# olhos que pareciam contas



## nycphotography

Ele abriu os olhos, que pareciam *contas*.

The seemed what???   And why not:

Ele abriu *seus* olhos, que pareciam contas.

Is the posessive optional?  Is there a guideline for when to use it and when not to?


----------



## Lems

Beads.

Lems
________________
Você sabe que está ficando velho quando começa a usar uma bicicleta e os filhos levam o carro.


----------



## Vanda

> Ele abriu os olhos, que pareciam *contas*.
> 
> The seemed what??? And why not:
> 
> Ele abriu *seus* olhos, que pareciam contas.
> 
> Is the posessive optional? Is there a guideline for when to use it and when not to.......


laughing...... contas= beads
her eyes looked like beads.
She opened her eyes that were like beads. (or any variant)

Yes , in this case the possessive is emphatic. Well, this is
literature, the more emphatic the more beautiful.


----------



## Vanda

Lems , vc sempre um passo à frente.

Estou rindo. Veja a cena:
Velho oeste-  *Lems the kid* saca o post e a 'mocinha
'jaz estendida no chão. (Bem vc nao queria que eu
me desse o papel de bandida, né?)


----------



## Lems

Vanda said:
			
		

> Lems , vc sempre um passo à frente.
> 
> Estou rindo. Veja a cena:
> Velho oeste-  *Lems the kid* saca o post e a 'mocinha
> 'jaz estendida no chão. (Bem vc nao queria que eu
> me desse o papel de bandida, né?)


Nem sempre, Vanda.

Você também está se tornando famosa: Vanda, the kid, *jazz *in the saloon tonight.  

Lems
_______________
Você sabe que está ficando velho quando começa a usar uma bicicleta e os filhos levam o carro.


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Is the posessive optional?  Is there a guideline for when to use it and when not to?


When we talk about body parts, the possessive is usually omitted, unless it makes the sentence ambiguous.


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

I don't know how much of this will help you understand the _seu_ concept, but here goes anyway.

The use of third-person possessive pronouns _seu(s)_ and _sua(s)_ may at times lead to ambiguity. If a sentence has more than two or more third persons, we might have trouble ascertaining who lost whose arm (and who broke whose leg), for crying out loud. Example:

"Pedro foi esquiar com o amigo no monte Kilimanjaro, mas acabou perdendo seu braço e ainda quebrou sua perna" (Lit., "Peter went skiing with the friend down Mount Kilimanjaro, but he ended up losing his arm and, on top of that, broke his leg"). Doesn't it look confusing? Now, we don't know whether Peter or his friend lost an arm and broke a leg. In order to deambiguate this, we might try our hand at rewriting the sentence. Tentatively like this:

"Ao esquiar o monte Kilimanjaro com o amigo, Pedro acabou perdendo o braço e quebrando a perna" <-- Okay for poor old Peter. That'd only happen to him anyway, his friend notwithstanding.

"Ao esquiar o monte Kilimanjaro com Pedro, o amigo dele acabou perdendo o braço e quebrando a perna" <-- Tough for Peter's poor old friend.

"Pedro foi com o amigo à casa de _seu_ mestre" (Lit., "Peter went with the friend to _his_ master's house"). Now come the questions a) "Did Peter go to his master's house or to his friend's master's house?", b) "Whose master belongs to whom, Peter's or Peter's friend's?" and c) "Who does the possessive _seu_ as seen from the sentence above refer to?"

Now comes the only plausible answer: "For the sake of clarity, we'd best put the thing owned close to the owner of the thing." Like this:

"Pedro foi à casa de _seu_ mestre com o amigo" ("Peter went to his master's house with his friend") -- Now we know whose house Peter sauntered over to. His own master's, obviously. Peter's friend just tagged along.


----------



## nycphotography

We don't seem to have these grammatical ambiguities in english.  Thuogh, I'm not sure if it's by grammar rule, or by custom of usage.



			
				Marcio_Osorio said:
			
		

> "Pedro foi esquiar com o amigo no monte Kilimanjaro, mas acabou perdendo seu braço e ainda quebrou sua perna"
> 
> (Lit., "Peter went skiing with the friend down Mount Kilimanjaro, but he ended up losing his arm and, on top of that, broke his leg").
> 
> Doesn't it look confusing? Now, we don't know whether Peter or his friend lost an arm and broke a leg.


 
In this case, it doesn't _seem_ ambiguous to me at all, as Pedro is the subject of the sentence, and to switch contexts mid-stream would require (at least to my english mentality) a specific reference to "his friend" as the object of the misfortune.

Pedro foi esquiar com o amigo no monte Kilimanjaro, mas _*o amigo dele*_ acabou perdendo seu braço e ainda quebrou sua perna.   (as you noted)

Is the original sentence really ambiguous in Portuguese???



			
				Marcio_Osorio said:
			
		

> "Pedro foi com o amigo à casa de _seu_ mestre" (Lit., "Peter went with the friend to _his_ master's house"). Now come the questions a) "Did Peter go to his master's house or to his friend's master's house?", b) "Whose master belongs to whom, Peter's or Peter's friend's?" and c) "Who does the possessive _seu_ as seen from the sentence above refer to?"


 
This grammar is not really ambiguous in English either.  We have established the subject of the sentence as Pedro.  Therefore, by default, unless we say otherwise, the house is _probably_ Pedro's Master's.

In portuguese, do you maintain the subject status of Pedro for the duration of the sentence?

Pedro foi com o amigo à casa de o mestre _de seu amigo_.

In english, we would require (at least in writing) this modifier to make the context switch in ownership of the house.

