Official NO PORTUGUESE thread

[flush79]

I think there's no need to pay too much attention to grammar details like these.

I have a feeling that most Americans don't know the rules very well. I never saw someone saying I've lost my keys, for example.

In Brazilian schools we learn a lot of useless stuff.

If you say that Brazilian schools teach an "artificial" language when compared to that one spoken everyday on streets, I agree with you. But the statement implying that "Simple Past" and "Past Participle" are useless stuff is just bizarre and to hear that from a guy living in the USA is even more bizarre.

You can hear "Past Participle" in films, songs, speeches, everywhere. And that happens simply because "Past Participle" is the way you say something that started in the past is still happening. It´s a matter of vital information about what you are willing to say. If you say "I´ve lost my keys" you are not saying "I lost my keys", they´re two completely different contexts.

If you are in your house with your american girlfriend and you say "I´ve lost my keys", be sure that she´ll be glad to help you saying: "I can help you look for them if you wish". But if you say "I lost my keys" (meaning "I´ve lost"), all you will hear will be: "Really? Where were they?", because the Simple Past just told her that you have your keys again. Yes, just by using a specific verbal tense.

[ekalil]

I think there's no need to pay too much attention to grammar details like these.

I have a feeling that most Americans don't know the rules very well. I never saw someone saying I've lost my keys, for example.

In Brazilian schools we learn a lot of useless stuff.

If you say that Brazilian language schools teach an "artificial" language when compared to that one spoken everyday on streets, I agree with you. But the statement implying that "Simple Past" and "Past Participle" are useless stuff is just bizarre and to hear that from a guy living in the USA is even more bizarre.

You can hear "Past Participle" in films, songs, speeches, everywhere. And that happens simply because "Past Participle" is the way you say something that started in the past is still happening. It´s a matter of vital information about what you are willing to say. If you say "I´ve lost my keys" you are not saying "I lost my keys", they´re two completely different contexts.

If you are in your house with your american girlfriend and you say "I´ve lost my keys", be sure that she´ll be glad to help you saying: "I can help you look for them if you wish". But if you say "I lost my keys" (meaning "I´ve lost"), all you will hear will be: "Really? Where were they?".

Maybe useless is not the best word to describe it. What I meant is that you can perfectly communicate without that. I would focus more in other things than get obsessed to memorize all these rules.

Besides that, in you example, if you say "I lost my keys" it's very likely that she would offer help anyway, since we almost never know if we lost something forever or not.

Maybe we can think in better examples.

[flush79]

@ekalil

Quite better now. Yes, we can make ourselves clear without using "Past Participle". And this is a lot different than to say "useless".

And yes, I´d rather focus on learning vocabulary and day by day expressions than every single grammatical rule if I was living there. You have a point.

[Pelo_w]

yep, the example isn't perfect, but the difference is huge, I hear "I've" all the time kalil.

Another:
I've been sent to war for so many times that I lost track.
I was sent to war 3 times already.

If I say, "I was sent to war for so many times that I lost track". Is it wrong?
what about
"I've been sent to war for 3 times"

[getpuzzled]

yep, the example isn't perfect, but the difference is huge, I hear "I've" all the time kalil.

Another:
I've been sent to war for so many times that I lost track.
I was sent to war 3 times already.

If I say, "I was sent to war for so many times that I lost track". Is it wrong?
what about
"I've been sent to war for 3 times"

The only thing that doesn't fit well imo is the FOR at "I've been sent to war for 3 times" and "I was sent to war for so many times that I lost track" but I'm not sure it is necessarily wrong, think it's not, but it sounds better for me without it, everything else seems fine to me.

[semvagas]

the book is on the table

[Caipira]

I have a doubt with the use of "few", "little" and other (non)countable nouns.

When I speak: "... but the little (or few) adhesiveness and flow makes necessary the association with endodontic sealers"

What is right?

I know that little is used for non countable nouns, but I can measure the adhesiveness and flow by laboratorial tests. So, in this case adhesiveness and flow are countable or non-countable nouns?

[Caipira]

@lagostinha @sopro @ekalil

[sopro]

I dont know, sorry =/
My english it's a trap

@ekalil you could explain this?

[lagostinha]

lol u thought lagostinha know something about this kk