1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Portuguese
  4. >
  5. "Ele tem ido ao estádio todo …

"Ele tem ido ao estádio todo domingo."

Translation:He has been going to the stadium every Sunday.

May 3, 2013

This discussion is locked.


Can it be " Ele tem ido ao estádio todo os domingos. " ?


Right too. (todos os domingos)


Every sunday = todo domingo, todo os domingos, todos os domingos, todos domingos ?


Fixed. Todo domingo = todos os domingos. ("todos domingos" does not exist).


Thanks, nice to see you again.


He has been to the stadium...?


Why not he´s been to the stadium every sunday?


Oh I guess they wanted me to put go in there somewhere, but meaning is the same...


Why every and not the whole?


They're a bit different = todo dia = every day / todo O dia = all day long / todo domingo = every Sunday / todo O domingo = the whole Sunday. If you change the order - o domingo todo - you also mean "the whole Sunday" ;)


I see. Muito obrigado


What's the difference between "tudo" and "todo"?


basic rule: tudo = all, todo = every


thank you very much, nobody told me that before...


Tudo = All in the sense of "everything".
Tudo stands on it's own, alone. It's not an adjective.

Todo/a (something) = "every" something.
Todo/a o/a (something) = the entire something.


And..."He has gone to the stadium every sunday?" is it wrong? Why? Tks.


The Portuguese sentence DOES include a progressive aspect.

It is "tem ido" = "have been going".

"Has gone" = foi.

He has gone to the stadium every sunday = ele foi ao estádio todo domingo.


"have been going" = tem ido
"have gone" = foi

Doesn't "foi" also mean "went"?


Yes, it means. Portuguese doesn't see the difference between "went" and "has gone" when it means "foi".

But "went" can mean "ia" sometimes, as "used to go".

And that is probably because Portuguese has changed the meaning of "tem ido" along its history. Other languages behave like English with this structure, even Spanish behave like English.


Thanks. How often do you use "pretérito perfeito composto"?


I use it quite often, it's not an uncommon tense. It's the right tense to use when talking about habits/routines that have been taking place lately.

But lots of people prefer to exchange it by a present to be + gerund. The pure meaning is not the same, but context fixes it.

Eu tenho vindo de ônibus - I have been coming by bus.
Eu estou vindo de ônibus - I'm coming by bus

In our context, both mean the same: lately, I have been getting the bus to come here.

Let's take the most spoken sentence in Rio since december/2013:

"Tem feito muito calor" (great =( .....a sentence I cannot translate directly, bad example: it's been too hot. It means since december, it's been very hot, the heat has been repeating almost every day, and it's still hot, and looks like it will keep hot).

Lot's of people prefer to say "está fazendo muito calor".


That shouldnt be! It even fits better! ;)


I agree; I don't believe this sentence includes a progressive aspect as written, otherwise it would be "tem estado indo"


Believe it. I'm native.

Tem ido = has been going.

To say "tem estado indo" in Portuguese is totally nuts.


Is "para o estádio" also right? If not, are there any rules about "a" vs. "para" for locomotion?

  • para - to go to a place for an extended period of time (meaning "to move") " Vou para o Brasil (maybe to live there).
  • a (à/ao) - to go to a place for a short time. "Vou ao médico".

But people don't follow this and tend to use "para" for both meanings.


Interesting! My "learn Portuguese" book teachs "vou para o cinema", but I guess it's trying to be casual....


Yes, people use only para. Actually they'd say "vou pro cinema".


i think the perfect tense will always be confusing to native english speakers because we use it much more often than the romance languages. It seems stupid that portuguese doesn't even follow half the grammar rules it is purported to follow.


We use this tense often enough, and our grammar simply says that it doesn't mean the same as it means in English (at least not in plain sentences like this, but it does with durations taking "since/for/in")


What's the difference between "cada" and "todo"?


Some people argue they are the different. For me and for many others they carry the same meaning.


He has been going to the stadium every Sunday [since the football season started].


As a native English speaker of more than 60 years, I can safely say that this is not correct grammar and would not be heard in Great Britain. American English may well accept it. Language moves but not always for the better.


If you're referring to Duo's answer, then as a slightly older native speaker and teacher of British English, I beg to differ. "He has been going to the stadium every Sunday" is perfectly correct grammar in the right context - Present perfect continuous being used to describe something that has been happening regularly recently, as opposed to a simple statement of how often he goes (Present simple) - reflecting the iterative and recent sense of the Portuguese Pretérito Perfeito.

Yes, it might have been better if Duo had added "recently" or "for the last few months" or "since the beginning of the season", or some such thing, but that's just one of the green owl's little foibles - we often have to imagine the context:

"I hear Jim's got interested in football recently" - "That's right. He's been going to the stadium every Sunday" (or perhaps more likely - "to see City/United every Saturday").

And of course we can also use it to talk about something that has been happening regularly for a long time - "He's been going to the stadium every Sunday for yonks now / ever since the year dot".

Incidentally, contrary to what some British people seem to think, American grammar is often rather more traditional and formal than ours. For example our fictional Jim would probably say something like "City are playing well today", anathema to American ears, which are accustomed to formal agreement. And where AmE still holds on to the subjunctive, we've largely ditched it. "Further" vs "farther", is largely an American distinction. Similarly the insistence on "that" instead of "which" in restrictive relative clauses is a mainly American predeliction. So let's not kid ourselves that American grammar is more lax than BrE, or that one is better than the other. They're (very) occasionally different, that's all. But that's not the case here.

Learn Portuguese in just 5 minutes a day. For free.