar for foreigners?


I'd say, never say never.

Even in this thread we can see that one person can be negative while another positive about a foreigner saying "tudo jóia?".


Peace,


MarX


----------



## ayupshiplad

Nanon said:


> However, it is true that I try (hard) to avoid informal speech whenever I am not sure of its use. If somebody has not said "tudo jóia" before to me, I doubt I will use these words when speaking to that person (not to mention "tudo joinha") . I say I try hard because it is practically impossible and artificial to avoid informal speech at all. However since I use Portuguese not only for pleasure but for work, I need to avoid embarrassing situations!...


 
Ah I am the same (well sort of)! I'm going to be an interpreter 'when I grow up' and hope to use Portuguese as one of my languages, so have to be very clear about what is BP and what is EP, different registers etc, but I suppose there are already several threads about to/tava etc that I should check out. 

You are right Marx, perhaps the use of ever in my original post was not quite adequete...I was just reeling in horror from just discovering such an error! Now things are a lot clearer


----------



## Nanon

I would not list "tudo jóia" in "don't", though. For me it's in the "colloquial" list, with the "handle with care" status unless I am certain about the context or the person in front of me. Same as in my native language - this register is to handle with care unless elements from the context tell you that you can. 

Another example, now from French - almost all native speakers often drop the first part of the negation ("ne... pas", most people say only "pas") in their speech. When I taught French I felt it was my duty to teach my students this simplified form. Specifying: "Say it. But don't write it." The same way I was taught to write when I was a child, too.
And I should have added: "If you are talking to an ambassador, or if you are an ambassador yourself, please use the complete form". 

To Ayupshiplad: I am only a "frustrated interpreter". But my job involves a considerable amount of translating apart from talking to different persons, preferably in their own language... Good luck anyway - wonderful choice - you're gifted!


----------



## Outsider

ayupshiplad said:


> The to/ta/tava thing etc has always confused me. Is it just BP?


No, it's common in Portugal too. But it is the sort of language that an ambassador should not use. 
(Actually, _tou/tava/tá_ would not be as awkward in formal spoken settings as _"Tudo jóia?"_... But it is definitely not to be used in writing, at least.)


----------



## Vanda

Ahem, a "Moderadorável" nem sabe por onde começar!  
Split, it is ok, but to what theme: Arabic languaged contrasted to Portuguese? It doesn't seem the case. Other forum? Which one? Let's make a deal: you can use examples of other languages to illustrate your point, relating it to Portuguese. Fair?! _Sem divagações_! 

Now, about Ayup, we all know you hate Brazilian Pt and wants to speak EU/Pt, so it is easy: our Pt "irmãos" always help you with the European usage, attach to it. By our posts you also know how Brazilians use or prefer to use the langague, avoid it! 

Brazilians aren't prejudiced on how foreigners speak our language. The fact that a foreigner can speak Portuguese is per se amazing for us. Aside sporadic facts like the one DCasmurro told (and even that, it has to do with the specific environment in which the ambassador lived), we are always surprised by a foreigner using either formal or colloquial BR/Pt! 

Now, back to the posts, all within the topic, right?


----------



## MarX

ayupshiplad said:


> The to/ta/tava thing etc has always confused me. Is it just BP? I think it's a good example of something I have hesitated to say in speech for fear of just sounding ridiculous (because my Portuguese is not, as yet , fantastic, not because it sounds stupid in itself).


My Portuguese teacher came from Coimbra, and even she said, "Tá?" during the class.
Such an adorable person and language, if only I weren't concentrating on Spanish...


----------



## Vanda

Guys, vocês vão gostar deste artigo que saiu no The New York Times sobre o português, que o Macu gentilmente me enviou. Interessante os comentários da Ministra da Cultura de Portugal e de um diretor geral da Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa. Tem, de algum modo, a ver com nosso tópico.


----------



## MarX

Vanda said:


> Guys, vocês vão gostar deste artigo que saiu no The New York Times sobre o português, que o Macu gentilmente me enviou. Interessante os comentários da Ministra da Cultura de Portugal e de um diretor geral da Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa. Tem, de algum modo, a ver com nosso tópico.


Muito obrigado Vanda!!
What do José Tadeu Soares' words have to do with the topic, though?


