# sem



## daedalos

I understand 'sem' to signify a negation, it is usually translated as without in English, however I am unsure of its strength. For example can sem be used in ambiguous contexts or must it always be used in its strong form e.g. that is not true. 

For example what would sem mean in this context: 'sem olhar para o sol' could it be interepreted as 'I was sort of avoiding looking at the sun', or would 'I didn't even look at the sun once' be the only interpretation.


----------



## brainstorming

In "Sem olhar para o sol", I think the interpretation depends on the context. Can you provide a full sentence?


----------



## The River Dragon

_Sem olhar para o sol_, as it is and without context would be _Without looking at the sun_, I reckon.


----------



## daedalos

De olhos sempre fixos na carrasqueira, a fim de ver alguma coisa de extraordinário, sem propositadamente olhar para o sol, notou que na mesma ocasião em que o povo estava em altos gritos e exclamações pelo que via no sol, tanto as pessoas como as árvores, e tudo quanto a sua vista atingia na direcção da carrasqueira, tomou diferentes cores.

This is the context, I'm a sceptic, looking into some alleged miracles. The colours described are an optical effect caused by staring at the sun. I was just wondering why the witness claimed not to have been looking at the sun or if indeed he did claim that. I think my translation could be dodgy.


----------



## The River Dragon

Well, I´d translate it as _without looking deliberately at the sun_, but a native speaker will probably be of more help to you, as I´m not sure it is correct.


----------



## Niego

Sem means "without" 
your sentence means "without looking at the sun"


----------



## Carfer

'_Sem_' means simply '_without_', so the guy says he/she wasn't looking at the sun at the moment. If this '_without_' is coherent with what the witness actually saw (or was made to say he/she saw, if he/she saw anything at all) or with the rest of the report is quite another matter. Don't expect to find any coherence in those reports.


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> '_Sem_' means simply '_without_', so the guy says he/she wasn't looking at the sun at the moment. If this '_without_' is coherent with what the witness actually saw (or was made to say he/she saw, if he/she saw anything at all) or with the rest of the report is quite another matter. Don't expect to find any coherence in those reports.



Thanks for the reply, is 'sem' suceptiable to gradation or exaggeration or is an absolute?


----------



## daedalos

Also would 'sem' be the usual word used when wanting to express the idea of avoiding looking at the sun, rather like 'I was not looking at the sun' would be the used in English? Or is this a special case?


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> Also would 'sem' be the usual word used when wanting to express the idea of avoiding looking at the sun, rather like 'I was not looking at the sun' would be the used in English? Or is this a special case?


 


daedalos said:


> Thanks for the reply, is 'sem' suceptiable to gradation or exaggeration or is an absolute?


 
'_Sem_' is an absolute. Literally, if I say '_sem estar a olhar para o sol_', I mean I was not looking at the sun at all, period. Of course, people are prone to use inadequate words, so perhaps he/she may be intending to express the idea of _'avoiding looking'._ It's an awkward way of saying, but in that particular circumstance looking at sun would be only natural, that's what everybody was supposed to be doing as the sun, so they say, was jumping in the sky. So, maybe he/she was just avoiding looking, indeed. Anyway, be aware that most of these reports were later doctored in order to fit the official story and they are full of contradicitions and inconsistencies, this one and such like being the minor ones.


----------



## almufadado

"Estou sem ideias" -> "I have no ideas" (lit. i am without ideas)

"Que fazer com cem pensamentos sem poder fazer cem acções" = "Que fazer com cem pensamentos quando não se pode fazer cem acções"-> "what to do with hundred thoughts without being able to do hundred deeds"

"Sem dar conta fiz uma nova frase" ->  "Unexpectally, I made a new sentence" (without having noticed)

In conjunction with the verb "estar" it, most of the times, assumes the meaning of "no/none".


----------



## daedalos

So if I were to say 'I was not looking at the sun' in Portuguese would 'sem olhar para o sol' be the most appropriate wording to use? Or would something else be more suitable?

Would a Portuguese person intuitively use this wording to express the same sentiment? Or would some other phrasing be more commonly used?


----------



## SidewaysDan

daedalos said:


> So if I were to say 'I was not looking at the sun' in Portuguese would 'sem olhar para o sol'  be the most appropriate wording to use? Or would something else be more suitable?
> 
> Would a Portuguese person intuitively use this wording to express the same sentiment? Or would some other phrasing be more commonly used?



That's absolutely correct. I wouldn't say it any other way .

sem = without. don't get confused with other bits or rules. As far as I know it will work 99% of the time. If not 100.


