Talk:Portuguese language: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Vote on Exclusion: Warning to all
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
m Robot: Archiving 68 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Portuguese language/Archive 1.
Line 37: Line 37:
|archive = Talk:Portuguese language/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Portuguese language/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
==Why Mention This in the Introduction==

''Despite its status as a global language the international learning of Portuguese, and the schools which offer it as a subject, is smaller compared with more Euro-centric and smaller market languages such as German and Italian in addition to lacking official language status at the United Nations.''

I would like this line to be removed for two reasons:

# If you take out intuition, there are no reliable sources mentioned to back this claim.
# It doesn't make sense to include this line in the opening paragraph.

If no objections are raised, I will remove it on the eighth day from now.

[[User:Sin un nomine|Sin un nomine]] ([[User talk:Sin un nomine|talk]]) 06:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

: I agree. --[[User:Good Hope Phanta|Good Hope Phanta]] ([[User talk:Good Hope Phanta|talk]]) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Removed the line. [[User:Sin un nomine|Sin un nomine]] ([[User talk:Sin un nomine|talk]]) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another important question to avoid is the next: "the most spoken language in both South America (the number of Spanish and Portuguese speakers is actually extremely close, but about 51% of the continent's population lives in Brazil)"

Firstly, it is simply not true. You can add the population of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru and Chile and it is more than the population of Brazil. Secondly, there are nowadays 12-15 million of Spanish speakers as native or second language in the same Brazil. If you add this 12-15 million people, Spanish is obvioulsly, the most spoken language in South America. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.57.47.52|92.57.47.52]] ([[User talk:92.57.47.52|talk]]) 15:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Lexical Stress: Please do not edit examples==
Anonymous editors keep deleting the phrases "in Brazilian Portuguese" and "in European Portuguese" from the section on lexical stress. Please stop it!

The remarks are important, as the pronunciation of the pairs of words differs between the two varieties of the language, and some of the pairs differ in more than just stress, in some of the dialects.

This kind of misguided "correction" happens so often that I'm not sure how to avoid the problem. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]

:BTW, I'm Brazilian and I don't pronounce "ouvi" as [o'vi].

The pronunciations given in the article are the most common. Obviously, it would be impractical to represent all different accents. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

: I'm brazilian too and I don't pronounce "ouvi" as [o'vi] too.
How do you pronounce it? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== incorrect BP pronunciation ==

the IPA for the "brazilian portuguese" pronunciation contains some inaccuracies:

*"idade", "sorte" etc. are affricated not palatalized. see [[Talk:Portuguese phonology]].

:Aren't they both affricated and palatalized? "sorte" (AFAIK) doesn't end with the sound that "nuts" (English) ends with, which would be [t] + affricate. Instead, it's [t] + affricate + palatal. [[User:Smith.chuck|Smith.chuck]] 04:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::It is an [[Affricate_consonant#List_of_affricates|affricate]], namely [t̠ʃ]. This has been discussed here a few times before. See[[Talk:Portuguese_phonology#Palatalization_of_.2Ft.2F_and_.2Fd.2F_before_.2Fi.2F|Talk: Portuguese phonology]]. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

*i don't believe that low-mid vowels exist in pre-tonic syllables.
*i question the superscripted /j/ after non-final nasal /e/; what's this supposed to mean?

both the Collins Dictionario Pratico and ''The Romance Languages'' (Harris and Vincent) support all of the above. [[User:Benwing|Benwing]] 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:Are you talking about the phonetic transcription of the excerpt from Camões' poem, at the bottom of the page? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]

== Manezês ==

Manezês [[Manez%C3%AAs]]
is spoken in Florianópolis. They say it has a very close accent to the European one.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manez%C3%AAs

:Thank you very much for the link. However, that article is in Portuguese! I'm not sure we should link to it here in the English language section of Wikipedia... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]
:I've added it to the [[Portuguese_dialects#See_also|Dialects entry]]. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]
::I've added [[:pt:Manezês]] to [[Wikipedia:Translation into English#Portuguese-to-English]]. [[User:Angr]] 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I have taken a crack at translating it. --[[User:It's-is-not-a-genitive|It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive]] 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

==Guttural R==
There was some controversy recently about the pronunciation of the initial R in European Portuguese. Wikipedian Richard George edited the [[voiced uvular fricative|uvular R]] IPA transcriptions into [[alveolar trill]]s. I reverted his changes because I felt they were significant and inaccurate, and that he should have discussed them here in the Talk page first. Still, I suppose I could have made a bigger effort to make him see this, and "significant" is perhaps a subjective qualification.

Although an arbitration request has been issued by Richard George, and it's still underway, I felt it would be best for everyone if we sorted this out as soon as possible. Thus, I am presenting my evidence here, to be discussed. If convincing evidence to the contrary of my position is shown, I am willing to change my stance on this matter.

*First of all, I want to point out that the article, in its current version, does not deny that the alveolar trill is used in Portugal. On the contrary, by linking to the [[Guttural R]] page, it openly acknowledges the existence of that pronunciation.
*I argue, however, that the alveolar trill is not the most ''representative'' pronunciation of the Portuguese of Portugal; the guttural R (uvular, in this case) is. In favour of this position, I give the following sources and observations:

#I am a native speaker, and most people I know use the guttural pronunciation, not the trill.
#TV presenters in Portugal overwhelmingly use the guttural pronunciation. In the radio, the trill is a bit more common, but I would say the guttural R is still predominant.
#[http://ciberduvidas.sapo.pt/php/resposta.php?id=16894 This expert opinion] (in Portuguese) states that the uvular pronunciation is the most common in the country today: ''"O r inicial, tal como o dobrado (rr) tem, de facto duas pronúncias, uma também apical, mas múltiplo, ou seja com mais toques, o que lhe dá o chamado som rolado, muito usado ainda sobretudo no Norte de Portugal, e '''o uvular, muito parecido com o r alemão, que é actualmente o mais usado'''."''
#Mateus, Maria Helena & d'Andrade, Ernesto (2000) ''The Phonology of Portuguese'' ISBN 0-19-823581-X, on page 5, describe the uvular pronunciation as the standard, although they also mention the trill, and they identify the former with ''"the standard dialects spoken in Lisbon and Coimbra, which are accepted in Portugal as a reference for teaching Portuguese as a second language and are the most heard on radio and television"'' (page 4). [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]

:The uvular trill is the most common in my opinion. I'm european portuguese and I always use R and hear others use it too, not ʁ (I'm from Lisbon). I'd change the page but I may be wrong, maybe the uvular trill R is not the most common in europe but I doubt it.
:Also no r is not an allophone. People don't pronounce it by accident, it happens to people that have trouble pronouncing R. Also common people can tell the difference between r and R. Anyway not an expert, phonetics is just a hobby for me so I might as well be wrong. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raydred|Raydred]] ([[User talk:Raydred|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raydred|contribs]]) 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Should we put a note pointing /r/ as alophone of /ʁ/? [[User:Sanmartin|José San Martin]] 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could change

:''"There is considerable dialectal variation in the value of the [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic]] phonemes {{IPA|/?/}} and {{IPA|/?/}}. See ''[[Guttural R#Portuguese|Guttural R in Portuguese]]'', for details."''

to

:''"There is considerable dialectal variation in the value of the phoneme {{IPA|/?/}}. In Europe and Africa, its most frequent realizations are the voiced uvular fricative {{IPA|[ʁ]}} and the [[alveolar trill|trill]] {{IPA|[r]}}. In Brazil, it is usually pronounced as a [[voiceless velar fricative]] {{IPA|[x]}}, or as a [[voiceless glottal fricative]] {{IPA|[h]}}. See ''[[Guttural R#Portuguese|Guttural R in Portuguese]]'', for details."''

as is already at [[Portuguese phonology]]. That should avoid any misunderstandings. To be honest, the transcription of the initial rhotic of Portuguese is always going to be a complicated matter. /r/ is its traditional value, but using this would give the wrong idea about what is the most common pronunciation today, to foreigners. I like {{IPA|/ʁ/}} because it still looks like an "R", although in absolute terms {{IPA|[x]}} and {{IPA|[h]}} are probably used my more speakers than either of the former two... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]

*I am a native speaker of portuguese too. The trill is also used in the South of Portugal and in the lower classes of the major cities except Lisbon. The only people I know that pronounciate the other r (that sounds french to me) are mostly from Lisbon. So I think the trill r is still the predominant.[[User:Japf1|Japf1]] 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

-Regarding the above discussion of the appearance of {{IPA|/ʁ/}} relative to r / R ... If you're dealing with IPA transcription, we ought to try and come as close as possible to that which is a 'standard' pronunciation. {{IPA|/ʁ/}} for 'reais'? Really? I am by no means a speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, but I've *only* heard it as {{IPA|[x]}} or {{IPA|[h]}}. In IPA, orthographic representation is not important; representation of the sounds produced by native speakers is paramount. Anyone expecting to interpret IPA transcription ought to be assumed to understand IPA, so deviation in orthography isn't really an issue. Maybe provide both as examples of allophones?

:'''There is no standard pronunciation'''. Portuguese is [[pluricentric language|pluricentric]]. The Portuguese standard is {{IPA|/ʁ/}}. In Brazil, no doubt it's different. Whatever -- there are '''four''' main different ways to pronounce this phoneme. But the article can't use all of them, all of the time, so it picked one, and uses that as a ''representative'' -- '''not a standard''' -- of the Portuguese "rr", which is often (though not everywhere) [[guttural R|guttural]]. It doesn't make much difference which [[allophone|regional variant]] is used in the article, as long as it's consistent within itself, and (preferably) with other Portuguese language articles. This article clearly mentions that there is more than one way to pronounce it. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, Filipe. [[User:Smith.chuck|Smith.chuck]] 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-WRT the box on the right-hand side of the main article, it lists [poxtu'ges] as the Brazilian pronunciation. In the audio file that plays for the pronunciation, which is supposed to represent Brazilian Portuguese in the second pronunciation, it sure sounds to me like [portu'ges] not with the {IPA|[x]} at all. I'm not a native speaker, but I do detect an inconsistency there. Anyone care to comment? [[User:Smith.chuck|Smith.chuck]] 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:If that is how the audio sounds (I'll confess in advance I haven't checked yet) it is probably because the person who recorded it is from [[Rio Grande do Sul]], [[Santa Catarina]] or [[Paraná (state)|Paraná]]. Using an alveolar trill in syllable coda is an exception in BP; you will hear [x], [h], [ɹ] or [χ] everywhere else in the country, including the most populous areas of the country (namely [[Minas Gerais]], [[Bahia]], [[Rio de Janeiro (state)]] and [[São Paulo (state)]]. I think the pronunciation should either reflect the speech of the majority or include all the variants (that may be cumbersome). [[User:Macgreco|Macgreco]] 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have listened to the file and indeed it doesn't sound like {{IPA|[x]}} - it actually sounded to me like an [[alveolar tap]]. See this [http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/9/paper1389.pdf] article on the various realizations - seven, plus a stigmatized [ś] and the [[caipira]] {{IPA|[ɹ]}} which is not cited - in Brazil. [[User:Macgreco|Macgreco]] 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:The article focuses on the main variants of Portuguese. The caipira "r" is mentioned in the specialized articles [[Guttural R]], [[Portuguese dialects]], and [[Caipira]]. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::I meant the pdf paper that I linked. [[User:Macgreco|Macgreco]] 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vouch for this. Brazilian native, and our "rr" is definitely softer than the European one.
[[User:Frmoraes|Frmoraes]] 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:You can keep your vouches for yourself. Show me some sources. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

==Translation of excerpt from Os Lusíadas==
The following change has been made, with the argument that there were translation errors:

:''For all the qualities she saw in them'' --> ''For all the qualities (s)he saw in her''
:''And in their language, which when she imagines,'' --> ''And in the language, which when she imagines,''

I am changing the verses back, because these are not errors:

#''In context'', ''via'' clearly refers to Venus (she).
#''Gente'' (people) is feminine singular in Portuguese (her), but a plural in English (them).
#"The language" is not good English. You must use the possessive, "''their'' language"; it can't be omitted, as in Portuguese. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 22:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:Fair enough. I went through the article rather quickly and didn't realize that all of those verses were from one contiguous passage; I thought they were a series of isolated stanzas. Taken in context, you are absolutely correct in reverting my edit. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 23:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, FilipeS, wouldn't you agree that "E na língua" should be translated to "And in the language" instead of "And in their language"? I think I'll change that one. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have an opinion about possibly changing the translation of "estrela" from "star" to "destiny"? I think "destiny" would be a better fit here and would be a proper rendering of the Portuguese into English. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to go away for awhile, so I made the change suggested above. I think it reads a little bit better now. Let us (me) know if someone disagrees. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think that "star" in this case is supposed to mean "good fortune", but I will check it in the literature before making any changes to the translation. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, I considered "good fortune" as well and that might actually render a slightly better-sounding English. However I chose "destiny" because this passage is a description of a debate (or discusssion) between the gods about the future legacy of Lusitania, and in this sense I think that "destiny" is a more accurate English rendition of the sense of the dramatic action since "fortune" or even "luck" would imply a result do to chance or nature rather than by deistic assistance. I also changed "showed" to "displayed" to improve the flow of the translation. I think this helps also, but I'll readily concede that there are other possibilities that might be better yet. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)~