----------



## Vanda

I said, sort of.  Not exactly his words, but the article in all as we are discussing language usage.


----------



## Nanon

Absolutely. I would add that a language that develops colloquial, sub-standard etc... variants is alive and it is how I relate the article to the current topic (there are a couple of topics on the future of Portuguese in various sub-forums of WR as well).


----------



## Outsider

journalist said:
			
		

> Some purists in Portugal object to the slangy, colorfully casual version of the language that is spoken here and increasingly spread abroad through Brazilian telenovelas, or soap operas. They regard such informality as unworthy of the language of Camões, the 16th-century poet whose seafaring epic “Os Lusíadas” is often compared to the masterpieces of Homer and Dante.


This is rather poor reporting.

There are language purists everywhere; in Brazil, as well as in Portugal. We've seen that even here in these forums. In fact, considering the disparity between the sizes of the populations of Portugal and Brazil, it's quite likely that Brazil has more language purists than Portugal.

The rest of the article is not so bad.


----------



## MarX

I've been thinking of why there is a certain tendency in Brazil to speak as you write. Perhaps because there are actually Portuguese in Europe who speak more or less like the written language?
In Indonesia (and in the Arab countries and Norway, I suppose) there is simply a common sense that written language is not the spoken language, and we don't make much effort to speak "correctly" as in the written language. Even in formal interviews elements from the spoken language are sometimes thrown in.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

I agree with Out 100%. There is a myth about Brazil being populated by an unruly and rowdy crowd of Portuguese speakers who couldn't care less about grammar and seem to be always ready to create a linguistically independent and anarchistic nation - as opposed to the disciplined and earnest people from Portugal, who are the guardians of a secret brotherhood where the language is looked after as if it was a garden in heaven. Like every other stereotype, this is ridiculous, and as such it should not be encouraged, at least within this forum.


----------



## Nanon

MarX said:


> I've been thinking of why there is a certain tendency in Brazil to speak as you write. Perhaps because there are actually Portuguese in Europe who speak more or less like the written language?


 
Despite the fact that my permanent address is in Europe, I am not too much exposed to European Portuguese, yet I can "sample" some EP - and I am not under the impression that the "formal Portuguese" speak a bookish language as opposed to the "informal Brazilians"!... 
That sounds like rating American English, as a whole, as _informal_ - yet there _are_ formal registers of AE!


----------



## MarX

Nanon said:


> Despite the fact that my permanent address is in Europe, I am not too much exposed to European Portuguese, yet I can "sample" some EP - and I am not under the impression that the "formal Portuguese" speak a bookish language as opposed to the "informal Brazilians"!...
> That sounds like rating American English, as a whole, as _informal_ - yet there _are_ formal registers of AE!


I might be wrong, but I remember reading that the spoken language in Portugal is indeed closer to the written language, such as the use of "tu" with its appropriate conjugation (_tu sabes_), the positioning of the object pronoun after the verb (_ele viu-me_), contracting the object pronouns (_mo, lha_), forms like _eu dar-lhe-ia_, etc.
Things like the mixing up of subject pronouns with the inappropriate conjugation (_tu sabe_) and the dropping of plural concordance like in _Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado_, do you encounter them at all in the spoken language in Portugal?


----------



## Frajola

Outsider said:


> This is rather poor reporting.
> 
> There are language purists everywhere; in Brazil, as well as in Portugal. We've seen that even here in these forums. In fact, considering the disparity between the sizes of the populations of Portugal and Brazil, it's quite likely that Brazil has more language purists than Portugal.
> 
> The rest of the article is not so bad.


 

I totally see where you are coming from, Outtie!

I have a question though.

My basis of comparison obviously is English. In my experience (and I don't mean to open a can of worms here, this really is just MY experience, not a generalization), I've had often times come across English people who harbor a negative attitude towards American English. It sometimes got so bad, even to the point of someone pointing out to me that in the US "they don't speak English". I am of the opinion that the same level of resentment in terms of language is generally not seen (or felt) the other way around.

Now on to my question: I feel that Brazilians generally hold European Portuguese to be of "higher quality", "more correct" than Braz Portuguese, "better spoken", a variery to be emulated. How do you personally and honestly think that the Portuguese in general look on Braz Portuguese?

Thank you, Outtie, for any input.

