Talk:Comparison of Portuguese and Spanish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal infinitive[edit]

As far as I know, the fundamental difference between Portuguese and Spanish in what concerns the personal infinitive is that:

  • both Portuguese and Spanish have sentences in which subjunctive is preceded by "que", but
  • in Portuguese one can often replace "que"+subjunctive by the personal infinitive, whereas
  • in Spanish we cannot do it because Spanish does not have the personal infinitive.

For instance:

1)

Es necesario que vengas acá.
É necessário que venhas cá.
É necessário vires cá.
It is necessary that you come here. (or, depending on the context: "It is necessary for you to come here.")

2)

Para que lleguemos temprano, necesitaremos apurarnos.
Para que cheguemos cedo, precisaremos nos apressar.
Para chegarmos cedo, precisaremos nos apressar.
For us to arrive early, we will need to hurry.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I remember of only one case in Portuguese where the infinitive cannot be replaced by the subjunctive, which is when making a more formal request. In this case, the infinitive is not personal. See:

Não fumem. (Don't smoke {a request}) -- imperative
Não fumar. (Don't smoke {a more formal request}) -- impersonal infinitive

Since the explanation in the corresponding section is hard to understand, we should improve it.

Maybe a previous version of this article can help us devise a better description of those differences. --Antonielly (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two different versions of the article that contain both inaccuracies and useful info (that the other does not have): this and this. Let's discuss here how to integrate the best of both worlds. Since we all have good faith, the consensus we will achieve here through discussion will result in a great section :) .
My suggestion is that we bullet-list the good and bad features of each version. This way, we will be able to properly integrate the good features of both and overcome their problems. --Antonielly (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in almost everything. The most important is that there is a personal infinitive in Portuguese, and there is not such a thing in Spanish. We should just give a few examples about personal infinitive to make the difference clear.
Second thing: personal infinitive is sometimes replaceable with subjunctive, some other times with indicative, e.g.:

O facto de estarmos fartos de discutir não beneficia ninguém. / O facto de que estamos fartos de discutir não beneficia ninguém.
A ideia de que temos de sair cansa-me. / A ideia de termos de sair cansa-me.

Now, as I was saying, we do agree on almost everything and I kept the information you had added. Why did you revert the edits? But never mind.
Third thing: I'm not sure (now) about a general replaceability with subordinate finite clauses. I had some examples against it some time ago. But is it necessary that we mention that? The earlier saying about "mandatoriness" of PI was related to II, not to finite clauses!
Velho (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember some cases where it seems impossible to replace the personal infinitive with a finite form (at least without major changes in the whole sentence). It can be replaced with an impersonal infinitive, but again only with some significant changes:

O hábito de fumares à janela prejudica o vizinho. [Personal infinitive. Literally, "The habit of [you] smoking at the window harms the [your/our] neighbour."]
O teu hábito de fumar à janela prejudica o vizinho. [Impersonal infinitive. Literally, "Your habit of smoking at the window harms.... etc."]
? O hábito segundo o qual tu fumas à janela prejudica o vizinho. [Indicative present. Literally, "The habit according to which you smoke at the window... etc."]

The third sentence is completely different and it is also quite weird, isn't it? Velho (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is the following: why does Portuguese say "chegarmos" if the pronoun to which it refers is "nós" with an initial "n", not "m"? Also, I think the parenthesical translation of example #1 is better, because in English we would almost never say "to be necessary that one do something" but "to be necesary for one to do something". See the difference? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"De" and "desde"[edit]

The explanation in that section is inaccurate. "Desde" can also be used in many cases in Portuguese to mean "from one place (to another)". For instance:

Ele teve de caminhar desde a estrada até sua casa porque seu carro se danificou no meio do caminho.

Another observation: There are many cases where "desde" is a synonym of "a partir de" in Portuguese ("a partir de" is more usual in many of those cases, but "desde" is correct too). For instance:

Os produtos desta loja custam desde 10 dólares. (Portuguese)
Los productos de esta tienda custan desde 10 dólares. (Spanish)

There are other cases where "desde" would be very weird in Portuguese as a replacement for "a partir de", to the point where I have strong doubts whether its use would be "correct", i.e., have the look-and-feel of a sentence pronounced by a native speaker (although it would certainly be understood by a native speaker). For instance:

*É possível aceder à Internet desde telefones móveis modernos. (would-be Portuguese)

In most sentences that comply to the "from [place/time 1] to [place/time 2]" pattern, "from" is more properly translated to "de", although it can be also translated to "desde". Translating it to "a partir de" would sound weird to a native Portuguese language speaker, although I am not sure whether it would be completely "wrong". For instance:

Aquela telenovela foi transmitida de 2 de Abril a 9 de Setembro.
Aquela telenovela foi transmitida desde 2 de Abril a 9 de Setembro.
Aquela telenovela foi transmitida a partir de 2 de Abril a 9 de Setembro. (sounds weird, but is comprehensible to a native Portuguese language speaker)

(Examine back again the 1st example I have pointed out, which also falls under this pattern.)

Or better yet:"Aquela novela foi transmitida de/desde 2 de abril até (which means "until") 9 de setembro". And just a quick note, unsigned editor: in both Portuguese and Spanish, names of days of the week and months of the year are written with lowercase initials, not uppercase initials as in English. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, "a partir de" is also potentially interchangeable with "partindo de" (much like "estou a fazer" and "estou fazendo" are equivalent), but "a partir de" seems to have grammaticalized over time. Therefore, replacing "partindo de" for "a partir de" would probably sound weird in many instances.