::I've now found Lengdon White's translation from 2001, which is the only modern English translation I could find referenced anywhere (albeit my research was fairly cursory)> I didn't find his efforts particularly satisfying, by I repeat them here for discussion,
:::''Against him spoke the lovely Venus
:::''Favoring the people of Portugal
:::''For her love of Roman virtue
:::''She saw ressurected in them,
:::''In their stout hearts, in their star
:::''Which shone bright above Ceuta,
:::''In the language which an inventive mind
:::''Could mistake for Latin, passibly declined''
::I'm intrigued by his translation of "mostraram" into "shined". In the first place the number is confusing because "star" is singular and "mostraram" is plural. Clearly in White's translation it is only the star which is shining and not the hearts, so this appears to be one problem. The other is with the passive-voice rendering. This possibility had actually occured to me before finding White's translation, but I thought that Portuguese required the pronomial form of "mostrar" (e.g. "mostrar-se") in order to be translated as "shone" in the passive voice, although perhaps in the days of Camões White's rendering would have been fine. We are now quite far away from my areas of expertise, and it would be educational to hear a (much) more informed opinion on this point, such as that of FilipeS. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 12:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:I like Mr. White's translation, actually! It does not stray much from the original, but flows very smoothly! I disagree that his translation implies that only the star "shone", as this verb is valid both for singular and plural. It can very well refer to the "star" ''and'' the "stout hearts" (the latter of which, by the way, is a nicer translation than the one the article has currently). Regarding the use of the passive, well, White has rephrased the metaphor a little bit. It's very difficult to keep everything the same when translating poetry. But I don't think it takes anything substantial away from the sense of the verses.
:Going back to what we were discussing before, though, I have to say that I'm not entirely satisfied with your change of "star" to "destiny". The original poem has a metaphor -- why lose it in the translation? Keep it! I think the English word "star" has the connotation of "good fortune", too, like in Portuguese. What do you think? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I certainly agree that White's translation of this passage taken in its entirety is better than what we have now, and it wouldn't bother me at all if we just used his version. On second read, I can see how "stout hearts" might be shining as well "their star" as part of the metaphor -- although I think most readers of the English who are not already familiar with the original will only see a star shining without the hearts. On the other hand, I do agree that White has preserved the sense of the metaphor in his use of "star"; in the original translation that I found in the article I don't think that this metaphor was well-preserved -- that is actually what prompted me to attempt a change. The connotation certainly exists in English, as you point out, however IMO due to modern usage habits it is a weaker connotation these days than that in Portuguese. I also prefer White's rendering of "corrupçaõ", which was another difficult point in the translation that bothered me. I also agree that White flows very well and is more poetic, so upon further reading and after considering your comments I say, "Let's just use White instead". I do note with a (very) small amount of satisfaction that White at least agrees with me on "the language" instead of "their language" :) Anyhow, FilipeS, I am well aware of the enormous amount of excellent work that you have done on this article, and others similar, so at this point I will simply step aside on this point and let you do whatever you think is best with this passage. Thanks for engaging me on this; I enjoyed it. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your kind remarks! Even though I contributed substantially to the translation which is currently in the article, I would not mind if it were replaced with White's translation, which is better. However, we must be careful with copyright issues. Is it O.K. to copy White's translation to the article, if we cite him as the author?... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::According to [[WP:CITE]] there shouldn't be any problem using this material if it is cited properly. I have the information necessary to make a proper citation, but when I went back to the article to make the change I noticed that the only other footnote (titled "Note") appears to be an orphan insofar as it doesn't seem (unless I missed it) to have a direct referrent in the body of the article. Being a newcomer to this article, I'd prefer not to start making changes in footnote and reference formats, etc. On the other hand, if you have the time to track-back the existing note and let me know what is the correct referring sentence/paragraph in the main text, I will be happy to make the appropriate formatting adjustment to: a) preserve the existing note and include a working footnote superscript in the body of the article and b) incorporate White's translation of the Lusíadas passage with proper citation. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm pretty sure the footnote had to do with the number of speakers of Portuguese. Most of that material has been moved to [[Geographic distribution of Portuguese]], so the footnote may now have become obsolete. Still, I can't figure out where it was supposed to be in the other page... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:OK, I included White's translation. I put his name in the column header and gave a proper footnote reference at the end of the passage. I think it works, don't you? I also deleted the orphaned note. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine — good job. :-) [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you, FilipeS. [[User:Dasondas|Dasondas]] 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

== Dialects and classification ==

Please bring back the dialect maps and the spoken samples. They're wonderful illustrations of the article and hiding them in sub-articles does not make this article better. And the section is now effectively without any clear references.</br>
The point of the section "Classification" seems to have been somewhat misinterpreted due to its previous title: "Classification and related langauges". The point is not to examine in detail how Portuguese relates to each of its linguistic neighbors, but to provide general information of its place among the Romance languages. Consider down-sizing this section since its size is not the least bit motivated. Portuguese is not unique enough in this instance to motivate such an excessive treatment. There should really be more focus on other sections.

[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:For a quick classification, see the template at the top of the article. I'm reverting your change to the section heading, as your version is less descriptive than the previous one. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::The infobox is a minimalistic quickie of a reference chart, and not much else. It is by no means a satisfactory summary of anything. Please see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template#Classification]] for why you should consider trimming the section. A lot of the information about development from Latin, for example, would seem more at home in the history section.
::Is anything going to be done about the almost complete lack of citations, btw? I can't see this article making it through even the most ingratiating of [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|FA-reviews]] in its current state.
::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages|this part]]:

<blockquote>These are ''only'' suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you ''shouldn't'' feel obligated in the least to follow them. However, try to stick to the format for the [[Wikipedia:Infobox|Infobox]] for each language.</blockquote>

[[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation for doing so. I don't see one.
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ignoring guidelines usually assumes you have a good motivation"... Really?! Which Wikipedia guideline says that? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:I've tried to motivate my edits with detailed arguments and all you've done is revert and claimed that you don't have to motivate anything because the guidelines don't need to be followed. If you feel that an exception is necessary, you should motivate it.
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so melodramatic. I actually implemented one of your most significant suggestions. You just can't please some people. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:I object because I see it as a problem, not because I want to be placated. And, again, try not to forget to make the article verifiable. It's not up to current FA-standards and I don't want to see it demoted.
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the dialects topic is wrong, concerning the dialects spoken in Portugal. In fact, there's no different portuguese dialects in Portugal mainland. All portuguese mainland regions use exactly the same spelling and the same grammar, being a slightly different accent the only noticeable change. I believe that a difference in accent is not enough to define a dialect - if so, ultimately, six billion different dialects were spoken on Earth: each human being speaks with his unique accent...<br>
In conclusion, I suggest the deletion of the reference to Portugal's mainland dialects. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.138.39.53|194.138.39.53]] ([[User talk:194.138.39.53|talk]]) 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No, it's not wrong. Differences in pronunciation (in some cases accompanied by differences in vocabulary and grammar) are [[dialect]]al differences. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I object the term "Nortenho" to identify one of the Portuguese dialects. "Nortenho" means Northerner, and as we can see from the map, it is abusively used to identify ''one'' Northerner dialect of Portugal. (Alto-Minhoto and Transmontano are also "Nortenhos", as they are spoken in the North of Portugal.)
The use of "Nortenho" to identify the dialect spoken in the Porto-Braga axis derives from a bias some people from that region have, which reserves to themselves that adjective.
Linguistics never use the term "Nortenho" to identify that specific dialect, but to identify the whole family of dialects spoken in Northern Portugal; the specific dialect identified with number 9 in the map is called "Baixo-Minhoto-Duriense" ("Portuense", if refering to the specific dialect spoken around Porto), not "Nortenho" [[Special:Contributions/213.13.230.99|213.13.230.99]] ([[User talk:213.13.230.99|talk]]) 18:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Info! I am working on learning Portuguese. It's a very fascinating language. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.239.232.35|24.239.232.35]] ([[User talk:24.239.232.35|talk]]) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Very Large Page==

I archived the majority of the talk, because it was just to long and difficult to navigate. Now, this page is gigantic. Should it be separated into several smaller pages? It is really hard to navigate the page. I vote for this! [[User:Charlesblack|Charlesblack]] 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Do you mean this Talk Page, or the main article? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Lei → Ella ==

I'm italian and I changed in the italian example ''lei'' into ''ella'', beacause, although the first is far more used, ''lei'' is '''not correct''', it means '''her''', in function of object (e.g.: ''Quella è la mia amica, penso che conoscere '''lei''' o ragazze come lei potrebbe farti bene''). The correct subject pronoun is '''ella''' or '''essa''' if referring to something unanimate (e.g.:'''''Ella''' mi guardò male. L'aria è irrespirabile, '''essa''' è piena di fumo.'') [[User:Giacomo Volli|Giacomo Volli]]


Please stop trying to be cute. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.141.23.15|93.141.23.15]] ([[User talk:93.141.23.15|talk]]) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Portuguese vs. Romanian==
The sentences currently given as examples in [[Portuguese_language#Latin_and_other_Romance_languages|Portuguese: Latin and other Romance languages]] also apper in [[Romanian_language#Classification|Romanian language: Classification]]. Clearly, one of the versions was inspired by the other. I don't think it's very pleasant to have these same examples reused in the articles of two Romance languages; only one of the article should keep them, or at least they should be reduced in one of the articles. Does anyone remember which article was the first to use these examples? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:Seems like a somewhat of a non-issue to me. In an encyclopedia with 1.6 million articles, some redundancy is unavoidable. As long as the examples are relevant to both articles, I can't see what the problem is. But if you want to insist on purging duplicate material, you can start by weeding out the classification section here, because it sure is bloated...
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinion noted. Anyone else who can actually answer my question?... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

==Small rewrite in intro==
I've eliminated the following from the intro:

<blockquote>Portuguese is often nicknamed ''The language of [[Luís de Camões|Camões]]'', after the author of the Portuguese [[national epic]] ''[[The Lusiadas]]''</blockquote>

As far as I know, this is only done in Portuguese. I don't think it's "often" called "the language of Camões" in English. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]]

:It doesnt. And the quote above doesnt either. What it states is that ''portuguese is often nicknamed the language of Camões'', and not that people in other languages (say, english) nickname it language of Camões.
:[[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the text is in English, it can be interpreted either way. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 15:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

==Caipira and Sertanejo==
Can someone explain what is the supposed difference between those two? [[User:Macgreco|Macgreco]] 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:: It's the damn same thing.. sertanejo is supposed from [[Sertão]] the geographic region far from the coastline that is little inhabitated, and caipira is anything related with rural regions. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ciao 90|Ciao 90]] ([[User talk:Ciao 90|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ciao 90|contribs]]) 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:: Not exactly the same thing, I should say. At least not in all of Brazil. "Caipira" is used much more to refer to people from rural areas in the Southeast, South and Center West regions in Brazil. They also use "sertanejo" in that sense. But, in other regions, "sertanejo" - although "sertão" means, in a strict sense, any countryland inside the territory, away from the coast - is more referred to the rural people who live in the semi-arid "sertão" from Northeast, while "caipiras" are the ones from other regions. [[Special:Contributions/201.9.167.80|201.9.167.80]] ([[User talk:201.9.167.80|talk]]) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Ygor Coelho


I disagree. The words caipira e sertanejo mean the same for almost every person in Brazil. And I think neither one should be used to name a dialect, but an accent. [[Special:Contributions/186.212.34.177|186.212.34.177]] ([[User talk:186.212.34.177|talk]]) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