Again, I don't at all mean to hurt anyone's feelings here. I am just looking for a wholesome debate on this issue and I think this forum is a welcoming environment for that.



EDIT: I know for a fact that the Portuguese might think that Braz Portuguese has a nice ring to it. My question I guess has more to do with whether the Portuguese think that Brazilian spelling, structure, etc is something they should look to.


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

Frajola, I am not very certain about how do Portuguese really speak, but, even without this information, I myself think that Brazilian Portuguese could be better. I am not saying on talking bookish, it may be colloquial, we even may continue with some mixed pronouns (ex: _você recebeu a correspondência que eu te enviei?_), but some things should be avoided, as the wrong pronnunciation of _vir_, as I have already said, that forms things like "Quando ela _vai vim?), _the usage of loanwords more than necessary, some are adapted as _checar, deletar_, others replace expressions that we already have or we do not try to create some with our words such as _delivery/entrega a domícilio, (web)site/sítio, _or even _on sale (at shop glasses) instead of "liquidação". _

Althought some state that there are a prejudice of the formal defenders against the informal, many times it seems much more the other way round. Sometimes, when you use something more standard, or a little bit formal, people comment on your way of speak, as it was inapropriated. 

It is not that Portuguese speak better because they are the owner of the language, by the way, they have a strange usage of _pretérito imperfeito_, they use it when we usually take the _futuro do pretérito_, which, I believe, is more correct. For example: Eu gostava de aprender a falar bem/ Eu gostaria de aprender a falar bem. I am not sure if it is in every Portugal, but I have heard it in TV Sic (Portugal´s channel) sometimes.  

Again, we may still colloquial, but certain aspects must be respected.


*[Edit] Spelling: about how the words I written, I prefer Brazilian way. The trema, no mute consonants etc. 

Até.:

ps: is there anyone following the topic who cannot understand Portuguese?  if not, we could start posting in Portuguese (bookish, spoken, Portuguese, Brazilian, Angolian etc)


----------



## MarX

Tagarela said:


> pronnunciation of _vir_, as I have already said, that forms things like "Quando ela _vai vim?)_
> 
> Althought some state that there are a prejudice of the formal defenders against the informal, many times it seems much more the other way round. Sometimes, when you use something more standard, or a little bit formal, people comment on your way of speak, as it was inapropriated.
> 
> ps: is there anyone following the topic who cannot understand Portuguese?  if not, we could start posting in Portuguese (bookish, spoken, Portuguese, Brazilian, Angolian etc)


3 points:

1. Is is possible that _vim_ developed directly from Latin _venire_, but that _vir _prevailed? Something like _coisa _and _cousa_?

2. I don't know how it is in Brazil, but in Indonesia you don't really criticize the way people speak, because we make this distinction between written and spoken language I mentioned.
This post of mine may give you an idea of what I'm talking about. In fact, saying _aku mencintaimu_ in the spoken language sounds out of place, because it belongs rather to the written language.
Interestingly, the telenovelas are dubbed using the written language. 

3. I can manage to understand much of written Portuguese, but I certainly can read English better. But no one is stopping any of you guys from writing in Portuguese.


----------



## Macunaíma

Gente, este tópico está criando ramificações para assuntos já discutidos aqui antes em outros _threads_, alguns exaustivamente.

A pergunta do Frajola para o Outsider no post#76 é interessante, mas resta saber se alguém além de grupos isolados de semi-cultos d'aquém e d'além mar se importa com o que um lado pensa do português do outro. Brasileiros em geral se importam? Não. Portugueses? Claro que não. Cada variante existe em seu contexto, satisfaz plenamente as necessidades dos seus falantes e contribui para tornar o português uma língua rica. Essa discussão estéril de qual é melhor e o que deve mudar só existe em círculos restritos e que não estão na mídia (sejamos pragmáticos) -portanto, por melhores que sejam suas intenções, _são os cães que ladram enquanto a caravana passa_.

Os exemplos pontuais que o Tagarela menciona já figuraram em outros _threads_ aqui no fórum e eu não acho que sejam sintomas de um "português ameaçado". Estrangeirismo existem e sempre existirão, em português e qualquer outra língua. A confusão de alguns na conjugação correta dos verbos vir/ver é um caso especial e não chega a ser chocante; a maioria das pessoas pega naturalmente o macete desses dois quando passa a ter mais contato com a leitura.