Although I am able to see the inaccuracy in the current text of that section, I do not know how to fix the section myself. The reason is that I can see some individual instances where Portuguese and Spanish differ but I am currently not able to detect the overall pattern of difference. Suggestions? --Antonielly (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehem[edit]

"Galician, which is often cosidered a dialect of Portuguese". This is very funny, Vímara Peres (Galician) established the County of Portugal. --213.60.88.213 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and I don't think that anyone in Portugal thinks that Galician proceeded *from* Portuguese. We are actually taught in school that what we speak is almost entirely derived from Galician, and we generally refer to Galician-Portuguese often. The paragraph you cited however is based on the fact that the Galician dialect spoken in Portugal - Portuguese - has due to several factors remained and affirmed itself as a national and cultural language, hence the use of it as a reference. In other words, saying the opposite is equally correct (that Portuguese is a dialect of Galician), it just depends on the angle.--85.138.217.123 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading section 3.4.5 of the article, titled "Use of stressed pronouns for inanimate subject", and it said, in the English translation of the example sentence "pronoun is required", which is not true. What I mean is that, when asked "Where are the keys?" in English, one can simply say "On the table" without having to use the words "the keys" or the pronoun "they", since that information is already understood from the question. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of this article to the Spanish Wikipedia under Deletion discussion[edit]

Hello: The translation of this article to the Spanish Wikipedia (Diferencias entre el idioma español y el portugués) is under Deletion discussion. (It's only an unfinished translation of this article. I'm one of the translators and I'm really astonished...). If somebody wants to participate, you can do it here. You can also learn about the arguments (in favor or against) just in case somebody arguments against this article in the future. Thank you very much. --Mario Huerta (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally didn't like this article, then I didn't like how long it was -- then I went looking for "e" in Portuguese and "ie" in Spanish and found a very nice job! I'd have voted to keep the article. Next time, do the translation completely and then drop it in complete. And message me.
I've had to interpret between Mexicans and Brazilians, so I wouldn't overdo the "degree of mutual intelligibility." I've heard plenty of Brazilians go sure, sure I speak Portuguese, so I can speak Spanish, and they can't. I've had to interpret for them so they could talk. The languages are similar, but that doesn't mean that just because you know one, you can understand the other. -- Rico 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ir a" versus "ir para"[edit]

The article currently says: "European Portuguese distinguishes between going somewhere for a short while versus a longer stay, especially if it is an intended destination, in the latter case using para instead of a. [...] This distinction is not made in English, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese, and the Spanish para cannot be used for this purpose."

It is simply false that Spanish para cannot be used for this purpose. Constructions like ir para España are common in many Spanish dialects (try googling for phrases like ir para, voy para, voy pa etc.). I don't know whether the meaning contrast cited for European Portuguese exists in any Spanish dialect, but I would not discount the possibility. 63.80.102.4 (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ir para is also used in Brazilian Portuguese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.116.212 (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same distinction is made in Spanish, all dialects I'm aware of. --Ismael Luceno (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, in Spanish we only use "ir a", not "ir para". I know because I am a Spanish speaker from Argentina and I have never heard Spanish speakers say "ir para" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to my statement above: we do use "ir para" in sentences of the type:"Me voy para Nueva York este verano", here "ir para" being used in the sense of "being headed for a destination" usually by bus, train or plane. When driving or going on foot, we use "a" instead of "para":"Me voy a casa de un amigo", for example. This means "I'm going to a friend's house" but, in Spanish, there is no equivalent to the possesive 's, so we literally say "I'm going to the house of a friend". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

This article cites nothing. Its very explanatory and interesting, but would better belong in a textbook than here. It seems to be synthesized by its authors, and not based on reliable third party sources. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Can something be done to improve this article to make it encyclopedia? Probably needs to start with citing sources. Ehlkej (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original research template because the article still explains many things without cite the sources.--Luizdl (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Going to" future[edit]

An anonymous user (IP: 187.3.67.116) left these comments as a hidden reference within the article. I moved them here to the discussion page with the relevant text.

The other is when you are referring to the specific moment where an imminent action not yet begun was cancelled. In this case, the use of a is equivalent to rumo a. (The imperfect tense of estar plus a gerund would have been used had the action already started.) For example:

Ontem eu ia a ler o livro quando de repente tocaram à campainha. (Portuguese)
Yesterday I was going to read the book when suddenly the doorbell rang.

I'm really sure that would be better do not use a before ler; another thing is that there is not à before campainha, because the portuguese verb tocar is not an indirect verb (using it with that meaning), so you do not need to add a preposition a after the verb, making something that we call in portuguese as crase: it's happen when a preposition a is put before an article a (a + a = à); for me, it sounds better: Ontem eu ia ler o livro quando de repente tocaram a campainha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSZ (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The à is actually correct, but the first a is completely wrong. FilipeS (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was going to point out, FiilipeS: it should have been "ia ler" instead of "ia a ler". Maybe the user who wrote that part thought about Spanish, where "ir" does require the preposition "a" when meaning "going to do something" or "going someplace", however, said preposition is only used when the sentence has the meaning "to go someplace" as in "Ontem eu fui á praia" or "Hoje eu vou á biblioteca", but it is never used with an action verb such as "ler" ("to read"). Also, notice the peculiar difference between Spanish and Portuguese: in Portuguese, as I already showed you with my example, it is "ler", with only one "e", but in Spanish, we use two "e"'s giving us "leer". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Todo" and "tudo"[edit]

The use of "todo" + singular noun is acceptable in both languages. For example:

Todo humano tiene derecho. (Spanish)
Todo humano tem direito. (Portuguese)

Why is it excluded from the "Todo" and "tudo" section? Tterrag (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the distinction in meaning between "todo" + "singular noun" and "todos os" + plural noun is actually the same in both Brazilian and European Portuguese. In other words, the difference is not regional at all.

"todo" in this case is every, and "todos os" is "all the" or "all of the"

therefore todo insecto/todos os insectos is actually every insect/all of the insects

One usage may be more popular in a particular region, but the phrases are syntactically different, and as explained above, actually acceptable in Spanish as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.116.212 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to my ears both sentences sound awkward and non-idiomatic. Do you speak any of the two languages? FilipeS (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few changes[edit]

Spanish has more sounding than just that, to learn Spanish you have to go in-depth the Spanish pronunciation which shows lots of allophones and extra sounding :D It should be added nasalisation is done in many Spanish dialects as all Spanish vowels nasalise when in contact with a nasal consonants, in some dialects the nasal consonant is dropped as in Portuguese in others it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.94.175 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section is about the phonology, the Castilian nasal vowels (with exception of some dialects) are all phonetics variation. Luizdl (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so good but it needs more information. Portuguese nasalisation is purer, and omits the nasal consonant as in French. Examples; bom [bõ], um [ũ]. Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas & Carrera-Sabaté (2003:256) talks about nasality in Spanish (or Castilian). All the Spanish vowels /a/, /e̞/, /o̞/, /i/, /u/ have a nasal allophone when a vowel is in contact with a nasal consonant; [ã], [ẽ̞], [i], [õ̞], [ũ]. These are just as other Spanish allophones; [z], [ð], [v], [χ], [β̞], [ð̞], [ɣ˕], which happen in the Spanish phonetics as other would happen in Portuguese, [β̞], [ð̞], [ɣ˕] in mainland Portugal, and [dʒi] and [tʃi] in Brasil. Or the many pronunciations of "r" in Portuguese, which is pronounced different from place to place; /ʀ/, /ʁ/, /χ/, /x/, /h/, /ɣ/, /r/, /ɹ/.