==GA Fail==
Do not nominate an article when '''none''' of the objections on the FA review have been fixed. This article needs references and external links needs to be cut down. [[User:M3tal H3ad|M3tal H3ad]] 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, that was ''really'' harsh. The article ''has'' references, just not overly specified. If the FAR concerns had been addressed, we'd been talking FA status, and this is merely about GA status. Considering that the decision was made a mere [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_article_candidates&diff=113783105&oldid=113782671 3 minutes] (!) after the article was listed as a candidate it's difficult to believe that a serious review was made. I am going to relist the article quite soon unless more detailed and thorough criticism is provided.
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 09:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Has references? It has ''5'' and '''TWO''' more sources tag (since January 2007) and (December 2006). Articles with more source tag are failed right away. What are you trying to say about GA? that any article can get it? its "mere" in comparison to FA?. You can't expect an article that was de-lsited as an FA for failing criteria 1a, 1c, 2b, 3, 4. The point is absolutely no effort has been made since the Featured article review
**Unsourced claims - The CPLP or Community of Portuguese Language Countries is an international organization consisting of the eight independent countries which have Portuguese as an official language.
**Portuguese is with Spanish the fastest growing western language,
**The Portuguese speaking African countries are expected to have a combined population of 83 million by 2050.
**The language is also starting to gain popularity in Asia, mostly due to East Timor's boost in the number of speakers in the last five years,
**Beginning in the 16th century, the extensive contacts between Portuguese travelers and settlers, African slaves, and local populations led to the appearance of many pidgins with varying amounts of Portuguese influence
**The earliest surviving records of a distinctively Portuguese language are administrative documents of the 9th century,
**Most of the lexicon of Portuguese is derived from Latin.
**Between the 9th and the 15th centuries Portuguese acquired about 1000 words from Arabic by influence of Moorish Iberia.
**Starting in the 15th century, the Portuguese maritime explorations led to the introduction of many loanwords from Asian languages.
**There is a maximum of 9 oral vowels and 19 consonants, though some varieties of the language have fewer phonemes (Brazilian Portuguese has only 7 oral vowel phonemes)
::If you want you can get a review [[Wikipedia:Good article review]] but i'm positive that GA reviewers will agree with me. So main the reasons are two unsourced tags, not enough sources, one sentence paragraphs, a one sentence section, too many external links and the fact that no effort has been made to improve the article per the Featured article review. Have a nice day! :) [[User:M3tal H3ad|M3tal H3ad]] 10:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't need a review, I just noticed that you for some reason assumed that the FA requirements were more or less identical to the GA requirements, and it was obvious you needed to provide a wee bit more specific details instead of just going "what they said!".
:::Anyway, the article has 10 separate ''references'', but only 5 ''footnotes''. Footnote counting is not a constructive way of judging how well-referenced an article is. And I'm not going to comment on what the exact difference between an FA and a GA is, except that simply saying that FA standards not being met is the same thing as failing as a GA. I'm sure this is some prestige thing, but let's face it: GA have lesser demands than FAs, so requirements for individual articles need to have a minimum of specification.
:::But let's go through your demand for citations here.
:::*The CPLP – It's like asking for a reference of what the [[United Nations|UN]] is. Or, for that matter, [[Slayer]].
:::*16th century appearance of pidgins – What are you questioning? The existence of pidgins or when they appeared? Both seem a bit too much like common knowledge, or at least not controversial.
:::*Most Portuguese words are of Latin origin – Portuguese is ''derived'' from Latin. It's technically a Latin dialect with a long history. What's the reason for questioning this statement?
:::*Number of vowels, consonants, etc. – There's a footnote at the end of the section that says "the reference applies to the entire section".
:::The other queries are more reasonable, but I think I proved my point about checklist type reviewing. Ignorance alone isn't a valid reason to demand a footnote. Am I correct in assuming that you have little or no knowledge or experience of either Portuguese or linguistics in general?
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== The dialect map is wrong ==

Is neccesary to change the map of the dialect of portuguese dialect in Portugal. The map included [[Olivenza]] and this city is [[Spain]]. [[User:Noviscum|Noviscum]] 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, OlivenÇa is a Portuguese City and territory by International Law and the Treaty of Wien, ruled sinse 1801 by Spain(ilegal ocupation). The Portuguese is also a language or dialect in Olivença. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.22.149.201|213.22.149.201]] ([[User talk:213.22.149.201|talk]]) 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The language map shows Portuguese spoken as an official, but not native language in Angola. However on the Angola page it says that 60% of the Population speaks Portuguese as a native language (and 20% more are fluent). Shouldn't Angola be colored dark green (indicating it is spoken as a native language) if the majority in fact do speak it as a native language. Perhaps, in the way, Mozambique could be striped with dark and light green, since over 10% there speak Portuguese as a native language (although not the majority). I think these changes would reflect the linguistic situation more accurately. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.42.123.30|212.42.123.30]] ([[User talk:212.42.123.30|talk]]) 07:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Derived from Pre-Roman languages?==
Some of the words which are purportedly '''not''' derived from Latin look like they could be. Isn't ''abóbora'' derived from the Latin ''apoperes'', ''cerveja'' from ''cerevísia'', and ''saco'' from ''saccu''? [[User:Corvokarasu|Corvokarasu]] 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:Maybe, but I think Latin ''cerevisia'' is of Celtic origin and ''saccu'' may be of Punic origin. Nevertheless, you do make a valid criticism... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a theory that pre-roman Lusitani spoke a language similar to the roman latin due to themselves being originally from the same region ... and who can claim the moral authoring of any of the latin common words ??? [[Special:Contributions/89.214.178.128|89.214.178.128]] ([[User talk:89.214.178.128|talk]]) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

== Unique features section ==

This section says: "For instance, the meaning of ''Tenho tentado falar com ela'' '''may be''' closer to "I have been trying to talk to her" than to "I have tried to talk to her", '''depending on the context'''". I can't think of any possible case or context in which this sentence could have the second meaning shown. The "depending on the context" bit may have been added just to "be on the safe side", or the editor might have had another example in mind. I'll change it for now.

:How well do you speak English? [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well enough, I think. If this was meant as an affirmation that "I have tried" can be used to denote an action that initiated in the past but continues in the present, please state so. An example would also be good (by the way, sorry for the late response). [[User:201.1.18.48|201.1.18.48]] 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (That was me, forgot to log in. [[User:AoS1014|AoS1014]] 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

:How about this, then? ''O tempo está óptimo. Tenho ido à praia todos os dias.'' "The weather is great. I've gone to the beach every day". This translation seems just as good to me, if not better, than "I've been going to the beach every day". Or consider ''Temos-nos falado todos os dias''. Both "We've talked to each other every day" and "We've been talking to each other every day" seem like acceptable translations to me. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::"Tenho ido à praia todos os dias" implies that I expect to keep going to the beach in the near future (otherwise I'd say "fui à praia todos os dias"). Likewise, I'm reasonably sure (and this is where a native speaker might be needed to confirm either way) that "I have gone to the beach every day" implies something entirely in the past (as in, the vacation is already over). I do think "I have been going to the beach" is the correct translation. Same thing for the second example.

::Something I thought that would be probably be good to add, though (so I can add something, not just criticize...) is that the verb "ter" + participle has this meaning ''only in the present indicative''. In most other tenses it has the same meaning as would be expected in English (ter feito - to have done; tinha feito - had done, etc.), with the only exception, I think, of preterite indicative, in which it has no meaning/is never used. Thoughts? - [[User:AoS1014|AoS1014]] 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:What you are saying is that the meaning of the present perfect differs more between Portuguese and English than that of other perfect tenses. This is true, but it's not an exclusive of Portuguese and English. The same happens between Spanish and English, or Italian and English, or indeed Portuguese and Spanish... [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the sentence "Ouviu a última notícia?", while perfectly understandable (at least in BP), feels a bit incomplete (and is technically ambiguous). The most natural (and unambiguous) translation for "Have you heard the last news?" in BP would be "Você ouviu a última notíca?", while in EP it would normally be translated as "Ouviste a última notícia?" (also unambiguous). <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:AoS1014|AoS1014]] ([[User talk:AoS1014|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AoS1014|contribs]]) 06:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Neither sentence is "technically ambiguous" in context, which is how real people speak. And whether you include the ''pronoun'' or not makes no difference to the point being made, which is about the meaning of the ''verb''. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::I can concede this, it wasn't much of an issue. Just note I only said it because it sounded incomplete to me, and I like to think of myself as being a real person. [[User:201.1.18.48|201.1.18.48]] 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

==Numbers of Speakers and Ranking==
I'm going to add the encarta estimate to the ranking of native speakers. For reference here it is:
#Mandarin (not estiamted by them but ranked 1 by all current estimates)
#Arabic
#Hindi
#English
#Spanish
#Bengali
#Portuguese
[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)<br />

:The moment you see different numbers in the introduction and the info box, you know something is wrong. After following up on all the cited references, I'm note sure how the 210-250 mil. came to be; only one private website mentioned them, without any references. In fact, most sources seem to be in agreement on 177 million speakers, and their most widely-cited primary source is the research project "[http://www.ethnologue.com/ Ethnologue]" by [http://www.sil.org/ SIL International], a formal UNICEF consultant. I omitted the figures for non-native speakers because I couldn't find references for the information. You're welcome to add it back with the proper citations. [[User:Binba|Binba]] ([[User talk:Binba|talk]]) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil": ''Population: 187,393,918''. That alone is more than the 177 million stated. The number in the pt wiki is 230 million (aprox.), which makes much more sense. Why such difference? --[[User:CaioMarcos|CaioMarcos]] ([[User talk:CaioMarcos|talk]]) 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

== Brazilian is not portuguese ==


The brazilian is a evolution of the portuguese but the brazilian has his own ortography and is a different language right now.

:The [http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/Constituicao/Constituiçao.htm Brazilian Constitution] says otherwise. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:<blockquote>Art. 13. A língua portuguesa é o idioma oficial da República Federativa do Brasil.</blockquote>

::You are an idiot, I´m quite surprised that a brazilian who knows at least how to write english, can say something like that.

:Please refrain from personal attacks. That's a violation of Wikipedia policy. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just plain stupid, maybe you are one of those who think that Portugal is Spain..., wait, if so, American English is a language on its own as well! [[User:Mascal4|Mascal4]] 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

== Origin of nasal diphthongs ==

I am deleting the following addition to the article (in boldface):

<blockquote>Nasal diphthongs occur mostly at the end of words. '''This is partly due to the origin of the nasalized vowel combinations, which in many cases are derived from latin letters such as m and n, which require nasalization when following a vowel in portuguese (i.e. the words "san" and "são" would be pronounced so similarly by most portuguese speakers as to eliminate a need for the former spelling, because the pronunciation is essentially the same). With the large number of latin words which terminate with the letters m or n following a vowel, it is a common occurrence to see such letters replaced in portugues by dipthongs that reflect the same phonology. The cases in which a nasal dipthong does not replace a terminus such as -an or -am are generally words in which a stress mark is required at a syllable other than the final syllable of the word.'''</blockquote>

While what is said is basically correct, it is explained in a language with some inaccuracies, and it seems inappropriate to focus so much on a particular detail, in a generic article like this. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

==Language Regulator==

The [[International Portuguese Language Institute]] is '''not''' the official regulator of the Portuguese language as claimed in the article. In fact, most people don't even know the Cape Verde-based IILP even exists ! I don't know about Portugal, but, in Brazil at least, the [[Brazilian Academy of Letters|Brazilian Literary Academy]] (''Academia Brasileira de Letras'', incorrectly translated in the Wikipedia as the "Brazilian Academy of Letters") is recognized as the official regulator of [[Brazilian Portuguese]]. [[User:Toeplitz|Toeplitz]] 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

==Are large areas of Brazil Spanish speaking?==

I am a little confused. According to the [[Spanish language]] map large sections of Brazil are Spanish speaking. If this is true you should change the Portuguese map and show the Spanish speaking areas. If it is not then please let the Spanish language page know.

:This article is about Portuguese, not Spanish. In any event, the Spanish language page [[Talk:Spanish_language#Brazil_should_not_be_coloured_in|has already been alerted]] to that inaccuracy. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's right. They have been alerted but nothing has happened. More people need to let them know their map is bias. Please go to [[Talk: Spanish Language]]

Thanks

:Someone needs to correct the map. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:It would make sense that some areas of Brazil would have some Spanish speakers, as Brazil borders many Spanish-speaking countries; but are these areas actually dominantly Spanish-speaking as a whole? This statement seems a little ambiguous to me. But then again I'm not Brazilian, :-) so maybe someone else can clear this up. :-) [[User:Learnportuguese|learnportuguese]] ([[User talk:Learnportuguese|talk]]) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::I've never heard of any area of Brazil where people speak Spanish instead of Portuguese. Same for Portugal, it only borders Spain and yet none of its territory is Spanish speaking. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::: The map is entirely wrong for sure. In Brazil almost all the population speaks Portuguese. Those who don't, in general, speak Amerindian languages, Italian and German dialects or Japanese, with very small linguistic minorities of other languages. Not only there are few Spanish speakers, but also, in fact, Portuguese is the language that is spoken by thousands of people (Brazilian immigrants and native people) around the borders with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, not the opposite. This is a fact.[[Special:Contributions/201.9.167.80|201.9.167.80]] ([[User talk:201.9.167.80|talk]]) 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Ygor Coelho

Yes. The map has already been corrected at the Commons, but some users permanently try to revert or upload other versions that basically make huge chunks of Brazil Spanish speaking areas (not to mention doing the same with the US, Canada, the Philippines, Morocco, Western Sahara, the Falklands!!!). It is a permant struggle... You can all participate in the discussions at [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispanophone_World.png Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png] (the one used in this article) and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispanophone_World.PNG Image:Map-Hispanophone World.PNG] (a version where an user is trying to paint the "world" as Spanish speaking). Thank you. [[User:The Ogre|The Ogre]] ([[User talk:The Ogre|talk]]) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

==Remark on fluminense deleted==
I have deleted the following remark:

<blockquote>Due to a great number of italian descendents in this state, many words suffer some vocal changings: 'u' instead of 'o' and a 'i' instead of 'e'.</blockquote>

Not only is it unsourced, but I can't understand what the editor was trying to say with it. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

==wrong link==
In the article Portuguese dialects, the section with the Fluminense link, it links to the Fluminense Football team, not an article on the Fluminense dialect of Brazilian Portuguese.