Mas quanto à pergunta original -- _sub-standard language -ever acceptable?_ --, eu diria que a resposta está no contexto. Simples assim. É aceitável usar mesóclises, ênclises e vocabulário rebuscado para falar com um lavrador humilde no Brasil? Não. É aceitável usar um pronome reto como sujeito de oração subordinada objetiva direta (ex: _Mandei ela esperar no carro_) numa conversa com um embaixador brasileiro? Eu usaria e aposto que o tal embaixador nem iria notar --embaixadores não vivem no mundo da lua. Tudo é uma questão de dosar, o que só se aprende com muita prática e alguma vivência da língua.


----------



## arbilab

I am only 'expert' in English.  We have _much_ variation in how we write, speak, and understand expressions.  The phrase 'these student was very motivated' is acceptable and understandable from a foreigner.  From a native, it is so very wrong that it suggests retardation beyond mere illiteracy.

In speaking, 'I dunno' is the norm.  To clearly enunciate 'I don't know' suggests emphasis or even irritation.  In writing (which I do extensively on the internet), 'dunno' is familiar, friendly, casual, or dismissive, depending on the context of the rest of the entry.  In semi-formal writing, when clarity is more of an issue, I use 'don't'.  In very formal writing, or when clarity is strained--as in when responding to a non-native English writer--I do not use contractions at all.  There is no difference in the _intent_ between 'don't' and 'do not' in these cases, it is consideration for what makes the intent clear to the reader.  English is the only language I know which uses ' to demarcate contraction instead of accent.  ' defines the word and pronunciation in the other languages with which I am remotely familiar.

There is another example, immediately above.  In formal English, 'languages with which (I am) (I'm) familiar' is the only correct construction.  However, in casual writing, and almost invariably in speech, it is expressed 'languages I'm familiar with'.  The latter is not substandard in speech at all.  If one is writing professionally, one must refer to the stylebook to determine if placing the 'with' at the end is acceptable, because stylebooks (such as used by newspapers) make allowances for what form makes their publication most acceptable to the majority of readers.  If one is writing for English class, one is expected to use the exact construction.  And in formal English writing, 'one' becomes an impersonal or indefinite pronoun.  That is, it does not specify the person, gender, or number.

In Hawaii, formal English is spoken in business, but socially, the medium of exchange is pidgin, which includes expressions and pronunciations from Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, English, and German.  It is very liberating!  _Nothing_ is incorrect, as long as it is recognized.  'Dakine' can be substituted for any noun, as long as the listener can be expected to know to what the speaker is referring.  Words are deliberately mispronounced, misconstructed, and left out.  As in the phrase, 'broke your mouf' which means the food is very good.  Use of pidgin connotes people being at ease with each other, informality, acceptance of people's differences, and it is never criticized or taken as an implication of a person's level of education or intelligence.  An advanced speaker of pidgin adapts his or her style to that of the person being addressed.  Would that all language could be that flexible, and that we could all have that much fun with it and still get our meaning across.


----------



## MarX

arbilab said:


> I am only 'expert' in English.  We have _much_ variation in how we write, speak, and understand expressions.  The phrase 'these student was very motivated' is acceptable and understandable from a foreigner.  From a native, it is so very wrong that it suggests retardation beyond mere illiteracy.


Hi and welcome, arbilab!

You missed a crucial point here. In Brazilian Portuguese, forms like_ Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado_ is something that is more likely to come from native speakers themselves. I don't know to what extent such forms are stigmatized in Brazil, but they come from the mouths of native speakers, not some people trying to learn Portuguese as a second language.

Salam,


MarX


----------



## Dom Casmurro

arbilab said:


> In speaking, 'I dunno' is the norm. To clearly enunciate 'I don't know' suggests emphasis or even irritation. In writing (which I do extensively on the internet), 'dunno' is familiar, friendly, casual, or dismissive, depending on the context of the rest of the entry.


We have been busy discussing what is wrong and what is not, as if grammar were the only factor to be considered. Of course, I'm far from implying that grammar is not important (as a matter of fact, it is as important as constitutional law in any organized country). However, grammar, being a mere corpus of rules and norms, probably is the most mediocre of all disciplines related to the study of languages, as it is frozen in time and encapsulated in books, far away from one of the key factors that keep languages alive: affection, and the way affection moulds and transforms a language by gently subverting its existing grammar norms throughout the time. 