ánfora [ˈãɱfo̞ɾa] ânfora [ˈɐ̃foɾɐ]
ancla [ˈãŋkla], âncora [ˈɐ̃koɾɐ]
ancho [ˈãnʲtʃo̞], ancho [ˈɐ̃ʃu]
amplio [ˈãmpljo̞], amplo [ˈɐ̃plu]
cónyuge [ˈkõ̞ɲɟʝuxe̞], cônjuge [ˈkõʒuʒi]/[ˈkõʒuʒɨ]
antes [ˈãn̪t̪e̞s]~[ˈãn̪t̪e̞z], antes [ˈɐ̃t̪is]~[ˈɐ̃t̪iz]/[ˈɐ̃t̪ɨʃ]~[ˈɐ̃t̪ɨʒ]
encía [ẽ̞n̟ˈθia], gengiva [ʒẽˈʒivɐ]
ungüento [ũŋˈɣ˕wẽ̞n̪t̪o̞], unguento [ũˈgwẽt̪u]/[ũˈɣ˕wẽt̪u]
enjuto [ẽ̞ɴˈχut̪o̞], enxuto [ẽˈʃut̪u]

The Spanish vowels aren't neither /e/ nor /o/, they are /e̞/ and /o̞/. In many dialects these vowels may open and close [e]-[o] and [ɛ]-[ɔ] In the Caribbean and Andalusian Spanish, the nasal consonant can be dropped or may be velarised [ŋ]. Example; corazón would be [ko̞ɾaθõ̞n] in standard Castilian Spanish. In Andalusia and the Caribbean [ko̞ɾasõ̞ŋ] and even the nasal consonant can be dropped as in Portuguese, [ko̞ɾaˈsõ̞]. In the rest of the Spanish speaking countries would be [ko̞ɾasõ̞n] as only [θ] exists in Spain. Andalusian Spanish and Caribbean Spanish may have up to 10 oral vowels, as these dialects drop or aspire /s/, with a vowel opening. Plus 5 nasal vowels (omitting the nasal consonant or velarising it).

In Andalusia, Murcia and in the Caribbean.

/is/ -> i̞
/es/ -> ɛ
/as/ -> æ̞
/os/ -> ɔ
/us/ -> u̞

I've updated both alphabets, as Portuguese will have 26 letters with its spelling reform and Spanish has 27 (1994 spelling reform). Plus two digraphs; ch [tʃ], ll [ʎ].

Other pair of consonants or vowels act as digraphs in Spanish like; rr [r], qu [k], gu [g] ~ [ɣ˕], in South America sc [s]. In Castilian Spanish the cluster "xc" [ksθ] and can be reduced to [kθ], in South America it is always [ks]. Spanish uses sh [ʃ] (taken from English) for loanwords (Bangladesh, flash, show, shock, ¡shh!).

Portuguese has many digraphs; ch [ʃ], lh [ʎ] nh [ɲ], rr [ʀ, ʁ, χ, x, h, ɣ, r, ɹ], ss [s], sc [s], sç [s], xc [s], qu [k], gu [g] and [ɣ˕] in mainland Portugual. And a trigraph for loanwords tch [tʃ] (tcheco, Tchetchênia, tchau, tchê!).

Both, Spanish and Portuguese, use zz /ts/ (never as /dz/) for Italian loanwords; pizza, pizzería (Spanish), pizzaria (Portuguese), pizzero (Spanish), pizzaiolo (Portuguese), mezzosoprano, paparazzi, jacuzzi, atrezzo, mezzanina, Squadra Azzurra, Mezzogiorno, etc. Spanish uses tz /ts/ for Basque, Catalan and Nahuatl loanwords, and tl /tl/ for Nahuatl loanwords; Ertzaintza, quetzal, xoloitzcuintle, Tlaxcala, huauzontle, cacomixtle, chipotle, etc 86.179.22.199 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Allophones are always written in brackets []. 86.179.23.50 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So replace all bars to brackets, not just the last allophone, to represent some allophone between bars and others between brackets stay badly formatted.Luizdl (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vou na padaria[edit]

The example "Vou na padaria" (sic) for Portuguese is just a malformed phrase that one could expect to hear from illiterate people, and it is not a local variance of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.36.125 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. EM/EN with verbs of movement is common in Brazilian Portuguese and Paraguayan Spanish. Even in European Portuguese there are some expressions where this usage remained fossilized (IR DE BAR EM BAR rather than IR DE BAR A BAR), and in European Spanish (ENTRAR EN rather than ENTRAR A). It's a remnant of old usage (IN URBEM IRE = to go to town in Latin): http://ciberduvidas.sapo.pt/pergunta.php?id=15632 Passar bem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 07:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More differences[edit]

It is important to mention the sibilants /s/ and /z/ in the coda position. In Portuguese there are two ways of pronouncing them, depending on the dialect (/ʃ/~/s/ and /ʒ/~/z/). A Sandhi realisation may happen when the Portuguese sibilants get contiguous, s-z, z-z, z-s, s-s, etc. Sandhi may also happens with the Spanish sibilants when the same one is contiguous s-s and z-z. It is also important to mention how would them be pronounced in Standard Spanish (Castilian Spanish);

/s/ -> [z] (before voiced consonants)
/θ/ -> [ð] (before voiced consonants, Spain)
/x/ -> [χ] (before u, Spain)

It would be good to briefly mention, these consonants suffer debuccalisation in many Spanish dialects where they get reduced to /h/ or complete elision in all the cases when these consonants are in the coda position.