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> So if I were to say 'I was not looking at the sun' in Portuguese would 'sem olhar para o sol' be the most appropriate wording to use? Or would something else be more suitable?
> Would a Portuguese person intuitively use this wording to express the same sentiment? Or would some other phrasing be more commonly used?


 
_'I was not looking at the sun_' translates as _'Não estava a olhar para o sol'_. It would be the most natural way of answering a direct question. Nonetheless, as part of another sentence, _'sem olhar para o sol_' fully conveys the meaning _'I was not looking at the sun'_ and is an entirely adequate wording for denying that the person was looking at the sun at all. If the person was just trying to say that he/she was avoiding to look at the sun it would be more natural to say '_tentando_ _não olhar para o sol'_ or _'evitando olhar para o sol', _not _'sem olhar para o sol'._


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> _'I was not looking at the sun_' translates as _'Não estava a olhar para o sol'_. It would be the most natural way of answering a direct question. Nonetheless, as part of another sentence, _'sem olhar para o sol_' fully conveys the meaning _'I was not looking at the sun'_ and is an entirely adequate wording for denying that the person was looking at the sun at all. If the person was just trying to say that he/she was avoiding to look at the sun it would be more natural to say '_tentando_ _não olhar para o sol'_ or _'evitando olhar para o sol', _not _'sem olhar para o sol'._



Does it make any difference that the statement was written in the 3rd person?


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> Does it make any difference that the statement was written in the 3rd person?


 
Not really. I guess that the statement was made before a judge, a law officer or a public authority. In that case the document is written by the court clerk according to what the judge dictates. Therefore it's only natural that the structure of the document is something like _'He stated that..._'
If that is actually the case, it's highly unlikely thet the judge would confuse _'avoid looking at'_ with _'not looking at'_


----------



## daedalos

Is 'sem' more natural here? 'sem propositadamente olhar para o sol'


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> Is 'sem' more natural here? 'sem propositadamente olhar para o sol'


 
'_Sem_' is entirely natural in this sentence.


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> '_Sem_' is entirely natural in this sentence.



Ahh excellent, this was the original.


----------



## daedalos

So if I wanted to say I was purposefully not looking at the sun, could I use não estava or would sem be more intuitive?


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> So if I wanted to say I was purposefully not looking at the sun, could I use não estava or would sem be more intuitive?


 

They just amount to the same.

Just imagine this dialogue:

_-Were you looking at the sun? (Estava a olhar para o sol?)_
_- No, I was not looking at the sun. (Não, não estava a olhar para o sol)_

This would be the most natural way of answering a direct question that only requires a very short positive or negative answer.

Suppose now that the question requires a slightly more ellaborated answer:

_- What were you doing at the time? (O que é que estava a fazer nesse momento?)_
_- I had my eyes fixed on the holm-oak, trying to see anything extraordinary, without deliberately looking at the sun. (Não tirava os olhos da carrasqueira, a tentar aperceber-me de algo extraordinário, sem propositadamente olhar para o sol)_

The minutes of hearing (indirect speech, naturally):

_'The deponent states that he had his eyes fixed on the holm-oak, trying to see anything extraordinary, without deliberately looking at the sun (_'O _declarante tinha os olhos fixos na carrasqueira, a fim de tentar ver alguma coisa de extraordinário, sem propositadamente olhar para o sol'_)

I think you will agree that in all cases, the sentence means that the person was not looking at the sun. The actual wording depends, of course, on the circunstances or even on the person's personal choice, but, the literal meaning can not be challenged unless we have further reasons to think that the person was actually trying to say that 'he _was just avoiding looking at the sun'_. In English, as well as in Portuguese.


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> They just amount to the same.
> 
> Just imagine this dialogue:
> 
> _-Were you looking at the sun? (Estava a olhar para o sol?)_
> _- No, I was not looking at the sun. (Não, não estava a olhar para o sol)_
> 
> This would be the most natural way of answering a direct question that only requires a very short positive or negative answer.
> 
> Suppose now that the question requires a slightly more ellaborated answer:
> 
> _- What were you doing at the time? (O que é que estava a fazer nesse momento?)_
> _- I had my eyes fixed on the holm-oak, trying to see anything extraordinary, without deliberately looking at the sun. (Não tirava os olhos da carrasqueira, a tentar aperceber-me de algo extraordinário, sem propositadamente olhar para o sol)_
> 
> The minutes of hearing (indirect speech, naturally):
> 
> _'The deponent states that he had his eyes fixed on the holm-oak, trying to see anything extraordinary, without deliberately looking at the sun (_'O _declarante tinha os olhos fixos na carrasqueira, a fim de tentar ver alguma coisa de extraordinário, sem propositadamente olhar para o sol'_)
> 
> I think you will agree that in all cases, the sentence means that the person was not looking at the sun. The actual wording depends, of course, on the circunstances or even on the person's personal choice, but, the literal meaning can not be challenged unless we have further reasons to think that the person was actually trying to say that 'he _was just avoiding looking at the sun'_. In English, as well as in Portuguese.