I chose the excerpt above from Abilab's post because it makes a point in showing the crucial role that affection plays in bringing life to languages. As Abilab has suggested, _I dunno_ serves a certain function in conveying a certain affection. Very much the same way, many phrases in Portuguese make no 'affective' sense if uttered the bookish way. _T__e amo_ instead of _amo-te_, _no meio do caminho tinha uma pedra_ instead of _no meio do caminho havia uma pedra_ and so on and so forth, are examples of how the need to express feelings and sensations make people disregard grammar in a very _natural way._ *

This doesn' mean that I advocate _Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado_. Why should I? It doesn't convey any particular affection as far as I am concerned. However, I would happily approve that same construction if someone pointed out that there is some hidden irony behind it, which is worth grasping.

----
* I stress 'natural way' here to imply that the people at large are not supposed to be acting out of a deliberate and collectively organized rebellion against grammar norms. And it goes without saying that I disengage myself from those who seem to be pushing an anarchistic agenda against good old grammar.


----------



## arbilab

Thank you fellow members.  In 5 pages, we have gone well beyond the simple phrase we started with, into the philosophy of applied language.

MarX, I wasn't trying to translate the social status imparted by that usage from one population to another, but only to add that the exact same questionable construction connotes very different things spoken in English between natives, or spoken between a native and a person learning English.  In other words, there are 'standard' misconstructions which are widely used in familiar speech (never in formal speech), and substandard ones so horrendously wrong as to never be used by a native in possession of his faculties, though perfectly acceptable when spoken casually by someone speaking English as a beginner.  It would, of course, be corrected if he used it in class speaking or writing.

Here is another example:  Djeet?  Yawntu?  It means 'Did you eat? Do you want to?' and is acceptable, common casual English (more so in the southern regions).  'Done you ate?' is acceptable and understandable from a foreigner, but is _not_ a standard misconstruction for a native, thus very incorrect.  Between natives, it would be more likely to be heard as 'dunyet?' and understood as 'are you done yet?', failing to impart its intended meaning.  It is the failure to impart intended meaning which makes it wrong, not the faulty construction itself.

Dom, no need to add to what you wrote.  But I do wish to say, that I would be very gratified with my own achievement if I could write masterfully in two languages.  I am a little old (62) to start trying, and perhaps not quite bright enough to hold it out as a realistic expectation.  Just correcting my own English, I have broken the backspace key off my keyboard.  There is nothing left but the button.  Thankfully it still works.


----------



## andlima

arbilab said:


> English is the only language I know which uses ' to demarcate contraction instead of accent.  ' defines the word and pronunciation in the other languages with which I am remotely familiar.



As for the apostrophe to demarcate contraction, Italian language uses it too:

_l'amico_ / _lo amico_
_quest'anno_ / _questo anno_
_un po' di_ / _un poco di_


----------



## Dom Casmurro

andlima said:


> As for the apostrophe to demarcate contraction, Italian language uses it too:
> 
> _l'amico_ / _lo amico_
> _quest'anno_ / _questo anno_
> _un po' di_ / _un poco di_


... and French: l'amour, je t'aime, c'est ça...


----------



## arbilab

I'm only remotely familiar with French, and even more remotely familiar with Italian, but indeed, both use the '--occupying a space when written, as distinct from being part of the character itself--as contractions. I should have known the English stole it from _somebody._

In Hawaiian, the ' is a pronunciation mark, included in formal writing to demarcate a glottal stop between adjacent vowels. Hawaii is formally written Hawai'i and pronounced Ha-va-i-i, though the a/i transition is closer to a diphthong.


----------



## Outsider

MarX said:


> I might be wrong, but I remember reading that the spoken language in Portugal is indeed closer to the written language [...]


It's impossible to give a straight answer to such a question. Sure, the Portuguese follow more closely some aspects of the conventional grammar of Portuguese, but on the other hand, as everyone is always pointing out, with all the schwas and vowel reductions and elisions in European Portuguese, Brazilians end up pronouncing the words they do use more letter-by-letter, as they're written, than us.