The last table on this article should be clearer, and it should show the pronunciation of consonants in both languages. d, [d] ~ [ð̞] (alternation in Spanish and European Portuguese). And the same for b, g. A tilde (~) indicates alternation (depending on the position of the consonant would be either pronounced [d] or [ð̞]). The r pronunciation in Portuguese should include or as depending on the dialect you can choose one sound among these possible ways of pronouncing r. Regarding, [dʒ] and [tʃ]. It is unnecessary to represent these sounds with a ligature [d͡ʒ] and [t͡ʃ]. This is an alternation as well, in Brazilian Portuguese de/di ([di] ~ [dʒi]) and te/ti ([ti] ~ [tʃi]). And in Spanish and European Portuguese; d ([d] ~ [ð̞], when in between vowels), b ([b] ~ [β̞], when in between vowels) and g ([g] ~ [ɣ̞], when in between vowels). v in Spanish has the same sounds as b. However [f] can be turned into [v] in Spanish, [avɣ̞ãnis'tãn], f ([f] ~ [v] in coda position followed by a voiced consonant). Also in Spanish, s ([s] ~ [z]) and z ([θ] ~ [ð] in coda position before voiced consonants). And j/g/x (few words with x) ([x] ~ [χ] before u). This pronunciation would be for Castilian Spanish (standard Spanish). Other realisations may happen in Latin American Spanish, as some of these sounds do not exist there (/θ/ which is always /s/ ~ [z]). 149.254.56.47 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are welcome for edit here, you must cite sources for your edits on Wikipedia, this article already lacks citation, the wp:original research is not allowed at Wikipedia, so please find sources for this edition.
And about the pronunciation of voiced plosives as approximants, according to a sourced phrase in the article Portuguese phonology#Further_notes, those plosives may vary, but not necessarily, to fricatives, except at the beginning of words or after nasal vowels, that doesn't say nothing about approximants. --Luizdl (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todo - Todo/tudo[edit]

I confirm "todo" + "singular noun" exists in Spanish. I don't think this usage is correct in Portuguese.

Todo ser humano tiene derecho a la libertad. Toda planta recibe sus nutrientes del sol y la tierra Todo ser nace, crece, vive, quizás se reproduzca, y luego muere :D Todo animal invertebrado es aquel que no tiene huesos These are some examples. :)

In Spanish this is correct, derived from the Latin word "omni". In Italian they use ogni. However in Spanish the Latin word "omni" can be either todo, todos los or cada. 149.254.57.61 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is also possible in Portuguese.--Luizdl (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should add it.

Tener in Spanish may be an auxiliary verb, very similar as in Portuguese[edit]

haber/haver Examples; Te tengo dicho que comas con la boca cerrada; tener + a I've been telling you

Te tengo dicho = Te he estado diciendo.

In Spanish also exists, as in Portuguese tener Tengo much 149.254.57.48 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, the section "Auxiliary verb of the perfect" contains a garbled sentence: "Haver is more used in Brazilian Portuguese, while ter is used as an auxiliary by other Iberian languages; it is much more pervasive in Portuguese." Could someone who understands the issue please rewrite this sentence more clearly? Is it saying that haver is used more in Brazilian than in Peninsular Portuguese? (That seems wrong.) "Other Iberian languages" must be Spanish and Catalan; is ter (or its cognate) _commonly_ used in these languages? I don't think so. And what is the antecedent of "it"? Should the comma and semicolon be replaced by a period (full stop) and comma? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different Spellings for Similar Sounds --- ungrammatical sentence[edit]

In the section "Different Spellings for Similar Sounds" there occurs the following sentence:

In modern Spanish has been reverted back to letter z, not been longer used only for loanwords from French, Portuguese and Catalan origins. Example: calzado (Sp.), calçado (Pt.)

It is ungrammatical and although I could guess at its meaning would prefer to leave it for someone whose knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese is greater than mine (mine is non-existent).

This is no longer a problem: the sentence has been replaced. Kotabatubara (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

y - e and e / o - u and ou[edit]

I would remove this section. It's a minor, easy to learn difference. FilipeS (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the 3-Nov.-2011 claim that the Portuguese conjunction "e" suffers an exception with words beginning with "e-" or "he-". At <http://www.corpusdoportugues.org/x.asp>, search for "e e*" and "e he*" to see many examples. A Google search for "Portugal i Espanha" gives 175 hits, vs. 3.38 million for "Portugal e Espanha". Kotabatubara (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet[edit]

I would also remove this section. It seems to be all composed of minutia. FilipeS (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting or slimming the article[edit]

Has everyone seen the box that says "This page is 97 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article..."?

Wikipedia's policy page on article size <http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Article_size> says readers may tire after 30 to 50 kbytes. So we seem to have an unreasonably long article with material for two reasonably long articles or three or more moderate-sized ones.

Note also that the Wiki policy page says "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects." I rate this article high on the scale of technicality.

I suggest that we editors brainstorm here about these questions: (1) Along what dimensions can it be most appropriately split? (2) What would be the titles of the new articles? (3) Who are the audiences for this material?

One possible criterion for splitting is suggested by the present outline: Vocabulary, grammar, phonology, orthography. Each article would be oriented toward linguists.

Another possibility would be to split it into (1) a modern, synchronic version (keeping the same title) and (2) a separate historical article (with an unavoidably arcane title like "Comparative internal history of Spanish and Portuguese"). New Article (1) would be a practical article for the reader who knows modern Spanish (or Portuguese) and wants to be able to use modern Portuguese (or Spanish) -- and doesn't care about history. Article (2) would be for an audience with more scholarly interests. Article (1) might still turn out to be too long and have to be split between, say, vocabulary and grammar. Kotabatubara (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently no one has thought about the obesity of this article for five years. What does anyone think about discarding some of the historical data? I love the histories of these languages as much as anyone, but, in an encyclopedia (!), can't the comparison of two living languages do without it? It seems redundant, given the existence of History of the Spanish language and History of Portuguese. Kotabatubara (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kotabatubara, how about splitting it into three or even four parts? This main article could be the first part, then, in the three-part version, another one named "Comparison of Portuguese and Spanish grammar" could serve as the second part, then yet another one titled "Comparison of Portuguese and Spanish pronunciation" could be the third and last one. Or, in the four-part version, an article titled "Comparison of Portuguese and Spanish spelling" could be the third part and the aforementioned article about pronunciation the fourth part. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piña - abacaxi - ananás[edit]

Quotation from article:

«'pineapple': piña (from the Spanish word for 'pine cone') / abacaxi (from Tupi). (A less frequent alternative in both languages is ananás)»

This statement is not correct. See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=733125 for differences between ananás and abacaxi. I don't dare introduce more changes in the article, but someone should... I'm positive about this. I'm an European Portuguese native speaker and a linguist. 89.180.22.209 (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 89.180.22.209 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned editor, we also have this word in Spanish, albeit without the finhal "s": "ananá", so we can say either "piña" or "ananá" depenhding on the nationality of the speaker --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PT-pt vs PT-br phonology[edit]

I introduced some changes in the text. Some statements about PT phonology were not accurate. Actually it is very "dangerous" to generalise about PT phonology, for there are major differences betweeen Portugal and Brazil. Saying that final i and final e are both pronounced i without stating that this happens only in Brazil, is a serious error. 89.180.22.209 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mui/muito vs Muy/mucho[edit]

mui is not a cognate of Sp. muy. Both muito and mucho ultimately come from Latin multu, but there is a little problem with the (supposed) Sp. evolution: note that, in Galician-Portuguese,

MVLTV > molto (vulgar Latin) > mouto > moito (it is a proper feature of Galician-Portuguese the confusion between ou/oi, louro/loiro, ouro/oiro, dous/dois, the Douro river properly must be Doiro < DURIU) > muito, from muito the apocopation muito > muit > mui requires no further explanation. Mui was very common in the Middle Ages, nowadays is nearly extinct in Portuguese and alive and well in Galician (even written as moito/moi).

