# Dialogue (tenses)



## nycphotography

Dois tipos são sentado sub um arvore:
-- E se não houver vida depois da morte?  Supõe que só temos direito a isto.
-- Ora, não me importo.  Mesmo Assim.  Aceito.
-- Pois, mas eu gostaria de saber já se não vou ter a recompensa eterna pelo meu comportamento.

Can I please see some translations of this one?  

I'm curious what shades of meaning and translations I get from native portuguese speakers.

Thank you all.


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Dois tipos são sentado sub um arvore:
> 
> Two guys are sitting under a tree.


Did you write the sentence above yourself?

_-- E se não houver vida depois da morte?  Supõe que só temos direito a isto.
'What if there is no life after death? Suppose this is all we're entitled to.'

-- Ora, não me importo.  Mesmo Assim.  Aceito.
'Oh, I won't mind. I'll take it. Anyway.'

-- Pois, mas eu gostaria de saber já se não vou ter a recompensa eterna pelo meu comportamento.
'Yeah, but I'd like to know now if I won't be getting the eternal reward for my behaviour.'_


----------



## Vanda

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Dois tipos são sentado sub um arvore:
> -- E se não houver vida depois da morte? Supõe que só temos direito a isto.
> -- Ora, não me importo. Mesmo Assim. Aceito.
> -- Pois, mas eu gostaria de saber já se não vou ter a recompensa eterna pelo meu comportamento.
> 
> Can I please see some translations of this one?
> 
> I'm curious what shades of meaning and translations I get from native portuguese speakers.
> 
> Thank you all.


 
Two guys are sitting under a tree:
- what if there's no life after death after all? One can thing this is all we've got.
- Well, I don't mind. Anyway, I accept that.
- As for me, I'd like to know now if I'm not having the eternal reward by my behavior....

Como vc disse, você terá nuances diferentes. Let's wait for the others.


----------



## nycphotography

Outsider said:
			
		

> Did you write the sentence above yourself?


 
I must confess, yes I did.  You guessed by my horrible Portuguese?  hehe


----------



## Outsider

Let me correct it for you.

_Dois tipos estão sentados sob uma árvore._

("Debaixo de uma árvore" would be more normal in the spoken language.)


----------



## nycphotography

Outsider said:
			
		

> Let me correct it for you.
> 
> _Dois tipos estão sentados sob uma árvore._
> 
> ("Debaixo de uma árvore" would be more normal in the spoken language.)


 
Ugh.   5 Marks.  

Ser vs estar I've known since 3rd grade spanish.  Still blew it.  *shaking my head in shame*

Saying "sob uma arvore" would imply buried then?


----------



## Vanda

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Ugh. 5 Marks.
> 
> Ser vs estar I've known since 3rd grade spanish. Still blew it. *shaking my head in shame*
> 
> Saying "sob uma arvore" would imply buried then?


 
No, not necessarily. Sob um árvore é o mesmo que debaixo de, só
que na linguagem oral usa-se mais debaixo de ....


----------



## nycphotography

Thank you.  I'm interested in more translations if anyone thinks they have a different nuance.

I'm going to start asking specific questions now.

*E se não houver vida depois da morte?*

In this sentence, is *se* an object pronoun? a reflexive pronoun?  or the word if?  IE, in this context, is haver transitive or reflexive? How can I reasonably tell the difference when encountering similar constructions?

In this usage, does haver mean ter, obter, or conseguir?

Lacking the context, I would have (and initially had) interpreted the sentence as:

_And you (vc) won't obtain life after death?_

What clues should have told me it was a "general philosophical question" rather than a specific personal one?


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Thank you.  I'm interested in more translations if anyone thinks they have a different nuance.


Not exactly a different nuance, but the last sentence could also be translated as:

_'Yeah, but I'd like to know now if *I'm not going to get* the eternal reward for my behaviour.'
'Yeah, but I'd like to know now *whether or not I'll get* the eternal reward for my behaviour.'_

The latter translation is the least literal, but possibly clearer than the other two. The first two are a little clunky, but I couldn't come up with anything better, and anyway the original sentence is a bit convoluted, too.



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> *E se não houver vida depois da morte?*
> 
> In this sentence, is *se* an object pronoun? a reflexive pronoun?  or the word if?  IE, in this context, is haver transitive or reflexive? How can I reasonably tell the difference when encountering similar constructions?


It means "if" (or "whether"). Unfortunately, Portuguese does not distinguish "se" from "si", as Spanish does. You have to pay attention to the context, but usually it's easy to guess the right meaning.