[[User:Learnportuguese|learnportuguese]] 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks. You could have posted in the talk page of [[Portuguese dialects]]. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== "Spoken in" ==

The "spoken in" section of the infobox is too ambiguous. What criteria of inclusion should there be for listing countries there? If it's just countries with a large community of Portuguese speakers, then many are missing. If it's countries with a large percentage of population speaking the language, then many shouldn't be there. In Equatorial Guinea for instance, virtually nobody speaks the language despite it having been arbitrarily declared official. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that it's too broad. We should take a look at how it's done in other language articles, but in principle I think the table should list only the countries where the language is official. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::Well the name of the section is quite clear, "spoken in" mean countries where there is evidence that a language is spoken. I see no evidence that portuguese is spoken in Guinea ecuatorial even if a political decision made it an official language.--[[User:Kimdime69|Kimdime69]] ([[User talk:Kimdime69|talk]]) 11:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Hello guys! Just to give a help and avoid edition wars: [http://www.ethnologue.org/show_country.asp?name=GQ this source] at least does not report Portuguese as being spoken in E. G. [[User:TenIslands|Ten Islands]] ([[User talk:TenIslands|talk]]) 11:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::In fact the best website I know about geolinguistic (unfortunatly in french) state [http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/guinee_equatoriale.htm] that a [[Portuguese Creole|portugues based creole]] ([[crioulo]]) is spoken in the island of [[Bioko]] and [[Annobon]] by 9000 people but there is not evidence at all that the portuguese language itself is spoken--[[User:Kimdime69|Kimdime69]] ([[User talk:Kimdime69|talk]]) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Vocabulary section ==

Here's what I'm thinking of doing: put the examples in this section into a single table (as follows), and move most of the text that is presently there to the [[Portuguese vocabulary]] main article. My argument is that, although the text is interesting and well written (and therefore worth moving to the other article), it really comes down to a series of examples which could be even more reader-friendly in a table. On the other hand, the Portuguese vocabulary article, which currently is just a list, would have some well-written text added to it.

However, I have a few doubts about this change, so I thought I'd ask for more opinions here in the Talk Page first. Please have your say. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Word !! Meaning !! colspan=2 | Origin
|-
|abóbora||pumpkin|| || rowspan=2|[[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]]
|-
|bezerro||year-old calf
|-
|cerveja|| beer|| || [[Celtic languages|Celtic]]
|-
|saco|| bag || || [[Phoenician language|Phoenician]]
|-
|cachorro|| puppy/dog || || [[Basque language|Basque]]
|-
|espora|| spur|| *spaúra || rowspan=3| [[Gothic language|Gothic]]
|-
|estaca|| stake || *stakka
|-
|guerra|| war|| *wirro
|-
|aldeia|| village|| ''aldaya'' الضيعة || rowspan=7| [[Arabic language|Arabic]]
|-
|alface||lettuce|| ''alkhass'' الخس
|-
|armazém||warehouse|| ''almahazan'' المخزن
|-
|azeite||olive oil|| ''azzait'' زيت
|-
|[[Fátima, Portugal|Fátima]]|| city in Portugal || [[Fatimah|''Fāṭimah'']] فاطمة
|-
|[[Mozambican metical|metical]]|| Mozambican currency||''miṭqāl'' مطقال
|-
|oxalá || hopefully ||[[Insha'Allah|''{{transl|ar|DIN|in shaʾ Allāh}}'']] {{lang|ar|إن شاء الله}}
|-
|corja|| rabble || kórchhu || [[Malay language|Malay]]
|-
|chá|| tea || chá || [[Chinese language|Chinese]]
|-
|catana||cutlass||katana || [[Japanese language|Japanese]]
|-
|batata||potato|| || Taino
|-
|abacaxi||rowspan=2| [[pineapple]] || ibá cati ||rowspan=2|[[Tupi-Guarani languages|Tupi-Guarani]]
|-
|ananás||naná
|-
|tucano|| toucan || tucan || [[Guaraní language|Guarani]]
|-
|cafuné||head caress||kifumate ||rowspan=4|[[Kimbundu]]
|-
|caçula||youngest child|| kusula
|-
|marimbondo||tropical wasp||
|-
|bungular|| to dance like a wizard|| kubungula
|-
|castelhano||Castilian||castellano||rowspan=3|[[Spanish language|Spanish]]
|-
|fiambre||wet-cured ham||fiambre
|-
|melena||hair lock||melena
|-
|bife||steak||beef||rowspan=3|[[English language|English]]
|-
|folclore||folklore||folklore
|-
|futebol||football||football
|-
|}

:This is a good idea, although I would suggest removing "Fátima", for it stands out as the only proper name in the list. And I could suggest the inclusion of the word "esquerdo", from Basque "ezker". <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I'm very hesitant. One one hand, I'm not entirely pleased with the current version, which feels a bit like a long stream of loanwords. But on the other hand at least there's a text to tie the examples together. Reducing it all to a table might look a bit... naked. More feedback is welcome. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. A small correction is necessary, though. "Cachorro" in Portuguese stands only for "dog". It only means "puppy" in Castillian (Spanish). [[User:Ninguém|Ninguém]] ([[User talk:Ninguém|talk]]) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Andorra? ==

Is Portuguese spoken in Andorra? I ask for 2 reasons: first the country is out of alphabetical order in the infobox, second it's not on the map of Portuguese-speaking areas [[Special:Contributions/129.67.125.194|129.67.125.194]] ([[User talk:129.67.125.194|talk]]) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Portuguese is spoken by a considerably large community of Portuguese immigrants in Andorra. However, Andorra should not be listed there, along with the countries where Portuguese is an official language. Removed now. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

==Need help==

Please, I need to know the meaning of two words I always hear Jose Mojica Marins say in his films. I don't have subtitles.
They are pronounced:
1. "fo-say, or po-say"
2. "fee-o-mee!"
Thank you. [[User:Mjpresson|Mike P]] ([[User talk:Mjpresson|talk]]) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:Well, if the movie was Brazilian, then I guess the second word could well be "filme", which means "movie". As for the first one, not that easy. But maaaaybe the word you heard was the very common "você", meaning "you". <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks[[User:Mjpresson|Mike P]] ([[User talk:Mjpresson|talk]]) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:The first one might be "fosse", which is a present subjunctive form of ser (to be), often translated as "were". [[User:Tvindy|Tvindy]] ([[User talk:Tvindy|talk]]) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

==IPA for "Português" in BP==
It says "discuss on talk before changing", so here goes. The article currently gives three realizations for "português" in BP:
(1) [portu'ges]
(2) [portu'geis]
(3) [pohtu'geiʃ]

I have no objection to (3). However, (1) and (2) both indicate an alveolar trill for the "r", which is not a widely-heard realization in BP. In BP a "r" following a vowel, but preceding a consonant (other than "r"), can be realized as either
* [ɾ]
* the realization of the /ʁ/ phoneme, which in BP is most commonly [χ] or [h]

Thus we have three possibilities: [ɾ], [χ] or [h], for the "r" of "português". Another question is to what extent choices in the realization of the "r" correlate with the choice between [s] and [ʃ] for the written "s" at the end of the word. In any case it's clear that there are many possible realizations, and that the currently displayed realizations don't do a very good job of displaying them to the reader. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 08:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Brasilian dialect where ends with the voiceless postalveolar fricative consonant [ʃ] is the carioca dialect, where voiced uvular fricative is pronunced as with the voiceless uvular (or velar) fricative (χ (uvular) or x (velar)). <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luizdl|contribs]]) 01:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The "r" (in syllable ending) caipira is alveolar approximant, and can be checked searching for "r puxado" (pulled r) on [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22r+puxado%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3Ap1 Google]--[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

== Equatorial Guinea ==

[[Talk:Equatorial_Guinea#Portuguese_language|This discussion]] is most relevant for this article, as it will definitely affect it if it becomes clear that Portuguese is not an official language of Equatorial Guinea. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese is not yet an official language in Equatorial Guinea. The Government (President and Prime-Minister) have approved july 20th 2011 a decrete for the introduction of the language, but the decret is yet waiting for approval by the People's Representative Chamber. It will come in force 20 days after the publication of the approved decret in the official state gazette. All this you can see here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=703 here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/imgdb/2010/20-7-2010Decretosobreelportuguescomoidiomaoficial.pdf and here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=712 , specially in the second link wich is the actual diplome.[[Special:Contributions/212.68.229.178|212.68.229.178]] ([[User talk:212.68.229.178|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Actual number of speakers of Portuguese ==

I'm sorry, but the information on the number of speakers of Portuguese is wrong now and must updated. The source given is the one of Ethnologue, whose account shows 163,153,389 people for Brazil, where almost the entire population (certainly >99%) speak Portuguese as their mother tongue. However, now in 2008, the Brazilian population is, according to the official statistics bureau of Brazil (IBGE), about 188 million. So, lnly in Brazil, there'd be about 185 million native speakers of Portuguese, and then we include 10 million from Portugal and another couple of millions in other countries. [[Special:Contributions/189.13.12.96|189.13.12.96]] ([[User talk:189.13.12.96|talk]]) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Number of words in the language? ==

How many words are officially in the language? I know there isn't real way to get an exact number but according to accepted sources you can get a rough ball park figure. English, for example, is recorded in dictionaries and some have 600,000+ words (some over 750,000 - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JohnnyLing.shtml), is there something comparable in Portuguese? Maybe they have a committee like German that decides how many are acceptable? --[[User:BillyNair|Billy Nair]] ([[User talk:BillyNair|talk]]) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think there's an official count, or even official words. It would be a terrible task to determine, even if roughly, the number of words in Portuguese. Should the complex conjugation of verbs, for instance, be included in the count? If so, every single verb would produce tens of separate words. Also, the Portuguese diminutive and augmentative declension system makes it possible for a speaker to create a word that does not officially exist but whose meaning is promptly understood by other speakers, just as if it were a regular Portuguese word. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

==Error in EP IPA example==
In the EP IPA example all "<L>s" are written as dark (velarized) Ls, but AFAIK only coda Ls are velarized in EP. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.180.209.104|89.180.209.104]] ([[User talk:89.180.209.104|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:According to Mateus and D'Andrade, the "l" is always at least slightly velarized in European Portuguese, though this is especially so in the coda. [[User:FilipeS|FilipeS]] ([[User talk:FilipeS|talk]]) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

==Very outdated number of speakers==
There must be a reasonably update data for the number of speakers of Portuguese. Both references given in the article are extremely outdated, with data that refer to the populations in the 1990's. It's simply impossible that Portuguese has only 177 to 191 million native speakers, since Brazil alone has now (2008) 190 million inhabitants. Since the overwhelming majority (~99%) of the Brazilians speak Portuguese and there are still some dozens of speakers of Portuguese outside Brazil (10 million Portugal alone), the actual number of speakers, in updated numbers, would range from '''210 TO 220 MILLION SPEAKERS'''. Now we must find references to this. As for the estimated number itself, I'm totally sure about it. [[User:YgorCoelho|YgorCoelho]] ([[User talk:YgorCoelho|talk]]) 00:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Very outdated number of speakers II ==

I fixed the average of Portuguese speakers according to the version in Portuguese of this article,

''"A língua portuguesa, com mais de 215 milhões de falantes nativos, é a quinta língua mais falada no mundo e a terceira mais falada no mundo ocidental"'' (Portuguese, with more than 215 million of native speakers, is the fifth most spoke language in the world and the third in the West).