For instance, similarly, CVLTELLV > *coutelo > coitelo (archaic, fully attested) > cuitelo (modern Galician) > cutelo (modern Portuguese), AVSCVLTARE > *escoutar > escoitar > escuitar > escutar, VVLTVRE > voltre > voutre/voitre (dialectal and archaic)/abutre (modern Galician and Portuguese). "Official" explanations for Sp. goes straightforwardly from Latin CVLTELLV > cuchiello > cuchillo and so on, but note that in any case, the (velar) -l- must vocalize as -u-.

Obviously, it is impossible for Spanish to apocope from mucho to muy, as cited in the Wikipedia article (as an example!). Theorically, "muito" might be the very archaic form in Spanish too (it is poorly attested, but attested), and Coromines do not believe in any other possibility than an very archaic "muito" also in Spanish, so, the Spanish muy is a little bit more than a cognate. At the minimum, it is the very same word, with an strange similar evolution very rare -not to say impossible, and at the maximum it is a pure and highly archaic Portuguesism in Spanish (since Spanish cannot turn an -ou- to -oi-).91.117.9.231 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substratum / Superstratum[edit]

Since the indigenous people of Iberia spoke Romance, wouldn't it be more correct to refer to the Arabic element as a superstratum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.238.88 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both "substratum" and "superstratum" are oversimplifying terms. I have changed it to the neutral term "component". For the "-stratum" terms to work, we have to assume that the speakers of the borrowing and lending languages had consistently contrasting social status and political power, and that linguistic domination was laid onto the territory somewhat like successive coats of paint, without mixing. Presumably in areas of Moorish rule some vocabulary was borrowed "down" from the Arabic of society's ruling layer to the subordinate layer of Mozarabic Romance-speakers (making Arabic a superstratum to Mozarabic). In those same areas, after their reconquest by Castilian-speakers, Portuguese-speakers, and others, presumably, some of those words were borrowed (up? sideways?—what was the social relation of the Mozarabes to the Reconquerers?) from Mozarabic into Castilian or Portuguese. In short, the direction of borrowing was neither all "up" nor all "down" the power gradient. Some language historians dodge the issue by calling Arabic in Iberia an "adstratum"—see Stratum (linguistics)—but I think that term also oversimplifies the mixing process. Kotabatubara (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals of -ão nouns[edit]

From the article:

"Notable exceptions to the above rule: verão/verões (Spanish verano(s) English 'summer(s)')"

I don't understand how verão -> verões is an exception to the rule, it follows the same pattern as e.g. divisão -> divisões. Is this a mistake? Wsm1 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten that section; see if it makes more sense now. Using the "rule", Spanish divisiones correctly "predicts" Portuguese divisões; but Spanish veranos would wrongly predict a Portuguese *verãos instead of the correct verões. Kotabatubara (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is NOT the correct place to put this, but I also found a difference between Spanish and Portuguese: Spanish "multitud" would wrongly "predict" a Portuguese "multitude" instead of the correct "multidão" and Spanish "soledad" would wrongly "predict" a Portuguese "soledade" instead of the correct "solidão" which to me as an English and Spanish speaker looks like the superlative for the English "solid" or the Spanish "sólido" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with English present perfect[edit]

The example given for the English present perfect "I have gone to Spain twice" is incorrect. English speakers would say "I have been to Spain twice". [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.198.70.210 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear unsigned editor, what was given for the English version is a literal, word-for-word, translation, not an idiomatic translation, just to show how both Portuguese and Spanish are different from English in the use of certain verbs. For example, if you read the article carefully there are examples where in Portuguese and Spanish some sentences would be expressed with the verb "tener" (for example "Tengo hambre") while in English one would use the verb "to be" in the same way ("I am hungry", not "I have hunger", which is something similar to what Portuguese does:"Estou com fome"). Same goes for expressing age: use "tener" in Spanish ("ter" in Portuguese), but "to be" in English. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv76.shtml

Gostar/gustar[edit]

The differing use of these two verbs is erroneously located under "Reflexive verbs". Spanish "me gusta" is not reflexive, and of course neither is Portuguese "gosto". Are there other cognate pairs whose use differs in this way (i.e. verbs with experiencer as subject in Portuguese and as indirect object in Spanish)? What is the proper heading for this class of verbs? Is there any alternative term for argument structure that would be more understandable to the general reader? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider using "passive" as the adjective, since the construction is passive in nature. (This is probably how it ended up in the reflexive verb section, since the reflexive construction is often used in French and Spanish (and maybe in Portuguese?) to cast a sentence into the passive voice. I am aware that that is not what happens when gustar is used idiomatically in Spanish.) Anyway I am putting this out there to spur discussion and not as a fully formed solution, because I also noticed the gustar/gostar misplacement in the article and am interested in a good fix. Peace to you... Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved gostar/gustar to a section of its own, titled "To like" by analogy with the preceding section, "To be". I can't think of another cognate pair of verbs whose use differs like this. If another example comes to light, we can rename the section something more general, like "Argument structure". For now, I see this as an improvement over the implied link with reflexive verbs. Kotabatubara (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is a difference on how each of the languages being contrasted in the article expresses liking. For example, in Spanish one says "Me gusta(n) el/la/los/las _____" or "Me gusta + (verb)", while the Portuguese counterpart requires the use of the preposition "de". Example:"Eu gosto de futebol. I think this difference deserves a subsection under "To like" which analyzes it more in depth. Don't you think? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you have expressed in words the same thing as the article shows in the table. Do you find the table unclear? Or can you say more about what you mean by "more in depth"? In my opinion this article already contains too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Kotabatubara (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kotabatubara: by saying "I think this difference deserves a subsection under 'To like' which analyzes it more in depth" I neant the article does not make clear why there is a difference in the way both languages express liking, hence my examples ("Me gusta(n) el/la/los/las _____" or "Me gusta + (verb)") for Spanish but "Eu gosto de (do/da/dos/das)______" for Portuguese. A little expansion won't hurt the article, will it? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Phonology[edit]