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> In this usage, does haver mean ter, obter, or conseguir?


Neither; "haver" used impersonally means "to exist". It's the equivalent of English "there to be", and Spanish impersonal "haber". Take a look at this thread.



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Lacking the context, I would have (and initially had) interpreted the sentence as:
> 
> _And you (vc) won't obtain life after death?_
> 
> What clues should have told me it was a "general philosophical question" rather than a specific personal one?


"E se...?" = "What if...?" 
This is a set phrase* worth memorizing. 

*In some cases, "E se...?" can have the literal meaning "And if...?", but you shouldn't have any problem figuring those out.


----------



## nycphotography

Thank you.   Next question:

*Supõe que só temos direito a isto.*

Suppose that we have right to [only this] (life and nothing after)?  
Suppose that [only we] have this right?
Suppose that we have [only this] right?
Suppose that we [only have] this (particular) right?

1 right and 3 wrong interpretations? What grammatically rules out each possibility (other than the fact that I already knew what he was saying)?




Also: *temos direito a isto*

Wouldn't *direito* require a possesive or an article or something *temos o direito*? 

And why wouldn't it need to be *direito de isto* or *direito por isto*? Can you explain this construct with other examples?   (I know we do it in english, but I didn't expect it in Portuguese.)




Finally: *isto*

In this case, does *isto* refer specifically to the subject of the preceeding sentence (a placeholder / tag)?  Or is it a philosophical impersonal symbol for 'this life'?  Or does it have some other literal / grammatical meaning that I can't grasp ;-)

Thank you for your patience and help!!


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Suppose that [only we] have this right?


To say that, I think you would have to make the subject 'we' explicit.
_Supõe que *só nós* temos direito a isto._



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Suppose that we have [only this] right?
> Suppose that we [only have] this (particular) right?


In both cases, 'this' is an adjective pronoun, and so it would have precede the noun it refers to, and agree with it.
_Supõe que só temos *este direito*._
The sentence could have either meaning.



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Also: *temos direito a isto*
> 
> Wouldn't *direito* require a possesive or an article or something *temos o direito*?


No, the phrase is "ter direito a". I admit that "temos o direito" also exists, but it wouldn't be the right phrase in this case.

P.S. I've just thought of something else. I think "ter o direito de" means "to have the right of/to", but "ter direito a" more properly means "to be *entitled* to". Perhaps this can explain it.



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> And why wouldn't it need to be *direito de isto* or *direito por isto*? Can you explain this construct with other examples?   (I know we do it in english, but I didn't expect it in Portuguese.)


I'm afraid any answer I came up with would be mere guesswork.
The Portuguese construction doesn't seem too far off from the English one, though:

ter direito a = to have the/a right *to* [Not 'right of', or 'right for/by'.]



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Finally: *isto*
> 
> In this case, does *isto* refer specifically to the subject of the preceeding sentence (a placeholder / tag)?  Or is it a philosophical impersonal symbol for 'this life'?  Or does it have some other literal / grammatical meaning that I can't grasp ;-)


Your second suggestion is the right one. "Isto" means something like "this, here", "this, around us", "this we already know".


----------



## nycphotography

Thank you.   I'm almost done beating this horse  ;-)



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ter direito a = to have the/a right *to* [Not 'right of', or 'right for/by'.]


 
So with a verb... would it be: 
_ter direito comer?_
or
_ter direito a comer?_


----------



## Vanda

nycphotography said:
			
		

> So with a verb... would it be:
> _ter direito comer?_
> or
> _ter direito a comer?_


 
*ter direito a* alguma coisa (sempre) , neste sentido 
a regência nominal (collocation) é a prep *a.* 

No caso de direito concedido por lei, por exemplo,
a prep. será *de*. 
Ex.: direito de pesca. (the right given by an authority 
to fish)

If you want to know how our politicians use and
abuse of _ter o direito de_ .......
look in here.


----------



## nycphotography

One more:

-- Ora, não me importo. Mesmo Assim. Aceito.

Mesmo assim = Assim memso?

Are they the same, and fully interchangeble, or different and distinct?

In this usage? or in most uses?


----------



## Outsider

Penso que a duas expressões não são sinónimas. É difícil lembrar-me de todos os sentidos que podem ter, mas acho que em geral:

_mesmo assim_: even so
_assim mesmo_: that way, just like that

Talvez a Vanda possa dar uma explicação mais detalhada.


----------



## nycphotography

ugh.  I was afraid of that.  hehe


----------



## Vanda

Outsider made it clear crystal.


----------