''"O português é falado por cerca de 187 milhões de pessoas na América do Sul, 16 milhões de africanos, 12 milhões de europeus, dois milhões na América do Norte e 330 mil na Ásia"'' (Portuguese is spoken by about 187 million in the South America, 16 million in the Africa, 12 million in the Europe, 2 million in the North América and 330.000 in the Asia)

but there's someone that insists on put outdated and wrong datas. I don't know if that one is trustworthy but I am sure that it is more veracious. As it was said "(...) Since the overwhelming majority (~99% [or ~188 million]) of the Brazilians speak Portuguese and there are still some dozens of speakers of Portuguese outside Brazil (10 million Portugal alone) (...)". So THE ROUGH MINIMUM AVERAGE OF PORTUGUESE SPEAKERS SHOULD BE BIGGER THAN 200 MILLION OF PEOPLE. [[User:Lordofmidgard|Lordofmidgard]] ([[User talk:Lordofmidgard|talk]]) 23:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
:It's about what reliable sources say, not what we think the total number of speakers ''should'' be. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
::Well, but you must agree having a source isn't enough when that source is clearly wrong/outdated. What was true 10 years ago isn't necessarily true now, especially if we're dealing with quantities. Brazil alone has an officially estimated 190 million inhabitants, of which about 99% (again, estimates from almost all sources) are Portuguese speakers, how could Portuguese have less than 200 million speakers? So, if the outdated source is now a wrong information, I'm sure there will be a more update source that will be closer to the real number of speakers. All the recent (2008) sources I found estimate 230-240 million speakers: http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/9689/1/ AND http://gulfstreamblues.cafebabel.com/en/post/2008/06/03/Portugal-Changes-its-Language.[[Special:Contributions/189.13.54.119|189.13.54.119]] ([[User talk:189.13.54.119|talk]]) 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

== Very outdated number of speakers III ==

This is simply absurdous!

[[Brazil]] alone has ca. 193 million inhabitants, more than 99% of which being native speakers of [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]!
[[Portugal]] has over 10 million inhabitants, practically all of which speak Portuguese, not to mention the other 8 countries and regions where Portuguese is an official language. It is therefore impossible for the Portuguese language to sum less than 203 million native speakers.

You guys have got to be joking to state such nonsense!
:[[Ethnologue]] must not be a serious research institution.

[[User:Popotão|Popotão]] ([[User talk:Popotão|talk]]) 09:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

:It may be 'absurdous' but the RS rules apply. The problem is to find an official poll or published study to cite. [[User:HammerFilmFan|HammerFilmFan]] ([[User talk:HammerFilmFan|talk]]) 02:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

== Intervocalic ɲ ==

The article says in the Consonants section:

:"In many parts of Brazil and Angola, intervocalic /ɲ/ is pronounced as a nasalized palatal approximant [j̃] which nasalizes the preceding vowel, so that for instance /ˈniɲu/ is pronounced [ˈnĩj̃u]."

Can someone please write which word it is? I suppose that it's ''ninho'', but it would better to clarify it.

It would also do good to provide examples and proper sources for the other phonological phenomena. This is not to say that they are wrong, but that a reference would be very helpful for people like myself who want to study the deeper linguistic phenomena of the language.

Thanks in advance. --[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== An official language of the UN ==

I marked the section "Movement to make Portuguese an official language of the UN" as "This section may contain original research".

The "factors [that] detract from this campaign" which the article provides seem to be guesses. One could as well write that two Romance languages are already official in the UN and there's no need to make a third one official.

If i am wrong, please correct me by clarifying the sources. --[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Sorry! I would appreciate your help... ==

Sorry, but I'm new in Wikipedia and, while actualizing information in this article, I accidentally clicked outside of the main box and the paragraphs automatically disorganized (looks like some kind of Wiki"bug"!), along with some references.

Even though I was able to actualize info, the page is still quite confuse and I wasn't able to fix it because I didn't know the original disposition of the paragraphs nor the codepage configuration...

There must be no major problem, since the paragraphs apparently just mixed themselves, mantaining the written order. So, for the good of the Freedom of Information Wikipedia provides the world, please help fixing it! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.106.197.54|189.106.197.54]] ([[User talk:189.106.197.54|talk]]) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It has already been undone. In the future, when you realize your edit didn't work well, just click "undo" over it on the article's history. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

== Possible mistake in BP IPA code ==
I think the codification of the first 'e' from the brazillian way of speakinking 'gente' may be wrong. I have never heard anyone saying it like a '~e'. Instead I would codify it like "e + that 'n' with the long front foot with translates into english -ing" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.18.91.208|189.18.91.208]] ([[User talk:189.18.91.208|talk]]) 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Dialects ==

The "Dialects" section is heavily unsourced.

The only source given in the text is the Instituto Camões.

Now, reading the texts at the Instituto Camões website, we see that it does not endorse the idea that there are ten different dialects in Portugal; on the contrary, it only distinguishes three different dialects; ''galego'' in Spain, and septentrional Portuguese and center-meridional Portuguese in Portugal.

Besides, there is no reference that supports the idea of different dialects in Brazil.

All those ideas seem to be POV and unscientifical. [[User:Ninguém|Ninguém]] ([[User talk:Ninguém|talk]]) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, even the way references are cited is biased.

For instance, a link is given to the Instituto Camões as a reference for "Audio samples of the dialects from outside Europe". But in reading the page it points to, we see that it only talks about "Portuguese outside Europe - Audio Samples". [[User:Ninguém|Ninguém]] ([[User talk:Ninguém|talk]]) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Agree. The [[Dialect|dialect]] page states "A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation, the term accent is appropriate, not dialect." All the so-called "dialects" share the same grammar and the same basic vocabulary, just with regional words added. They should be called accents. [[Special:Contributions/186.212.34.177|186.212.34.177]] ([[User talk:186.212.34.177|talk]]) 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

==Official speaking countries==
Equatorial-Guinea has Portuguese as an official language, do not believe me? go check it out... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gomes89|Gomes89]] ([[User talk:Gomes89|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gomes89|contribs]]) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Well, I've checked on the official website of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and the only languages available to read on the site are Spanish and English. You cannot assume that just because it is written on the Equatorial Guinea wikipedia page it is an accurate information.
Check out http://guinea-equatorial.com/

Putting Guinea Equatorial to the list of official speaking places would be the same as adding Goa, Daman and Diu to it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Correctman|Correctman]] ([[User talk:Correctman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Correctman|contribs]]) 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Dear friends, Portuguese is not yet an official language in Equatorial Guinea. The Government (President and Prime-Minister) have approved july 20th 2011 a decrete for the introduction of the language, but the decret is yet waiting for approval by the People's Representative Chamber. It will come in force 20 days after the publication of the approved decret in the official state gazette. All this you can see here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=703 here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/imgdb/2010/20-7-2010Decretosobreelportuguescomoidiomaoficial.pdf and here: http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=712 , specially in the second link wich is the actual diplome.[[Special:Contributions/212.68.229.178|212.68.229.178]] ([[User talk:212.68.229.178|talk]])

== Question ==
Did you notice that Portuguese language sounded almost Spanish-like to you? Because there are several words that is a lot like Spanish, the rest of them are Portuguese, don't you think? [[User:JMBZ-12|JMBZ-12]] ([[User talk:JMBZ-12|talk]]) 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, what is your point exactly? Spanish is very close to Portuguese, but the way they '''sound''' is quite different, to the point that most Spaniards do not understand a word of Portuguese. [[User:The Ogre|The Ogre]] ([[User talk:The Ogre|talk]]) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Time is not a portuguese word ==

futebol, revólver, estoque, folclore, time from English beef, football, revolver, stock, folklore, and team.

"Equipa" = "Team" and "Inventário" or "Acções" = "Stock" in Portuguese. In European Portuguese time does not exist and estoque is a cane sword, only Brazilian Portuguese uses time and estoque as described. For that reason I think it should not be part of the borrowed words from other countries. There is no other word in Portuguese for chá or catana, only those words should be considered as borrowed.

However, if your going to leave like that I suggest adding "esporte" = "sport", which is "desporto" in European Portuguese. "Esporte" seems to be in some newer European Portuguese dictionaries however its use is rare if not null.

"only Brazilian Portuguese uses time and estoque as described"... Well, the "only" that you mentioned represents more than 90% of the portuguese speakers. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.214.216.67|144.214.216.67]] ([[User talk:144.214.216.67|talk]]) 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Actually, "estoque" is not used in Brazil as a synonymous of "ações", but as "guarnição" (supply). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/187.92.169.194|187.92.169.194]] ([[User talk:187.92.169.194|talk]]) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== IPA for "Português" in BP - again ==

To present all the dialectal varieties for "Português" in BP is RIDICULOUS!! The main "formal" variety should be presented and that is it. Otherwise, I shouldn't someone present all the dialectal varieties for "Português" in Euro-Pt? Come on... [[User:The Ogre|The Ogre]] ([[User talk:The Ogre|talk]]) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have many ideas, but, the most populous states are São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, perhaps we should present only the Paulistano and Carioca. [[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:A better place to discuss this is at [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese]]. What applies here should apply everywhere. Plus, we're still trying to figure the best way to deal with Portuguese dialects. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It perhaps should be more formal if removing the "diphthongization" of "e", although it really is very common, it is considered a mispronunciation among the Brazilians.[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The dypthongization of "e" isn't considered a mispronunciation among most Brazilians, but only a dialectal variation. As for the "formal", there is not such a thing in Brazil, so it's impossible to choose the "formal accent" if there is no standard version of Brazilian Portuguese. The Paulista and Carioca dialects never got to become standard, even if their respective speakers are numerous and economically more powerful (even TV Globo and other TV stations use a softened, "neutralized" version of either Paulista or Carioca accent). Besides, Carioca dialect isn't the 2nd most spoken dialect: actually, after the Paulista accent, the most numerous must be Nordestino or Mineiro dialect, each of them with about 20 million speakers. It's difficult to set a unique form of representing the Brazilian pronunciation of "português" because this particular word deals with some major factors of dialectal variation in Brazil (the /r/ sound, the final /s/, the final /e/ or /ej/. And it's difficult to say accurately which dialects are more numerous: São Paulo, for example, has two dialects (Paulista and Caipira), and there is no census that shows how many speakers each of them has.[[Special:Contributions/201.9.237.202|201.9.237.202]] ([[User talk:201.9.237.202|talk]]) 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:But the pronunciation of the Portuguese word ''português'' on this article is just a trivia, this article is not about phonetics, but if you want, insert the [j] between parenthesis instead of add another transcription. --[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

== Challenges ==

I don't get this part on the article, it sounds like the personal opinion of someone, and it's a bit biased.

"For example, English, French, Arabic and Spanish are each official languages of multiple states and of over half of the world's countries. In contrast, four out of every five speakers of the Portuguese-speaking world live in just one country: Brazil."
And Russian is pretty much only spoken in Russia and Chinese in China, what gives?

"In addition to Brazil, Portuguese is the official language in only 7 other sovereign states; however, English is official in 53 states, French in 29 states, Arabic in 25 states, and Spanish in 20 states."
Russian is only official language in 4 states, Chinese in 3.

What is said about the Portuguese in the last paragraph could be said about the French.

The official languages of the UN were decided not based on number of speakers or their geographical distribution but cause they are the official language of the security council member states, plus the Arab cause of the middle east.[[User:Strumf|Strumf]] ([[User talk:Strumf|talk]]) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

== Correction of text in a reference --[[User:Rui Gabriel Correia|Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia]] ([[User talk:Rui Gabriel Correia|talk]]) 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) ==

Hi. I can't out how to fix text within a reference. Reference 5 says "Somos 6000 billion milhões de falantes". It should read "Somos <s>6000 billion</s> '''240''' milhões de falantes" --[[User:Rui Gabriel Correia|Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia]] ([[User talk:Rui Gabriel Correia|talk]]) 01:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
:fixed. For you fix wrong texts in references, you has to click in the arrow at the left side for you can see in what part of the article that reference is being used, and then fix it there.--[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 02:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

== unsupported claims ==

Under "official language" in the info box, I removed countries with Portuguese-speaking minorities, since that's irrelevant. Also the following:

; Obligatory learning in:

:{{flagicon|Uruguay}} [[Uruguay]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/lusa/2007/11/05/ult611u75523.jhtm |title=Governo uruguaio torna obrigatório ensino do português Publicado dia [[5 de Novembro|5 de novembro]] de [[2007]]. |língua= |autor= |obra= |data= |acessodata=}}</ref><br />{{flagicon|Argentina}} [[Argentina]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://portal.educ.ar/noticias/educacion-y-sociedad/el-portugues-sera-materia-obli.php |title=El portugués será materia obligatoria en la secundaria Publicado dia [[21 de janeiro]] de [[2009]]. |language=Spanish |autor= |obra= |data= |acessodata=}}</ref><br />{{flagicon|Venezuela}} [[Venezuela]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.letras.etc.br/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:lingua-portuguesa-sera-opcao-no-ensino-oficial-venezuelano&catid=6:noticia&Itemid=13/ |title=Língua portuguesa será opção no ensino oficial venezuelano. |language=Portuguese |autor= |obra= |data= |acessodata=}}</ref><br />{{flagicon|Zambia}} [[Zambia]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://movv.org/2009/05/26/a-zambia-vai-adotar-a-lingua-portuguesa-no-seu-ensino-basico/ |title=A Zâmbia vai adotar a língua portuguesa no seu Ensino Básico. |language=Portuguese |autor= |obra= |data= |acessodata=}}</ref><br />{{flagicon|Congo}} [[Congo]]<ref name="estadao">{{Cite web |url=http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/arteelazer,congo-passara-a-ensinar-portugues-nas-escolas,561666,0.htm/ |title=Congo passará a ensinar português nas escolas. |language=Portuguese |autor= |obra= |data= |acessodata=}}</ref><br />{{flagicon|Senegal}} [[Senegal]]<ref name="estadao" /><br />{{flagicon|Namibia}} [[Namibia]]<ref name="estadao" /><br />{{flagicon|Swaziland}} [[Swaziland]]<ref name="estadao" /><br />{{flagicon|Côte d'Ivoire}} [[Côte d'Ivoire]]<ref name="estadao" /><br />{{flagicon|South Africa}} [[South Africa]]<ref name="estadao" />

If you follow the refs, you'll see that they're mostly proposals to add Portuguese electives in the schools. Only in the first two would Portuguese be required, and even there they are only decrees to be implemented at some future date. I wouldn't mind the first two so much if we had refs that this plan was actually implemented, but under English should we list every country with obligatory English in 2ary school? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

== Mangled text. ==

Both markup and visible text are still mangled in many places. Example: The paragraph starting "Like other languages". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.94.222.207|76.94.222.207]] ([[User talk:76.94.222.207|talk]]) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== São Paulo's dialect ==

The true "paulistano dialect", with Guttural R in similarity to [[French_language|French]] /ʁ/, the /r/, is today obsolete. While on television, and other forms of media, the dialect of journalists and actors of São Paulo is represented as so much close to mine - I am from Rio de Janeiro - when I visited the city I found people just using [[Caipira]], without Ieísmo and other characteristics of the "official" Caipira dialect, but was Caipira. When interviewing people of lower and middle classes on TV, they also use something close to Caipira. But we have too a dialect among people from poor communities of São Paulo, where they speak in a way very different from the Caipira, you may notice that in almost all the national songs of hip-hop, they speak with "closed voice", remember me European Portuguese.