I don't think that Spanish is phonetically similar to Neapolitan as stated in the article, for the former has 5 vowels (/a/, /e̞/, /i/, /o̞/, /u/) while the latter has 10 different vowels (/i/, /e/, /ɛ/, /ə/, /a/, /ɑ/, /ɑ̃/, /ɔ/, /o/, /u/). I do see a parallel between Castilian and Sicilian phonology as both don't use vowel height and both have a pentavocalic system (even though some dialects of Sicilian use /ɪ/ and /ʊ/). Let me know if I'm wrong, in the meantime I changed the paragraph. Geneor (msg) 17:16, 30 May 2014 (CET)

Gender of letters of the alphabet[edit]

Aren't the letters of the alphabet all feminine gender in Spanish, but masculine in Portuguese? 108.246.206.139 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, and even the opposite is true: words being masculine in Spanish ending in -aje (viaje, pasaje, and so on) or ending in -or (color, dolor, etc.) are feminine in Portuguese: thus "el viaje" becomes "a viagem", "el color" "a cor", "el dolor" "a dor", "el equipaje" "a bagagem", just to name a few. One exception to notice is the Spanish word "equipo" which means either "team" or "equipment". In the first case, we have two possibilities in Portuguese: o time (as in "o time de futebol" which means "the football/soccer team" or "a equipe" when referring to what's known in television and movies as the "crew" (directors, producers, writers and the like) and for the "equipment" sense we only have one possibilty in Portuguese: "o equipamento", which is the same as the English word "equipment". We also have a similar word for that in Spanish, "equipamiento", as in "equipamiento deportivo" ("sport/sports equipment") --Fandelasketchup (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese calendar[edit]

Since Monday is considered the segunda-feira, or "second fair" or "day," in Portuguese, do Portuguese calendars usually make domingo, or Sunday, the first day of the week, following the practice of calendars in the English-speaking world, but contrary to the practice in most European languages of designating Monday as the first day of the week? 108.246.206.139 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, and not only in Portuguese, but also in Spanish calendars as well. As a reference I can cite a calendar I have next to the computer I'm writing this with and it begins the week on "domingo" ("Sunday") marked in red. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this Article[edit]

What is the purpose of this article ? It seems to me it was written to "prove" to uninformed English speakers that Portuguese and Spanish are different languages. If that is the case, I suggest the article should be marked for deletion. Wikipedia doesn't have articles that compare other pairs of related languages like Swedish and Danish for example. Why should there be one for Spanish and Portuguese ? 161.24.19.44 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many English-speakers have heard that Portuguese and Spanish are similar. More English-speakers have studied Spanish (as a foreign language) than Portuguese. They may have the question "I know some Spanish; to what extent will it help me to learn Portuguese?" This article seems to be directed toward them. Kotabatubara (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I don't see why such an article would have encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a language learning manual for native English speakers who already know Spanish. 161.24.19.44 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Castrapo[edit]

This is referred to as 'a pejorative for Spanish-influenced Galician', i.e. it's a mangled form of Galician ('a pejorative' is incorrect English, since 'pejorative' is not a noun, but that's not the point here). There is then a link to the Wikipedia article on 'castrapo', which says precisely the opposite: that 'castrapo' is 'the pejorative name for the form of the Spanish language spoken in the region of Galicia', i.e. it's a mangled form of Spanish. I don't know which statement is true, but they can't both be, and the comments by a Galician-speaker on the talk page of the 'castrapo' article suggests the former rather than the latter. What's more, I would expect Spanish-speakers to use an insult that more specifically targets Galicia - 'castrapo', with its reference to Cas(tilian Spanish), suggests a term coined by Galician-speakers. In any case, someone who knows the truth of the matter should tidy up this inconsistency. Otherwise both passages should be deleted, since right now they contradict each other, and there's no point in giving contradictory information for Internet users to pass on.92.111.250.34 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First example sentence[edit]

The first example sentence ("A buen entendedor...") is given as an example of pronunciation differences. But I suggest that a different sentence should be chosen to promote that goal more clearly, one in which Brazil and Portugal can agree on the written form. The first problem with the existing sentence is that the European and Brazilian Portuguese versions differ lexically as well as phonetically ("uma palavra", "poucas palavras"). And, by the way, how is the glide [w] pronounced between consonants? Also by the way, the present display suggests, erroneously, that the reduction to "pra" is more characteristic of European than of Brazilian Portuguese. For a naïve reader it could be confusing to see only the Brazilian spelling next to the European phonetics, since different words are involved. This article on Port./Span. comparison is not the place to go into European/Brazilian Portuguese lexical differences. (Meanwhile I do not question the need for separate Euro./Braz. phonetics to be shown; the difference is greater than that between European and American Spanish—especially if we can choose a sentence that avoids the issue of Spanish seseo vs. distinción.) Please help me think of a non-contrived replacement sentence that shows an interesting array of phonetic differences, but no major lexical or grammatical differences, and which avoids Spanish "z"/"ce"/"ci"/. Kotabatubara (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European loanwords?[edit]

Under "Vocabulary/Overview", I'm deleting the paragraph that reads as follows:

  • Influences from other European-languages during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Portuguese received a great deal of French influence, while Spanish was more autonomous with a Gothic component (old Spanish "donde", current "duende" (elf), Swedish "tomte") and Mediterranean-oriented.
    Further information: List of Portuguese words of Germanic origin

...but I preserve it here in case someone wants to make sense of it and restore it. Problems: (1) No examples are given for the claim that Portuguese adopted more French loanwards than Spanish did, nor that Spanish adopted more Gothic or "Mediterranean-oriented" words than Portuguese did. (2) Modern (not "current") Spanish duende is of "origen incierto" (Martín Alonso) or from "dueñ(o) de (casa)" (Corominas); such a controversial etymology is not a good example. (3) There's no evidence of duende having a medieval form donde in Corominas, Davies's Corpus, Kasten & Cody, Martín Alonso, or Oelschläger; Old Spanish is kind of late in the game for the o > ue change. (Portuguese, a non-diphthongizing language, also has duende.) (4) What is Swedish tomte doing in there? Kotabatubara (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-deleted the paragraph that claims Portuguese has more French vocabulary than Spanish does. A journalist's estimate of 5,000 words in Portuguese, paired with an unsubstantiated "considerably less" for Spanish does not constitute evidence for the claim. And by the way, "considerably" is a prime example of what Wikipedia calls a "weasel word" (see "WP:Weasel"). Kotabatubara (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also "French influence?", below Kotabatubara (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French influence?[edit]