Would the meaning of '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _be best conveyed by the English sentence 'without purposefully looking the sun' or 'without looking at the sun on purpose'. I feel they mean slightly different things, the former being a weaker statement.


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> Would the meaning of '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _be best conveyed by the English sentence 'without purposefully looking the sun' or 'without looking at the sun on purpose'. I feel they mean slightly different things, the former being a weaker statement.


 
I cannot see clearly the difference, maybe _'on purpose_' translates it better as '_propositadamente_' means intentionally, deliberately.


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> I cannot see clearly the difference, maybe _'on purpose_' translates it better as '_propositadamente_' means intentionally, deliberately.



This is the difference the way I see it: Without looking at the sun intentionally is an absolue, there is no room for equivocation here. 

Without intentionally looking at the sun in English seems weaker when the emphasis is on intentionally. E.g. 'I was driving without *intentionally* going over the speed limit' would make sense even if one had gone over the limit.


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> This is the difference the way I see it: Without looking at the sun intentionally is an absolue, there is no room for equivocation here.
> 
> Without intentionally looking at the sun in English seems weaker when the emphasis is on intentionally. E.g. 'I was driving without *intentionally* going over the speed limit' would make sense even if one had gone over the limit.


 
In my opinion, the meaning is _'without looking at the sun intentionally'_, it's an absolute, he was intent on not looking at the sun and he didn't.


----------



## daedalos

I feel it is very difficult to express my thoughts on this issue, however I'll try my best. 

In English usage, I could easily take the statement 'I was deliberately not looking a the sun' as an exaggeration, as not is often used in exaggerated contexts. Without however is usually reserved for stronger statements.

Would it be easy in Portuguese to take the statement '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _as an exaggeration, given the context?
Is sem propositadamenta (or sem) often used inadequately, as not is in English? Does the statement seem typical of an exaggeration?


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> I feel it is very difficult to express my thoughts on this issue, however I'll try my best.
> 
> In English usage, I could easily take the statement 'I was deliberately not looking a the sun' as an exaggeration, as not is often used in exaggerated contexts. Without however is usually reserved for stronger statements.
> 
> Would it be easy in Portuguese to take the statement '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _as an exaggeration, given the context?
> Is sem propositadamenta (or sem) often used inadequately, as not is in English? Does the statement seem typical of an exaggeration?


 
No, it doesn't. '_Sem_' is almost always factual and it sounds as no exaggeration in this particular context.


----------



## daedalos

Something that occurred to me was that the witness would not have to have been looking at the sun for a long time, perhaps just a few brief but sustained glances. If the witness spent the vast majority of the time 'with his eyes fixed on the Holm oak' would the statement '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _be appropriate?


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> Something that occurred to me was that the witness would not have to have been looking at the sun for a long time, perhaps just a few brief but sustained glances. If the witness spent the vast majority of the time 'with his eyes fixed on the Holm oak' would the statement '_sem propositadamente olhar para o sol' _be appropriate?


 
Hardly.


----------



## daedalos

Carfer said:


> Hardly.



How would you suggest the witness came to express the view that he was not looking at the sun? Given the context (that he spent the vast majority of the time not looking at the sun).


----------



## Carfer

daedalos said:


> How would you suggest the witness came to express the view that he was not looking at the sun? Given the context (that he spent the vast majority of the time not looking at the sun).


 
You mean giving a quick short look at the sun while staring at the holm-oak most of the time? Maybe the most natural way an average person would express it would be like this
_'quase nunca olhando para o sol', 'raramente olhando para o sol', 'olhando muito pouco para o sol', 'olhando de relance para o sol', _'_tentando_ _não olhar para o sol'_, _'evitando olhar para o sol', etc_
but definitely not _'sem olhar para o sol',_ which is quite categorical a negative_._ But then there's always a large gap between real events and the witnesses' perception of them, which is further compounded by language, not to mention vested interests _et alia_ (and you know there were and still there are very large vested interests in this particular case, this forum being not, of course, the place to talk about it. From a linguistic point of view I think we came to a dead end).


----------