Anyway, I would not say so São Paulo people use the same dialect that in Marília, Ribeirão Preto and Uberaba, actually São Paulo city have different dialects, but how they use the [longer than] R guttural changed much over the decades. What represents how São Paulo actually speaks 'Português' today generally is [poɹtuɡeˈ(j)s] and not [poɾtuɡeˈ(j)s] (last is really from São Paulo?). But in ancient paulistano dialect, the true, 'Português' is [portuɡeˈ(j)s]. And I, in my capacity to meet the multicultural reality of São Paulo, felt it important to consider both at the top of the article. [[User:Lguipontes|Lguipontes]] ([[User talk:Lguipontes|talk]]) 05:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:At [[Rede Record]] and [[Rede Bandeirantes]] I listem the [ɾ] in syllable coda, and sometimes I also listen this one here in [[São José dos Campos]], a city of São Paulo state which is not part of the [[Greater São Paulo]], although here it is possible to find many different types of coda R and the most common in my city is the [ɹ]. In the city of São Paulo it's the opposite, the [ɹ] also happen but [ɾ] is the most common. Perhaps you think the coda R you listen at São Paulo media is similar to that of your dialect because some times it's pronounced voiceless, essentially when it is in word final, but in some words it's generally voiced and clearer to notice as in 'por que', essentially when it's followed by another voiced consonant as in 'arma'.--[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 04:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

== Pronunciation of the word Português in Portuguese of Portugal ==

The pronunciation of the word Português in Portuguese of Portugal is incorrect, on the audio the speaker gives emphasys on the E (like Portugués) instead of the correct more closed pronunciation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.80.36.110|188.80.36.110]] ([[User talk:188.80.36.110|talk]]) 11:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Polemics about the number of Portuguese speakers ==
== Polemics about the number of Portuguese speakers ==


See sections [[Very outdated number of speakers]] I, II and III of this discussion page.
See sections [[Very outdated number of speakers]] I, II and III of this discussion page.

== Very outdated number of speakers IV ==
Hi, according to each Country's Governemnt Official Webpages these are the numbers:</br>
> Population of Angola 12,000,000 (official information) <ref>[http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/ Embassy of Angola in Portugal]</ref></br>
Embassy of Angola in Portugal http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/</br>
> Population of Brazil 190,732,694 (official information, Census 2010) <ref>[http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1766&id_pagina=1 Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics]</ref></br>
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1766&id_pagina=1</br>
> Population of Cape Verde 434,263 (official estim.) <ref>[http://www.governo.cv/ Government of Cape Verde]</ref></br>
Government of Cape Verde http://www.governo.cv/</br>
> Population of Guinea-Bissau 1,520,830 (official information) <ref>[http://www.stat-guinebissau.com/ National Statistics Institute]</ref></br>
National Statistics Institute http://www.stat-guinebissau.com/</br>
> Population of Macau 549,500 (official information) <ref>[http://www.dsec.gov.mo/PredefinedReport.aspx?ReportID=1&Lang=pt-PT Government of the Special Administrative Region of Macau]</ref></br>
Government of the Special Administrative Region of Macau http://www.dsec.gov.mo/PredefinedReport.aspx?ReportID=1&Lang=pt-PT</br>
> Population of Mozambique 20,366,795 (official information, 2007) <ref>[http://www.portaldogoverno.gov.mz/Mozambique Government of Mozambique]</ref></br>
Government of Mozambique http://www.portaldogoverno.gov.mz/Mozambique</br>
> Population of Portugal 10,617,000 (official information, 2007) <ref>[http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/GC18/Portugal/Pages/Portugal.aspx Government of Portugal]</ref></br>
Government of Portugal http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/GC18/Portugal/Pages/Portugal.aspx</br>
> Population of São Tomé and Prince 169,000 (official information, 2005 UN) <ref>[http://www.gov.st/content.php?intMenuID=60 Government of São Tomé and Prince]</ref></br>
Government of São Tomé and Prince http://www.gov.st/content.php?intMenuID=60</br>
> Population of East Timor 924,642 (official information) <ref>[http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=91&lang=pt Government of East Timor]</ref></br>
Government of East Timor http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=91&lang=pt</br>
This makes an oficial total population of 237,314,724 people living in the countries and jurisditions of Portuguese oficial language.
Then, according to information picked on the internet, including wikipedia articles:</br>
100% of Portuguese speak Portuguese as mother language: 10,617,000</br>
99% of Brazilians speak Portuguese as mother language, and 100% speak it as mother and second language: 188,825,367 and 190,732,694</br>
30% to 40% of Angolans speak Portuguese as mother language, and 60% to 70% speak it as mother and second language: 3,600,000 and 8,400,000</br>
6% to 9% of Mozambicans speak Portuguese as mother language, and 40% speak it as mother and second language: 1,222,007 and 8,146,718</br>
So, this makes about 204,264,374 native speakers to about 217,896,412 total speakers counting only Portugal's, Brazil's, Angola's and Mozambique's populations. Out stayed Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Prince, Macau, Goa, Daman and Diu and the lusophone diaspora (lusophone immigrants and communities, wich can go from 5 to 10 million people or more?), because there is no complete reliable information about native and total speakers from these countries, although some data is known, like 95% of São Tomé and Prince speaking Portuguese.</br>
So, at least (in rough numbers) 210 million people speak Portuguese worldwide as a mother language, and at least 225 million speak it worldwide as a mother and second language.</br>
Do you think this information is good enough to be put in the article in wikipedia?</br>
[[Special:Contributions/79.168.157.188|79.168.157.188]] ([[User talk:79.168.157.188|talk]]) 17:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
''Italic text''

== Blanket removal of unsourced information ==

This is about [[User:Sin un nomine|Sin un nomine]]'s recent removal of 3,602 bytes of information. While I understand Wikipedia is supposed to be "verifiable" and there was a 3-months old "citation needed" warning, could [[User:Sin un nomine|Sin un nomine]] have at least tried to get some sources?

I have started reverting (and sourcing!) but appreciate any help!--[[User:Pignoof|Pignoof]] ([[User talk:Pignoof|talk]]) 09:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing out my mistake. From now on, I will first try find resources and only when I can't find I will I remove the unreferenced content.
:[[User:Sin un nomine|Sin un nomine]] ([[User talk:Sin un nomine|talk]]) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

== Portuguese as an official language of the United Nations - removed ==

For a long time this article had a section titled "Portuguese as an official language of the United Nations". It cited very few sources, most of which were dead links. The only non-dead-link source was to a news article saying that a petition has been signed by 5,900 people and is going to be sent to several important people. The rest of the section was point-of-view and original research. Today i removed it. --[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 10:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

== Brazilian Pronunciation in Examples of different pronunciation ==

What Brazilian pronunciation is this supposed to be? I see /h/ for <r> as if it were são paulo, but then I also see /puɾ ˈkwɐ̃tɐs/ for <por quantas>, which is pretty seriously off for SP (/puɾ 'kwantɐs/ or even very-slightly nasal vowel in <por>). --— '''<span style="font-family:adobe caslon pro; font-style:italic; color:#330000"><big>r</big>obbie</span>'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User:Robbiemuffin|<font color="#22aaff">page</font>]] [[User talk:Robbiemuffin|<font color="#ffaa22">talk</font>]]</sup> 12:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:I did not understand what you meant. Is your doubt with /r/? Is it with nasal vowels?--[[User:Luizdl|Luizdl]] ([[User talk:Luizdl|talk]]) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
==File:Map of the portuguese language in the world.png Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[Image:Icon Now Commons orange.svg|50px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Map of the portuguese language in the world.png|File:Map of the portuguese language in the world.png]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests June 2011''
;What should I do?
|-
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ([[commons:COM:SPEEDY]] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
|}
== The origins of Portuguese ==

In the beginning of the article it's said that "Portuguese is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". It is not a complete information, because the language was born in ancient Galicia (which covered both present Galicia and Northern Portugal).
So I've completed the information and added some reliable sources.
In add, you can see the map of the extension of Iberian languages through the centuries, here in the article.
[[User:Susomoinhos|Susomoinhos]] ([[User talk:Susomoinhos|talk]]) 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

==POV==
*Just read, many Portuguese claiming wikipedia is toilet paper due inaccuracy and constant anti-Portuguese rank, which led many Portuguese choosing not to edit in wikipedia. One of the astonishing wikipedia claims is:
'''Portuguese is a Romance language that arose in the mediaeval Kingdom of Galicia,[3][4][5] nowadays Galicia and Northern Portugal, and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal and with the Portuguese discoveries to Brazil, Africa and other parts of the world.'''.
*'''<u>For such an outstanding claim, we need outstanding proof!</u>'''
*Galician and Portuguese are officially two distinct languages, although that is controversial, we all agree on that.
*Even if one considers both speeches to be a single language there are significant issues on how Galician is written, even Spanish may be easier to read than Standard Galician.
*Galicia was not part of the process in taking Portuguese to Southern Portugal and after that to Brazil and Africa.
*According to authors that studied Old Portuguese, there were already differences in the dialects of Galicia and Northern Portugal in the Middle Ages, besides the article is refering that Portuguese evolved in all Northern Portugal, but it was in the West part of it. That's why it linked to Northern Portuguese article and not Northern Portugal region.
*Southern Portugal has significant influence on standard modern Portuguese.
*Portuguese evolved from Vulgar Latin throw time, and not in a shiny day in the middle ages until the language is declared Portuguese in the 14th century. Note that Portugal exists as an independent entity since the 9th century.
*Historically, the most urbanized area of historical Galicia was northern Portugal (the coastal part), since time immemorial. And there are historical bounds with Spanish Galicia also from time immemorial, during the middle ages and until very recently. this sentence tries to give an outstanding importance to modern Galicia, by the duplication of the ancient name, importance that it does not have.
*I do not disagree that information on Galicia can be added to this article, and even its pronunciation in the lead. but some Brazilian accents should be removed as some are merely accents, I would keep pronunciation from Northeastern Brazil, one from São Paulo and one from Rio. IMO, the most important in Brazil. Even if Northeastern Brazil is today not as important, it has significant historical importance to the language.
*Nationalistic issues (backed by some ideology/propaganda) regarding Brazilian Portuguese should also be reviewed: Is European and Brazilian the two major groupings of dialects? It tries as if it is important or extremely different. Brazil is important due to the huge size of the population, and its famous accents. -[[User:PedroPVZ|Pedro]] ([[User talk:PedroPVZ|talk]]) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here are again the complete quotes of the references. Now it's your time to show your arguments with good quotes. Regards.[[User:Susomoinhos|Susomoinhos]] ([[User talk:Susomoinhos|talk]]) 11:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:User Pedro provides no evidence of his claims ([[User:Prosist|Prosist]] ([[User talk:Prosist|talk]]) 12:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

If [[User:PedroPVZ]] finds the evidence for Portuguese's origin lacking, that is a matter he should take up with linguists, not with Wikipedia editors. Most of the statements in the list may be useful in describing the social aspects of the Portuguese/Galician origin and split, or their current relationship, but they are irrelevant to the genetic relationship between the languages or to where they emerged. As for Brazilian Portuguese, it isn't "nationalistic issues" that has it listed as a major dialect grouping, but the very real phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical differences between it and European Portuguese. [[User:Ergative rlt|Ergative rlt]] ([[User talk:Ergative rlt|talk]]) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
*My friend that fact that I'm presently unwilling to work in the article doesnt mean I dont have references or anything else. Please talk about subjects you know about or read something useful about, you are not sounding knowledgeable (despite the "expensive words") about the subject, but the reverse. -[[User:PedroPVZ|Pedro]] ([[User talk:PedroPVZ|talk]]) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

== Dialects II ==

Why are so many variations within the same country consideres dialects? While I can certainly appreciate the linguistic differences between European Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese, Angolan Portuguese and so forth, I can't wrap my mind around - nor find any source supporting - considering every little regionalism as a separate dialect. While you usually have a difference in accents and slangs between cities and regions, if the basic vocabulary and grammar remain the same it can't be considered a new dialect. I am not denying the existence of different dialect within the same country, but the way it's currently written seems like an original research, not to say arbitrary.