I am deleting the claim that words of French origin are more numerous in Portuguese than in Spanish, for lack of hard, disinterested evidence. The strongest support for the original claim came from a blog, which says "Durante o desenvolvimento dessas línguas na Idade Média e Renascimento, o espanhol manteve-se mais autônomo, enquanto que o português foi mais influenciado por outras línguas europeias, a exemplo do francês." No source is given there. The two other cited sources for the claim—a website for tourism called "Go Lisbon", and a newspaper article in O Globo—mention only Portuguese, without referring to Spanish for comparison. The relevant statement from Go Lisbon, in its entirety, is "Other languages that have influenced Portuguese include French, due to the infiltration of French manners and customs in Portugal during the tenth and eleventh centuries" (compare the history of Spain's Camino de Santiago, alias "Camino Francés"). The O Globo article—about a 2009 exhibit at São Paulo's Museu da Língua Portuguesa entitled "O francês no Brasil"—states that there are more than 5,000 words of French origin in Portuguese. I e-mailed the museum and the exhibit's curator, Álvaro Faleiros (professor of French at USP), who sent me a paper by Henriette Walter, "Le français et le portugais parmi les langues romanes", which states that the French words in Portuguese number some 5,400, based on the Dicionário etimológico Nova Fronteira (da Cunha 1982). In order to find an analogous figure for Spanish, I consulted the Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana (Corominas 1954), whose appendix groups words together according to language of origin. There (Vol. 4, pp. 1159-1168) I counted approximately 1,570 words from French. Superficially, it would seem that Portuguese has more than three times the French vocabulary of Spanish. But a comparison of the two dictionaries shows that they use very different criteria, both for choosing words for entries and for attributing their etymologies. There are at least three factors that tend to inflate da Cunha's French vocabulary over that of Corominas: (1) gross inclusion of more words generally; (2) citation of French as a conduit for Greco-Latinate scientific terminology; and (3) separate etymologies for morphologically derived cognates.

Although it consists of only one volume (839 pp.), da Cunha includes many words whose counterparts exist in Spanish but are absent from Corominas. (The bulk of Corominas's four volumes is due to the length of discursive entries for many of the words.) Words that appear in da Cunha (each with French given as its immediate source), but not at all in Corominas, include acne (Port. < Fr. < Eng. < Lat. < Gr.), acrílico, agave, agnelina, alde(h)ído, alergia, etc.

Words that da Cunha derives from Greek or Latin by way of French, but which Corominas derives directly from those classical languages, include abulia, acústica, afasia, amnesia, etc.

Words that da Cunha lists separately (each with French as its immediate source), but which Corominas accounts for simply by listing under a cognate Spanish word (for example acupuntura under aguja), include acefalia, acoplar, acorde, actínico, acupuntura, ad(h)esivo, etc. In Corominas the Greek root adēn ("gland") provides one main entry (adenitis)—attributed directly to Greek—with five cognate words listed under it, each with only a date of first documentation (adenoso, adenia, adenoma, adenología, and adenoideo). The same root in da Cunha is the basis for 42 words, each with a separate source-language attribution, including ten for which French is given as the conduit from Greek: adenalgia, adenandra, adenectomia, adenia, adenina, adenite, adenofleimão, adenóide, adenoma, and anenostriquia). The Greek root aer(o) produces 37 words of "French origin" in da Cunha, but just 23 (all of "Greek origin") in Corominas. I presume that the Greek roots adēn and aer(o) contributed 10 and 37 words, respectively, to Walter's total of 5,400 words of French "origin".

With such weak support, I think the claim of more French in Portuguese than in Spanish is not yet justified. I considered airing the claim in the article itself, with a long footnote explaining the problem of comparison, but decided against burdening the article with such verbiage, especially since it borders on "original research". I decided instead to burden this Talk page with this note, to explain my deletion. Kotabatubara (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have several examples of French words in Portuguese that are not in Spanish. This is a step in the right direction; but, for the general claim, the article still could use a more substantial source than the present, non-impartial, blog. Kotabatubara (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sp. almojarife, Port. tesoureiro[edit]

I'm Spaniard and I haven't heard that almojarife in my whole life, we say tesorero. That reminds me the long lists of supposedly arabic loans in Spanish that contain 90 % words that I never heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.172.150 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

I've put the comparisons of French- and Arabic-origined vocabulary in tables for easier reading. From the Port. < Fr. list I have deleted a few words that have Spanish cognates which are also borrowed from French: (1) Spanish has bibelot (Academy Dictionary). (2) Port. complô and Sp. parcela are different meanings of Eng. plot (but for 'conspiracy', Spanish has also borrowed Fr. complot). (3) Madama is present (but only marginally) in both Span. and Port. (4) Port. maquete, Sp. maqueta. (5) Port. vitrine, Sp. vitrina (Port. also has escaparate, though it's rare). Kotabatubara (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic words[edit]

Among the examples to show more Arabic in Spanish than in Portuguese, I'm deleting a few that are based on uncertain or controversial etymologies (where Corominas, Martín Alonso, García de Diego, and the DRAE fail to agree). (1) 'corn cob': Port. has maçaroca, of same "origen incierto" as Sp. mazorca, according to Corominas. (2) 'poppy': Martín Alonso derives ababol ultimately also from Lat. papaver; the supposed Arabic influence is too complex for this to be a good example. (3) zorzal: Corominas says "Probablemente en [español, portugués, árabe y vasco] se trata de una formación paralela, que el castellano y el portugués no tomaron del árabe." Both Corominas and Meyer-Lübke find zorzal in both Portuguese and Spanish; both Portuguese and Spanish have reflexes of merula; and both Portuguese and Spanish have tordo. Not a clear-cut example. (4) añagaza: Portuguese has negaça. Corominas says not sure whether Ar. > Sp. or Sp. > Ar. (in the Arabic of Spain only). (5) 'jeta': Yes, García de Diego says Ar. jetam, and DRAE says jaṭm (my small dictionary doesn't have this root; what does it mean?); but Corominas says "incierto, quizá del gr. septa 'cosas podridas'." Not a clear-cut example. Port. has xeta 'gesto de beijo feito de longe'. Kotabatubara (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sp. aulaga, aliaga is not a clear-cut example. Although the DRAE seems confident of an Arabic origin, Coromonas says they are "Del mismo origen incierto que el ár. hispano yelāqa [...] probablemente de una voz hispánica prerromana". Martín Alonso: "no está bien probado su origen". Sp. also has tojo. Kotabatubara (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those looking for the Arabic root listed as jaṭm in the DRAE, this is a slight Hispanicization. The Arabic word is خطم k̠aṭm (alternatively transliterated xaṭm or khaṭm), not jaṭm per se. It refers to the nose and mouth, esp. of a camel. --SameerKhan (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Obliviar"?[edit]