MarX said:


> Things like the mixing up of subject pronouns with the inappropriate conjugation (_tu sabe_) and the dropping of plural concordance like in _Esses aluno ficaram muito motivado_, do you encounter them at all in the spoken language in Portugal?


Not really. On the flip side, a Brazilian would never use _si_ to mean "you", or mix _vocês_ with _vosso_.


----------



## Outsider

Frajola said:


> My basis of comparison obviously is English. In my experience (and I don't mean to open a can of worms here, this really is just MY experience, not a generalization), I've had often times come across English people who harbor a negative attitude towards American English. It sometimes got so bad, even to the point of someone pointing out to me that in the US "they don't speak English". I am of the opinion that the same level of resentment in terms of language is generally not seen (or felt) the other way around.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. Such feelings are usually mutual, or they quickly become mutual. Still, what I have noticed on the Internet is that in _most_ cases there is no more than a friendly rivalry, with some teasing and joking around, between AE and BE speakers. (There are, of course, always some eccentrics...) Maybe people are less friendly offline -- though the Internet is hardly characterized by the good manners of its users, in general. 



Frajola said:


> I feel that Brazilians generally hold European Portuguese to be of "higher quality", "more correct" than Braz Portuguese, "better spoken", a variery to be emulated.


(Resolvi mudar para português.) Mais uma vez, não estou tão certo disso. Tenho visto indicações contraditórias. 

Por um lado, o sistema educativo brasileiro parece ser bastante conservador, erigindo como padrão uma forma de português ainda bastante baseada no padrão europeu, às vezes a um ponto que até eu acho exagerado. Por exemplo, esperar que os brasileiros usem a ênclise a mesóclise parece-me irrealista; mais valia adoptar uma atitude liberal quanto à colocação dos pronomes.

Mas também há uma reacção forte contra este conservadorismo vinda de certos sectores, com autores e linguistas brasileiros a exigirem uma norma mais próxima da linguagem falada do Brasil, e em alguns casos mesmo uma ruptura total com o português europeu, que chegam a descrever como feio e degradado.



Frajola said:


> How do you personally and honestly think that the Portuguese in general look on Braz Portuguese [...]
> 
> EDIT: I know for a fact that the Portuguese might think that Braz Portuguese has a nice ring to it. My question I guess has more to do with whether the Portuguese think that Brazilian spelling, structure, etc is something they should look to.


Certo. Os portugueses em geral gostam de _ouvir_ o português do Brasil, o que, como diz e muito bem, não é o mesmo que considerá-lo um modelo a imitar.

Não vou negar que existem portugueses cuja primeira reacção  ao português brasileiro é acharem que é uma forma _gramaticalmente_ pouco refinada da língua, ainda que atraente do ponto de vista fonético, e até lexical. Mas penso que esta atitude crua resulta principalmente da ignorância. Trata-se em geral de pessoas que ainda não se aperceberam de que também elas não seguem sempre à risca a gramática na fala de todos os dias. É mais uma questão de falta de cultura e provincianismo do que um complexo de superioridade consciente, em minha opinião.


----------



## arbilab

Thanks, Outsider.  I understand the distinction.  Those English misconstruction examples are definitely substandard.  A teacher using them should be dismissed from the profession.  If I used them in class, my teacher would have thrown a chalkboard eraser at me.  A manager in business using those would forfeit esteem as crudely educated or slovenly in expression.

We take many standardized (though technically incorrect) shortcuts within English.  Though all can be understood, there is a fine line between venues within which such construction is acceptable or unacceptable.

To an extent, we subscribe to the 'verbal class distinction' alluded to in the screenplay My Fair Lady.  There are subsets of misconstructions acceptable within a given class, and whether a listener accepts or rejects them demarcates his acceptance or rejection of the adjacent class.  In this way, grammar can be a bridge or a moat.  I accept misconstructions in which I do not participate--_if I want to_.  Some Americans will not speak with me at all unless I use their constructions or misconstructions.

It seems (to me) a daunting characteristic of Americans, to seek that which differentiates them with more fervor than they seek that which unites them.  And I see much less of this characteristic in cultures outside the US.


----------



## Outsider

I apologize for deleting my reply. I thought it might come off as overkill, after MarX's reply above.