I propose regional speech differences be deleted until further proof is given that they're dialects, and for examples to be given of the different national dialects, so it won't stay just an empty listing section. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RobertoFig|RobertoFig]] ([[User talk:RobertoFig|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RobertoFig|contribs]]) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I agree. There are no dialects of Portuguese in Brazil, there are accents. And probably the same happens in Portugal.[[Special:Contributions/186.212.34.177|186.212.34.177]] ([[User talk:186.212.34.177|talk]]) 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

== translation ==

Boizao <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.32.225.165|65.32.225.165]] ([[User talk:65.32.225.165|talk]]) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Wrong identification of the Brazilian dialects map ==

I think there was some mistake in the identification of the Brazilian dialects shown in the map. According to PT Wikipedia, the number 2 refers to the "Cearense dialect", which has its own entry in that version of Wikipedia and covers the state of Ceará and perhaps some neighboring areas (by the way, that dialect isn't even mentioned in this article, I don't understand why). In this EN Wikipedia the number 2 is indicated as the "Nordestino dialect", which is in fact marked as the number 7 in the PT Wikipedia, and that seems to be right since the broader Nordestino dialect/accent differs from the Cearense one and basically covers the Center-Northeast of Brazil's Northeast (Pernambuco, Alagoas, Paraíba, maybe parts of Bahia's Sertão). Anyway, the description given here in this article differs from what is shown (with details) in the PT Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/177.42.146.153|177.42.146.153]] ([[User talk:177.42.146.153|talk]]) 06:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::The overwhelmingly majority of Brazilians from [[Centro-Sul]] can not seriously distinguish none of these dialects. To us everyone sounds like a Northeasterner, except those from Bahia where there is kind of difference (that is, we find the accents of the other ''nordestinos'' very amusing, many as me love it, but we used to take a HARD TIME before we understood the syllable-timed slang of worker class ''bahianos'' until it started to erode because of mass media). Also Maranhão and Piauí have their slight differences, though it is not perceptible by those from the outside. There really is not a ''cearense'' dialect, people in Lusophone Wikipedia must be nuts, as they sound exactly like ''potiguaras'' (Rio Grande do Norte) and ''paraibanos'' (Paraíba), so that a mostly non-derogatory slur for all Northeasterners in Rio de Janeiro, Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Distrito Federal and Goiás is ''paraíba'' (take note that people that hate Northeasterners call them rats or ''retirantes'' i.e. Portuguese for near moribund wretched people doing rural exodus, ''paraíba'' can be even friendly and it is more acceptable socially than slurs that LGBT people use for themselves), conversely after the ''paraibano'' exodus to Rio de Janeiro and Brasília along the mid-20th century was gone, it is still widely used for the new wave of migrants from Ceará. [[Special:Contributions/177.41.227.154|177.41.227.154]] ([[User talk:177.41.227.154|talk]]) 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

== translation help ==

Hi. Posting here because I can't find a Portugal wikiproject. Can anyone help with a translation (English into Portuguese) at the Reference Desk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#poster / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#poster.2Fpt Obrigado [[Special:Contributions/184.147.123.69|184.147.123.69]] ([[User talk:184.147.123.69|talk]]) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

: Thanks to !Silent and Polyethylen. [[Special:Contributions/184.147.123.69|184.147.123.69]] ([[User talk:184.147.123.69|talk]]) 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The only difference from "cearense" to "nordestino" is that at northern Ceará, people say "tchia" e "djia" instead of the plain "tia" e "dia" spoken in other states. I could even say that "cearense" is also spoken in Piauí. Yet, I don't think such a small change is enough to characterize it as a dialect. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/187.92.169.194|187.92.169.194]] ([[User talk:187.92.169.194|talk]]) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== No need to refer to the Portuguese colonies ==

I have eliminated the references to the former Portuguese colonies in the begining of the article, as they are not useful. Please check the corresponding articles on the English, Spanish and Franch languages. And PLEASE, do not revert automatically my edit! [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|talk]]) 18:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

== Number of speakers and ranking (redux) ==

Fourth paragraph of the intro: "With a total of 236 million speakers, Portuguese is the 6th most spoken language in the world..." Contra that, our Wiki articles, [[List of languages by number of native speakers]] and [[List of languages by total number of speakers]], rank Portuguese 7th and 7th, respectively; the second link notes one researcher's challenged estimates of 5th for native and 4th for secondary but he still says 7th overall. Are these enough to change the ranking in this article? (No offense meant to the Portuguese language or its speakers!) --[[Special:Contributions/71.174.173.186|71.174.173.186]] ([[User talk:71.174.173.186|talk]]) 14:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

== Huge Pan-Iberian Portuguese-Spanish linguistic community ==

A fact that is often ignored is the extreme similarities between Portuguese and Spanish and the consequences that this has. I live close to the Portuguese border in Spain and virtually all Portuguese people understand and speak Spanish relatively well. In fact, we all (those who speak both languages) know that both languages are extremely similar (in fact I doubt that there are other two languages in the world that are more similar) but the sound system of Portuguese somehow makes it easier for Portuguese speaking people to understand Spanish than viceversa. Portuguese is Spoken by more than 200 million people and adding it up to Spanish results in a pan-linguistic community of close to 700 million speakers. Millions of Portuguese speaking people know that this is a fact. I, who also speak Portuguese, know that this is a fact. Who else knows or ignores it? You can actually either learn Portuguese or Spanish and you will have access to a huge pan-Iberian linguistic community of more than 600 million people over huge territories, but it is true that it will be easier if you learn Portuguese first. Although this issue is covered in the article, it contains a false statement about intelligibility. Most Portuguese speaking people understand spoken Spanish in diverse degrees, but often relatively well. Most Spanish speaking people do need some experience or training before they can understand Portuguese relatively well, but a few weeks immersed in the language would suffice in most cases. Both types of speakers can read a book in either language and understand most of it without any previous training. Pipo. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.109.203.72|76.109.203.72]] ([[User talk:76.109.203.72|talk]]) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Questionable reference for number of Portuguese-Canadians ==

In looking at (a Google-translated copy of) the reference claiming there are 400k-500k Portuguese in Canada, it seems like this number was pulled out of...oh, let's say thin air. The author of the referenced article in one instance surmises, paraphrased: "Schoolchildren are too stupid to know the difference between mother tongue and the language they use in school." While there may be a modicum of truth to that, she then goes on to use that as a reason to inflate the Census number arbitrarily from 48,000 Portuguese in Quebec and the Maritimes to 55,000. What's more, that means she's also positing that, on the low end, only 1 in 8 Portuguese Canadians lives in Quebec or points east (presumably she meant to include Newfoundland and Labrador, not a Maritime province). Unless someone can find the ref's refs, it could rightly be dismissed as an editorial rather than a scholarly or journalistic article. As 2006 is the last real (READ: mandatory) Canadian long-form census, the kind that includes questions about language (besides English and French) and ethnicity, those numbers will have to be relied upon for quite some time.

On the other hand, the other number in the article is based on the Census, but specifically on the number of respondents claiming Portuguese as their mother tongue. I don't quarrel with that logic, though I do question it. Do only those Portuguese-speakers who learned it natively counted as Portuguese speakers? I don't know the answer, but I do know that the same Census shows 289k people who identify as Portuguese in Ontario alone, 189k of whom list no other ethnicity. It's a safe bet that most of them speak at least some Portuguese. Also, as mentioned by others on this talk page, there should be some firm criteria not only for which countries are included in the list, but for which data are used in giving totals. This would ensure apples-to-apples comparisons of Portuguese-speaking populations from country to country.

In short, it could well be that Nancy Gomes is right about the number of Portuguese speakers in Canada. But she hasn't proven it. Her ref, and the line in the article derived therefrom, should be deleted. [[User:HuntClubJoe|HuntClubJoe]] ([[User talk:HuntClubJoe|talk]]) 09:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

: The numbers were edited by myself over a year ago and I added what references I could find. Reading the Canadian one again, I agree the article does not seem very scholarly (even though "Schoolchildren are too stupid" is not written). I included it however, and not others from newspapers, because the ''Janus'' periodical in which it was published is an academic publication with a reputation.

: I note that you yourself question the use of census information but again what else do we have? In short, I guess we can keep the higher number, similarly to the rough "1% to 2%" for Venezuela, and keep the reference, maybe with a word of caution.--[[User:Pignoof|Pignoof]] ([[User talk:Pignoof|talk]]) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

== Galiza on the map in the Infobox ==

The bright green square over Galiza supposedly representing a Portuguese minority living in Galiza is so big that it actually overs the whole of Galiza. This could be interpreted to mean that (the whole of) Galiza is a Portuguese minority. This could be confusing because of the debate around the status of Galician vis-a-vis the Portuguese language. [[User:Rui Gabriel Correia|Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia]] ([[User talk:Rui Gabriel Correia|talk]]) 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


==South Africa and Namibia==


The map of lusophone countries in the article includes South Africa and Namibia in light green as examples of countries where Portuguese is supposed to be a "cultural or secondary language". With all due respect, that is preposterous. Although there may be a tiny Portuguese-speaking minority in South Africa (consisting mostly of white European refugees from Angola and Mozambique), the number of native speakers of the language is less than 1 % of the total population of the country.

The most commonly spoken languages in South Africa, based on number of speakers who use them more often at home, are, according to the official 2011 Census:

* isiZulu: 22. 7 %
* isiXhosa: 16. 0 %
* Afrikaans: 13.5 %
* English: 9.6 %
* Sepedi: 9.1 %
* Setswana: 8 %
* Sesotho: 7.6 %

Despite its linguistic diversity, the main "languages of culture" in South Africa, i.e. those used in schools, universities and newspapers, are primarily English and secondarily Afrikaans, which is a West Germanic language derived from and closely related to Dutch. There is no evidence to suggest that Portuguese is either a "cultural language" or a significant "secondary language" in South Africa. The situation is similar in Namibia where the majority of the population speaks either Bantu or Khoisan languages and the most widely spoken European language is Afrikaans (approximately 11 %), but, again, English (the country's sole official language following independence from South Africa) is the main language of government, instruction and culture.

Based on language statistics, I recommend that South Africa and Namibia be removed from the "map of Portuguese-speaking countries" then. [[Special:Contributions/189.69.62.166|189.69.62.166]] ([[User talk:189.69.62.166|talk]]) 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


:There is definitely a significant lusophone minority in both countries, especially in Namibia where many Angolan refugees went because of the civil war. And there, in Angola, Portuguese ''is'' spoken as the first language by more than half of the population by now (also according to Angolan census). To both, Namibia and South Africa, having '''at least a green square on this map''' applies due to black (esp Namibia) ''and'' white people residing in both countries speaking it.