I removed the reference to "obliviar" from the table of vocabulary comparison because I couldn't find such a word in the Pequeno [sic] dicionário brasileiro da língua portuguesa (monolingual, 1,300 pp.), Davies's Corpus do Português, Davies's Corpus del Español, the DRAE, the Google Books Ngram Viewer, or five large Spanish/English dictionaries. Can anyone document the existence of obliviar in Spanish or Portuguese? Kotabatubara (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely does not exist in Spanish, and I never heard or read it in Portuguese (but not being native, I can't be completely sure). -­-Ismael Luceno (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision needed[edit]

I do not know if the article covers this distinction, but it would be worth it adding that the word for "Easter" differs in only one letter in both Spanish and Portuguese: it is Pascua with a "u" in Spanih and Páscoa with the firt "a" stressed and an "o" in Portuguese. References: [1] (Spanish) and [2] (Portuguese). I know I shouldn't treat Wikipedia as a primary source, but since I couldn't find references anywhere else as to the distinction between the two terms... --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascua
  2. ^ https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1scoa

Cognate tables[edit]

In section 2.3, "Cognates", we have two tables, whose introduction presents their contents as examples of "cognate words whose meaning is broader in one language than in the other". Starting with the fact that the Spanish and Portuguese columns are in S/P order in one table and P/S order in the other, I have a hard time understanding the principle(s) being demonstrated. What is the unifying theme of each row? Is the Spanish meaning broader in one table and Portuguese in the other? How can these partially overlapping meanings be presented clearly to the naive reader? Is it worth my effort to try to organize a clearer presentation of this material? Or is this whole section part of the "original research" that we are cautioned against at the top of the article? Kotabatubara (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When do article-omitters restore the article before a possessive?[edit]

The article says speakers who omit the definite article before a possessive adjective tend to restore it "in sentences such as O meu irmão está lá". What is the principle for that restoration? One example doesn't explain it.

Unintelligible English should be revised since the article is in English[edit]

For example, this article has the unintelligible word string, "either Brazilian or European Portuguese differs from Spanish with syntax not possible in Spanish (while the other dialect does not)." (PeacePeace (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of Portuguese and Spanish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False friends[edit]

The tables do not adequately illustrate the subject. They list different words with similar meaning, when what would be needed is a list of similar or equal words with different meanings, like, for instance:

Spanish English Portuguese English
cola (< Lat. cauda) tail cola (< Lat. coloere) glue
vaso (< Lat. vasum) glass (recipient), cup vaso(< Lat. vasum) flowerpot, loo

Notice however that some of these pairs are true cognates (vaso - vaso, both from Latin vasum) that have semantically diverged, while others are false cognates (cola from Latin cauda, cola from Latin coloere). 179.185.121.194 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of a sentence changed to make more sense[edit]

I changed the English translation for both "Todos los insectos tienen seis patas. (Spanish)" and "Todos os insetos têm seis patas. (Portuguese)" from "All insects have six legs" to "All insects have six feet", since "legs" is "piernas" in Spanish and "pernas" in Portuguese, and as far as the sentence is concerned, insects have no legs but feet, humans have legs, not insects. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong English version used for an example[edit]

In subsection 3.4.1 Object pronouns, the meaning "to keep it" is given for both the Spanish "mantenerlo" and the Portuguese "mantê-lo", which is wrong, because if it were "to keep it" both would have to have used "para" in front of "mantenerlo" and "mantê-lo", giving us "para mantenerlo" and "para mantê-lo", respectively, but there is no "para" so there is no reference to a to-infinitve. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but an Eng. to-infinitive doesn't necessarily call for "para" in Span./Port. You are thinking of the "to" that is short for "in order to". Consider "Quiero mantenerlo"/"Quero mantê-lo": here also the Span./Port. infinitive translates as an Eng. to-infinitive; no "para" is necessary. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alfândega[edit]

Port. alfândega, 'customs'; the latter is derived from the name of a town in Portugal that once stood on the boundary between Christendom and Islam.[114]

I haven't read the reference, but Wiktionary alfândega gives

From Andalusian Arabic الفُنْدَق‎ (al-fundaq), from Arabic فُنْدُق‎ (funduq, “inn”), from Ancient Greek πανδοκεῖον (pandokeîon, “inn”).

It may well be a town named Alfândega but it probably took the name from its border role. --Error (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic words[edit]

Having native-level fluency in Spanish, and living in a largely Spanish-speaking city, never in my life have I used or even heard such words as alfóncigo, alcotán or zaratán. Almojábana and chirivía are regional, and zorzal is not a clear-cut exemple either of an Arabic-derived word or of one which is used in Spanish but not in Portuguese. I suggest the following far more usual words:

Sp. adoquín / Pg. paralelepípedo 'pavement stone'
Sp. alacena / Pg. armário 'kitchen cupboard'
Sp. almíbar / Pg. calda 'syrup'
Sp. dársena / Pg. doca 'dock'
Sp. enchufar / Pg. ligar 'to plug in'
Sp. halagar / Pg. bajular 'to flatter'
Sp. joroba / Pg. corcova 'hump'
Sp. taquilla / Pg. bilheteria 'box office'

All of these are everyday words and enjoy a wide consensus as regards their Arab origin. --Josep Amunt i Avall (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the article[edit]

I changed "Onde estão as chaves?" to "Cadê as chaves?" because that's the way I hear it the most. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Se, si, sí, sim[edit]

For the sample clause "Se ficou em Paris..."—glossed as "If one stayed in Paris"—I replaced the impersonal "one" with "he/she". Is Portuguese like Spanish in using "se" to make a verb impersonal (like "one" in English)? If so, saying "If one stayed" would require a double "se". And in the Spanish column of the table, "si" (no accent) and "sí" (with accent) were interchanged. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can really feel the "Spanish as baseline" throughout this article[edit]

I feel like maybe that's POV? T3h 1337 b0y 22:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Portuguese_and_Spanish&oldid=1206764769"