----------



## arbilab

I would say, never fear restating.  In communicating engineering terms to non-engineers (managers), requiring more than one explanation is customary to get the point across.


----------



## Frajola

Outsider said:


> I wouldn't be so sure of that. Such feelings are usually mutual, or they quickly become mutual. Still, what I have noticed on the Internet is that in _most_ cases there is no more than a friendly rivalry, with some teasing and joking around, between AE and BE speakers. (There are, of course, always some eccentrics...) Maybe people are less friendly offline -- though the Internet is hardly characterized by the good manners of its users, in general.
> 
> (Resolvi mudar para português.) Mais uma vez, não estou tão certo disso. Tenho visto indicações contraditórias.
> 
> Por um lado, o sistema educativo brasileiro parece ser bastante conservador, erigindo como padrão uma forma de português ainda bastante baseada no padrão europeu, às vezes a um ponto que até eu acho exagerado. Por exemplo, esperar que os brasileiros usem a ênclise a mesóclise parece-me irrealista; mais valia adoptar uma atitude liberal quanto à colocação dos pronomes.
> 
> Mas também há uma reacção forte contra este conservadorismo vinda de certos sectores, com autores e linguistas brasileiros a exigirem uma norma mais próxima da linguagem falada do Brasil, e em alguns casos mesmo uma ruptura total com o português europeu, que chegam a descrever como feio e degradado.
> 
> Certo. Os portugueses em geral gostam de _ouvir_ o português do Brasil, o que, como diz e muito bem, não é o mesmo que considerá-lo um modelo a imitar.
> 
> Não vou negar que existem portugueses cuja primeira reacção ao português brasileiro é acharem que é uma forma _gramaticalmente_ pouco refinada da língua, ainda que atraente do ponto de vista fonético, e até lexical. Mas penso que esta atitude crua resulta principalmente da ignorância. Trata-se em geral de pessoas que ainda não se aperceberam de que também elas não seguem sempre à risca a gramática na fala de todos os dias. É mais uma questão de falta de cultura e provincianismo do que um complexo de superioridade consciente, em minha opinião.


 

Muito obrigado pela resposta e pelas ponderações sempre interessantes, Outtie! Satisfez minha curiosidade!


----------



## Istriano

Flemish soap operas and Brazilian soap operas feature substandard language, and not the standard one (used in newspapers or magazines).

On the other hand the language in Mexican and Colombian soap operas is impeccable.

There are two diverging views on this:

1. TV should represent the real speech and not the idealized standard,
2. TV should promote the ''correct'' usage (_jij _instead of _gij_, _vi-o _instead of_ vi ele_)
and not the substandard.

In Flanders and Brazil there's a lot of the inferiority complex, since the language is called Dutch (meaning from the Netherlands) and Portuguese (meaning from Portugal)...

In both cases, it is the language in the Netherlands and in Portugal that changed, in Flanders and Brazil, we just continued to use the old forms.
And, suddenly people in Netherlands and Portugal change the grammar rules and call our old forms incorrect...

That's why GIJ and VI ELE are used only in speech and in soap operas and never in writing because in schools  we are taught our old forms are ''ugly, incorrect, inelegant''...

I wish someone from Belgium could reply here. 
I'm just tired of being told our soap operas are full of mistakes.  Like it or not, it's how he speak...
If they don't like them they can always read a Brazilian civil code instead.


----------



## GamblingCamel

Istriano said:


> I'm just tired of being told our soap operas are full of mistakes. Like it or not, it's how he speak... _should I correct that? nah, i like the ambiguity, hey maybe u wrote it that way on purpose_



Istriano, which Brazilian telenovelas are the best examples of what you're describing? 
Currently, I watch Ti Ti Ti 2010 on UTube, but my PT listening skills are so poor that I'm unable to pick up on what's "standard" or what's "real". I'd like to know for the future, though.


----------



## Istriano

All of them.
Except for the historical novelas. 

Oh, here is the summary of what you should focus on: http://www.gel.org.br/estudoslinguisticos/volumes/39/v2/EL_V39N1_24.pdf


----------



## Peggy-Lynn

I really think it's best to learn the "correct" form of a language when studying, to avoid confusion. Colloquialisms and regionalisms are things that are picked up whilst living in a country and interacting with native speakers, but when studying or using a grammar book I think they should be set to one side. For one thing, when writing essays and assignments, we don't use colloquial language . I'm from the North West of England and we have a distinct regional accent with a lot of colloquialisms depending on the area. When talking about young men and women, I tend to say "lads" and "lasses", but I wouldn't write it.