Now, interestingly, in English, we have a different clue which trumps (overrules) the grammatical subject object relationship...

*Peter went with (or accompanied or tagged along with) his friend to his master's house* implies that it is the house of his friends master, because Peter WENT WITH HIM, implying a more passive role in the sentence (though not exactly the passive voice).

*Peter took (or brought) his friend to his master's house *now this keeps Peter as the active participant, and makes it Peter's master's house.


----------



## Vanda

> "Pedro foi com o amigo à casa de _seu_ mestre"


 
All the ambiguity rests in the Portuguese version, because
seu may be used for the 2nd (as in você) *and* the 3rd person. Translating
it to En cuts out the ambiguity because En has a different pronoun
for each of these persons.
In Portuguese I can understand that: 
Pedro went with his friend to the house of his (Pedro's) master.
or:  to the house of his friend's master house.
that's why teachers always ask students to rephrase their 
sentence in order to avoid ambiguity, in a case like that. The sentence is grammatically correct, but semantically dubious.


----------



## Outsider

Marcio_Osorio said:
			
		

> "Pedro foi esquiar com o amigo no monte Kilimanjaro, mas acabou perdendo seu braço e ainda quebrou sua perna"


_Peter went skiing down mount Kilimanjaro with his friend, but ended up losing his arm and breaking his leg._
Márcio, I agree that this could, in principle, mean that Peter had broken _his friend's_ leg, but I can't think of many contexts where Peter could lose his friend's arm.



			
				Marcio_Osorio said:
			
		

> "Pedro foi com o amigo à casa de _seu_ mestre" (Lit., "Peter went with the friend to _his_ master's house"). Now come the questions a) "Did Peter go to his master's house or to his friend's master's house?", b) "Whose master belongs to whom, Peter's or Peter's friend's?" and c) "Who does the possessive _seu_ as seen from the sentence above refer to?"


With this I agree. The sentence is just as ambiguous in Portuguese as it is in English (his master's house, or his friend's master's house?) In practice, though, context should clarify whose master it is we speak of.


----------



## Vanda

Às vezes, explicar demais acaba confundindo. Principalmente
se meu conhecimento na língua-alvo ainda está 'engatinhando'.
Falo por experiência própria em aprendizagem de uma língua
com estrutura diferente da minha (não-latina).
Bem , apenas minha modesta opinião. Meus 2 centavos de
real (moeda que não vale nada).


----------



## Outsider

De acordo. O que importa saber é que é normal omitir os pronomes possessivos quando se fala de partes do corpo.

"Parti a perna."  = "Parti (a) minha perna."


----------



## SambaBaby

E outra coisa mais... para molestar...

por que não usam o artigo indefinido a/o/as/os en essas frases? Há alguma regra?

"Ele abriu *seus* olhos, que pareciam contas."

Por que não "Ele abriu *os seus* olhos, que pareciam contas"

Obrigada


----------



## Outsider

Pode-se usar o artigo ou não.


----------



## Marcio_Osorio

Outsider said:
			
		

> [...]_I can't think of many contexts where Peter could lose his friend's arm._


 Tudo pode acontecer. Ao esquiar encosta abaixo, Pedro poderia, casualmente, dar com o braço artificial do amigo acidentado cujo corpo, ainda com vida, teimava em ficar de pé ... em cima da perna mecânica de Pedro.

Do alto do Kilimanjaro até o sopé, esquiador desavisado pode perder um braço e uma perna próprios ou não.



> With this I agree. The sentence is just as ambiguous in Portuguese as it is in English (his master's house, or his friend's master's house?) In practice, though, context should clarify whose master it is we speak of.


 Mais uns exemplos:

"Vai levar a namorada pro cinema?"  (a = sua)
"Vai levar _sua_ namorada pro cinema?"  (Pardon me, whose girlfriend, please tell? A _sua_ namorada ou a namorada _dele_?)

"Veio de carro hoje?"  (= Veio guiando o próprio carro hoje?)
"Veio _no seu_ carro hoje?"  (Possível, mas só coloquialmente; no caso, pergunta que faríamos ao nosso interlocutor se ele costumasse vir, em dias alternados ou não, em diferentes carros emprestados).

"Pedro foi à casa de Paulo no carro deste"  ("... no carro dele" poderia significar "... no carro de Pedro e/ou no carro de Paulo).

"Pedro foi no carro de Paulo à casa deste"  (Mais um caminho que dá na venda).

"Pedro foi na casa de Paulo ao carro deste"  (Pedro usou a casa [móvel, autopropulsada] de Paulo pra chegar até o carro deste. Uma possibilidade, inusitada, mas plausível do ponto de vista semântico.)

Sem nenhuma justificativa a que deva favor, despeço-me atenciosamente. Boa noite, Puro Outsider!


----------



## Outsider

Marcio_Osorio said:
			
		

> Tudo pode acontecer. Ao esquiar encosta abaixo, Pedro poderia, casualmente, dar com o braço artificial do amigo acidentado cujo corpo, ainda com vida, teimava em ficar de pé ... em cima da perna mecânica de Pedro.
> 
> Do alto do Kilimanjaro até o sopé, esquiador desavisado pode perder um braço e uma perna próprios ou não.


LOL!


----------



## Vanda

Outsider,

O quê a gente pode dizer depois da tirada do Márcio, além do
que vc já fez e eu estou fazendo?  Rindo  até.......


----------



## cuchuflete

This has been a delightful thread. I'll remember it every time I try to break a friend's arm.  Marcio...you deserve an award for the best neologism of the year: deambiguate.  

I don't believe it existed in English previously, but it deserves to, and you deserve the inventor's royalties.

brigado,
Cuchu


----------