:Summing up, it might have been too optimistic to put both countries in an overall green (a very light one though!), but omitting even a green square on the other hand also renders false "information". Furthermore, Kwamikagami (or shall we call you the notorious pro English language militia yeeha?), it is more than self-centered to apply universal changes for all Wikpedias based an a single thread here in the English one, which was not even a real discussion.[[Special:Contributions/217.81.137.123|217.81.137.123]] ([[User talk:217.81.137.123|talk]]) 10:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
::If it's unref'd it gets deleted. Yeah, that rule was made by people who hate Portuguese. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

== The Dialects section is wrong for Brazil ==

The "Dialects" section is entirely wrong for Brazil. Not only most of the numbers attached to each dialect don't correspond to the number indicated in the map of Brazil, the section also misses the real dialect referred in the map as the "2" dialect, which is in fact the Cearense dialect. The Northeastern region, as indicated in the aforementioned image, has 3 dialects: "nordestino" (7), "cearense" (2) and "baiano" (3). The Cearense dialect has its own article in the Portuguese Wikipedia (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialeto_cearense) and in it one may found the correct list of Brazilian dialects and their correspondent locations in the same map used in this "Portuguese language" article. That "Dialects" section should be completely edited to include the omited information and make the correct correspondences between the dialects and their respective areas, as in the end the section is misinforming people about what the Brazilian Portuguese dialects are and where they are spoken. [[Special:Contributions/177.98.220.48|177.98.220.48]] ([[User talk:177.98.220.48|talk]]) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I myself decided to correct the Dialects section so that the numbers in the map matched the information given on the Brazilian dialects, and I had also written a completely referenced section about the Cearense dialect, which is marked in the map as "2", distinct from the Nordestio dialect (7). However, now I see the detailed and referenced information I'd written about the Cearense dialect was deleted and substituted by a section about the Nordestino dialect with some information on the peculiarities of Cearense. To me that section became much more confuse and with less objective information (why would the Nordestino dialect provide more information about the Cearense speech than about the broader Nordestino dialect?). Besides, now that Dialects section has 2, yes, 2 sections about the Nordestino dialect: the n. 2 and the n. 7. So, now, the section is again problematic, referencing 2 dialects marked on the map as one only dialect, but in the section 2 making comments mostly about Cearense. Isn't it a bit puzzling? I gave up editing that Dialects section, since the referenced changes I made were rapidly thrown out, but I still think something should be made to give that part of the article more coherence and organization.[[User:YgorCoelho|YgorCoelho]] ([[User talk:YgorCoelho|talk]]) 03:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


== Edit war has to stop ==
== Edit war has to stop ==

Revision as of 03:09, 3 July 2013

Former featured articlePortuguese language is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 9, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0 User:Ckamaeleon/Spoken Wikipedia In Progress (no request) Template:Portuguese selected

Polemics about the number of Portuguese speakers

See sections Very outdated number of speakers I, II and III of this discussion page.

Edit war has to stop

Ok, it's enough. The edit war has to stop. Both of you should explain here your points of view based on reliable sources. --Lecen (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the addition of estadunidense

The term is a standard term used in relation to United States Americans in the Portuguese language. I am not Brazilian nor do I know its connotation in the Brazilian population, but all the following sources state the term as a generic denonym for U.S. Americans without any negative connotation or otherwise.

There seems to be no reason why this term should not be included.

Thank you,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moderating your language. I've asked Rauzaruku for a source for his assertion and he has obliged: he should post it here. Both of you: please avoid further edits to the article until this is sorted out on this talkpage, and please be polite: we're working to improve the encyclopedia, not to shout past each other. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's the source Rauzuruku cites: [1]. Both of you are experienced editors, let's not get into a Portugal vs. Brazil argument here, please. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Veja source says: "Estadunidense is the THIRD option of Brazilians, and is a word that contains higher doses of anti-Americanism" And he says too: "This word is pedantic. Suffice the pedantic of the word Estadunidense to alienate me against it.". I'm Brazilian, and, here, only people who HATE USA and wants to offend and satirize USA, uses this word. This is not a current word, such as "Americano" and "Norte-Americano" are, and whether it is on a dictionary, was recently added for precisely this offensive use. "Estadunidense" means "United Statian" and it sounds ridiculous and sarcastic, in Brazilian Portuguese. I do not agree that Wikipedia put this word here, as it only serves as propaganda to U.S. haters spreading their hatred in an attempt to spread a word to use non-current in Brazil.Rauzaruku (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would "can be perceived as pejorative in Brazil" be acceptable, citing the source provided? That sidesteps a positive declaration. Since the article is citing short examples of usage, there's no need to go into detail. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you put the word, clearly explaining that it is derogatory, offensive and anti-American, fine. Because it is not a word commonly used by Brazilians, is a word restricted to a group of U.S. haters. Rauzaruku (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other views

Could editors other than rausaruku and myself comment and voice their opinions so that we all might decide and create consensus for the addition/removal. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion have thousands of pages in ptwiki and no end in sight. As the discussion is politically loaded, there's no right answer and both terms should be in the article. José Luiz talk 03:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Estadunidense" is a word that "it's legal, but it is immoral." Brazilian customarily accept immorality, it's no wonder that their solution is this. And we still have the issue of using Wiki-PT for propagating this word, that hardly anyone uses. Rauzaruku (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There a few mistakes made in here. The word "Estadunidense" exist as a Portuguese word. Thus, adding Dictionaries as sources is redundant. The question is whether or not the word is regarded an insult.

It is not. It is not like the English word "nigger", which is considered offensive, but is spoken by Blacks and Mulattoes in the United States in a non-offensive way. Leftists in Brazil do prefer to say "Estadounidense" merely out of spite because they believe that the "imperialistas ianques" (yankee imperialists) shouldn't be called "Americans", since everyone from the Americas are Americans. Petty point of view. Nonetheless, even when employed by Leftists it is not used as an offensive word, as an insult. It's just what I explained: because they believe that the Americans shouldn't be called Americans.

Thus, there is no problem at having the word on this article. It's certainly being used in a non-offensive way. --Lecen (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not offensive? So, why left-lists don't say "americano" or "norte-americano" like everybody? They want to cause impact, saying a word that sounds ridiculous and deformed in Portuguese language, a word came from Spanish (Cuba, Venezuela, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez language, it's not a merely coincidence). When you speak "estadunidense" in Brazil it's an attempt to show rebellious and anti-Americanism, of course that is a word used with full purpose of offending, satirize, belittle and diminish. Anyone who says otherwise, is lying. "Ianque" case is different, it is a word that is used by anti-Americans but not only by them, and do not have the same negative connotation that Estadunidense has (at least not in Brazil) because Yankee is used worldwide. Estadunidense is a distorted word, this word is not even in line with the lexical Brazilian Portuguese language. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article. Properly sourced, all you've said can be there too as context to the reader, who'll know then when and why the term is used. But, as a Brazilian, I don't think you can find a good source that spell out the meaning of the word the way you did and, frankly, I don't understand it that way. The word is used only in a context, sure, but "offensive"? Not to my ears. José Luiz talk 16:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intended use of this word is offending, satirize, belittle and, at least, diminish USA, because this word sounds strange to the ears, and is clearly to make the listener laugh of malformation of the word and associate USA with something idiot and malformed. As anyone who uses this word is people who hates the U.S., nothing more logical than using the worst possible word. And I said well, this word is used very little in current vocabulary of the Brazilian people, being virtually unknown to the average citizen. As this word isn't basically a word used seriously to classify an inhabitant of the United States, is not in current use, and on top, is used as a means of spreading hatred, Wikipedia should asbter to be using it. But if you still want to put it, should explain the reality about it. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it all boils down to this: can you produce a single source to this interpretation of yours? The fact is that the word do exist and it is used - in certain contexts, almost always with a political meaning - to describe Americans in Brazil. And, as I said before, this discussion cannot and will not end with all parts involved totally happy. So, unless you can meet us somewhere in between, I give up. You're way to much invested in this and I don't have the time or the inclination to go further then. José Luiz talk 21:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put my position above. This word is unknown to many Brazilians, unlike "Americano" and "Norte-Americano" that Brazilians all know and are the REAL current use words. Furthermore, in Brazil, most of those who hear "Estadunidense", they wonder, "What the hell is he talking about, that word is not wrong? Does it exist?" This is NOT a common word, NOT current, is NOT even lexically correct. It is an attempt to mess with the Americans and nothing else. There is a big difference, therefore, between "Estadunidense" and other words. Even "Ianque" is most commonly used and reliable than "Estadunidense". And Wikipedia function is not propagandize or purposely encourage the use of a word, especially one deliberately offensive. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The word is unknown to many Brazilians". Source? "Furthermore, in Brazil, most of those who hear 'Estadunidense', they wonder, 'What the hell is he talking about, that word is not wrong? Does it exist?'" Source? "... especially one deliberately offensive." Source? --Lecen (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian coward way to resolve disputes: "source, source..." (that's common in internet, little brazilian kids defeated in discussions do this...). Pretend to be ignorant and reverse the burden of proof when there is no reason, is a philosophical Fallacy. And it is precisely a typical fallacy used by who talks the word "Estadunidense". So I ask, show me the Brazilian official and famous press (not left-lists blogs from revolted people) speaking "Estadunidense" all the time ... it never happened. That's all there is your will to defend the spread of a nonexistent word via Wikipedia? Because that is what we see abundantly at Wiki-PT, for example... You, who want to force the teaching of this bizarre word, please place the sources that supposedly show a MASSIVE use of Estadunidense by NORMAL people, not by political fanatics... Want a proof? http://busca.globo.com/Busca/oglobo/?query=Pesquisar (O Globo newspaper)- "Americano": 141,434 results; "Norte-Americano": 41,056 results; "Estadunidense": 125 results. This is a ghost word. Let's see Google? "Americano": 136 million results; "Norte-Americano": 23 million results; "Estadunidense": 3 million results (thanks to extreme socialist/communist/left-list sites/blogs and Wiki-PT who stimulated the use of this word by his suspect users, because normal people don't use it). Rauzaruku (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian coward way to resolve disputes: "source, source..." " You mean the correct way to resolve disputes as mandated by Wikipedia and logic? O how truly coward to ask for scholarly back up from a rude and ill-maintained editor, the humanity! I think it is the most obvious thing in the world that your own personal bias and manners, or lack thereof, show your position to be false. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And looking on Google Academic, a whole different scenario: estadunidense (20 500 hits); norte-americano (86 100 hits). Hmmm... Perhaps the bias is in the eye of the beholder. And I won't come near what a "normal people" discussion means in a third world country when it comes to an encyclopaedia... José Luiz talk 17:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "coward way" because when brazilians discuss (in any place, not just here), they don't try to accept nothing and don't try himselves to find sources. With total laziness, they just ask, ask an ask for sources, and even if you bring it, Brazilians do not accept and keep repeating the same thing like parrots, to irritate others. A famous type of trolling. Google academic? Oh yes, a tool used mostly by brazilian students of Philosophy that 99% of the time are anti-USA, indoctrinated by their sick teachers? Very good example. It is known that in the Brazil universities have the worst anti-Americans, like USP, just need to see that awesome event: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reintegra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_posse_na_USP_em_2011 .Rauzaruku (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Inclusion

I ask that we all settle this with consensus, as Wikipedia asks us to:

  • Support on Inclusion The term is a standardized term and does not carry any horrible undertone as Rauzaruku says. If anything, it holds the position that people of the USA are not the only Americans and thus seeks a better descriptive denonym. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil was "United States of Brazil" a long time ago and, never, we called ourselves "United Statians". So, who uses it today, is a political agitator or a truly ignorant. Your argument is a lie (this word is NOT a standardized term), and clearly you are here by political interests. And if it was that important call them "not American" to do a distinction, all the press, ABL and others have call them like that a long time ago, as well, but it not happens. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually knew me you would know that I am one of the most conservative people there are, but my personal views don't affect my editing on Wikipedia, unlike yourself. So keep your comments to yourself for goodness sakes. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Exclusion

  • Support on Exclusion - "Estadunidense" is not a current word in Portuguese vocabulary, it's not known by many people, it's not a normal word because it's used to offend, satirize and diminish USA, and Wikipedia function is not to teach or propagandize words, even more a negative one. Who supports this kind of thing on Wikipedia are just political agitators who want to use Wikipedia for their personal purposes. I don't believe in the honesty of those who defend this kind of thing. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on Exclusion - That's true. Dariusvista (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the votes

Please remember that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Lecen (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen the elephant????

This is the Wikipedia - it is an encyclopaedia. It is not a recipe book, it is not a city guide, it is not the yellow pages for prostitutes, car spares or pizza. It is ALSO NOT a language phrase book, for that, take a couple o bucks out of your pocket and get something from Berlitz, Hugo's, Phillips', etc. They all have crappy phrase books for that kind of shit.

The part on Wikipedia articles about languages where examples are used is meant to illustrate and demonstrate specifics about the language - morphology, grammar, etc - not a collection of idiotic Portuguese 101 phrases, half of them of NO USE, because they are not universally valid across the Portuguese-speaking space, they are plainly wrong. Most of the article is appalling and does not pass muster. And as for consistency, it ranges from stuff that looks as if written by my non-English-speaking neighbour's 13 year old daughter to stuff copy-lifted out of De Saussure.

And yet you guys sit here debating whether "estadudinense" is used? Yes, the word exists. Any damn word exists - you just have to say and therefore it exists. It is a Spanish invention to overcome the problem of people from the US calling themselves "American". Yes, it if fine in a newspaper to talk of the "Governo Estadudinense", but no-one except an utter moron would speak of "os meus amigos estadudinenses". Therefore, any American saying of him/herself "eu sou um estadudinense" can only expect to be laughed at and should go back to wherever he learnt it and demand his/her money back and beat the crap out of the useless teacher. So, delete the damn thing and get on with life.

Now perhaps we could get on with the task of including examples that illustrate specific elements of this superbly rich language. How about something about Portuguese diminutives? The fact that there is no equivalent to something like "está bem quentinho aqui dentro", or the fact that Portuguese has tenses that are never (or very seldom) used in spoken language, reserved for the written language? Or the fact that we can make do without ever using personal pronouns?

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portuguese_language&oldid=562637765"