----------



## Eroi Del Mare

ayupshiplad said:


> Evening all
> 
> Was recently shopping about for Portuguese grammars, and came across a review of one that claims to give written (formal) *variations *and colloquial ones so you get a better feel of the language.


The  review ,clearly,says "variations" ...ehm...i'm sorry,if it can be  interesting but i have an old English Grammar for beginner (also this  grammar claims to give written (formal) *variations *and colloquial  ones ) where ,strangely, all variations ,from an alleged English  standard,are expressions or words in American English (near the alleged  variations there is always a little USA flag)



Outsider said:


> it's quite likely that Brazil has more language purists than Portugal.



Isso pelo amigos brasileiro e de verdade,mas verdadeiramente,_* a maior pestilencia possivel*_,mas  como um pais como o Brasil quer apagar o seu pasado??? Ainda ,meu pai,  se lembra a velha Sao Paulo ,com a caracteristicas casas em estilo  colonial , e agora o que tem ai? uma montanha de palácios de m****.Tem  algo que "lembra" os escravos africanos no Brasil , ou os emigrantes da  Alemanha ou da Italia ou do Japao ou da populações da Amazonia  (indios?)? um velho  castelo, uma velha casa ou algo assim? Tem quase  nada ,issa e a verdade!*A unica lembrança de eles e na lingua*.Pra isso ,provo a ficar um pouco mais quetinho,esses,que vc chama variações, tem que ser defendidas.

I try to enlarge the discussion ,some years ago i lived in Kingston upon  Hull,there was an old english man that called,continuously, the Humber  River ....Abus. Now how many people in England know that Abus is the  latin (noterobably it is not a latin ,but it could be a simple  transliteration on latin of a previous name) name for Humber? There is  nothing in Kingston that remember these old populations,only it remains  something in the local language.I don t know , we should erase also this?


----------



## GamblingCamel

Hi EROI.
Who's the author of the text --> "a maior pestilencia possivel" ?


----------



## Eroi Del Mare

GamblingCamel said:


> Hi EROI.
> Who's the author of the text --> "a maior pestilencia possivel" ?



If nobody has copyright,it could be mine,i was working on Gildas _*De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae,*_when  i found 
De exc. 22


> *Pestifera* namque *lues *feraliter insipienti populo incumbit, quae in brevi
> tantam eius multitudinem remoto mucrone sternit, quantam ne possint vivi inumare.


Pestifera lues (pestilential ???) ,this lues has a ambiguous meaning ,it could be plague or also moral corruption  ,so i was searching more info,and probably ,i made some strange association.


----------



## mexitalian

Esta é a minha filosofia sobre este assunto: Se os falantes da língua, até os estudantes, a adoram de todo coração (como eu), ainda com todas suas desvantagens, não se envergonharão de usarem esses coloquialismos, mesmo que pareçam "incorretos" ou ainda "grosseiros". Bom, naturalmente não os usarão falando com _qualquer_ pessoa [desconhecida] hehe, pois não acho que queiram fazer tanto feio!  Porém, um dia eu queria orar aos brasileiros o fato de que devam ter puro orgulho na sua fala, em cada aspecto, desde o cru até o educado, e que não tenham nenhum pedaço de vergonha. Talvez isto pareça um pouco extremo hehe, mas é pura verdade!!


----------



## qwerta

Eu não tenho orgulho naquela parte da minha língua dos "prontos", dos "há-des" e companhia limitada...


----------



## mexitalian

Certas pessoas se orgulham de um aspecto, e outras de outro aspecto. A meta aqui é mantermos um equilíbrio entre as variedades da língua. Porém, neste caso, quero enfatizar que são _as formalidades_ que não devem xingar os vulgarismos e coloquialismos, para que possamos equilibrar ambas as variedades, e mantê-las nos seus próprios lugares. Embora certos aspectos formais só precisem ser apagados, eu sei isso!


----------



## Istriano

The word _substandard _is substandard. Modern linguistics gives priority to the word _nonstandard_.


----------

