46 Comments This discussion is locked.
Yes. And "suficiente" works only as an adjective, while "o sucifiente" works as adjective and as adverb.
Rápido o suficiente (quick enough). Since rápido is adjective, "o suficiente" is an adverb. And only "suficiente" is not allowed.
Tempo o suficiente (enough time). Since tempo is a noun, "o suficiente" is like an adjective. Thus it also accepts "Tempo suficiente".
Please look at Paulenrique's comment about English grammar in this same discussion (answer to wimatoka).
This same idea is present in English too.
That is exaclty the same notion I was trying to understand in Portuguese.
enough + noun => enough is an adjective (suficiente)
adjective + enough => enough is an adverb (o suficiente)
Probably "verb + enough" also exists, and it would be an adverb either (o suficiente), like in "I have enough" (Eu tenho o suficiente)
The normal usage is "enough time". This usually means that you have sufficient time and perhaps a safe margin to spare. It is unusual to hear "time enough" and it has a different connotation. It is generally used to mean that you can make the time if it is absolutely necessary, but there are other things you could be doing. It's the type of construction you are more likely to come across in novel or poem than in conversation. There is a science fiction novel (probably by Robert Heinlein) called "Time Enough for Love."
I did also use "we have time enough" Even with the explanation down here I don't understand. I think you use "we have enough time" only if you put something behind it, like "we have enough time to do this or that" if someone would say "we have to go now" you response with " (relax) we have time enough" and not "(relax) we have enough time" ...............But that's just me, I don't understand all these things as adverb, adjective, noun or verb. , , , língua é difícil (taal is moeilijk).
Re "time enough". In English, poets have more authority than grammarians. The poets create the language. The academics merely observe and search for retrospective rules. Cambridge and Oxford may do good work but the language does not belong to them. "Time enough" may have poetic resonance but it is not archaic and is often heard here in London.
That does not exist in English. The time is 8pm. If we don't need to be there until 9pm, we will have an hour to get there. So, we have sufficient time. "The time" is not an amount of time, but a specific point in time. We don't measure that. We measure the distance between two points of time or how much time we have until that point in time (from now) or how much time it has been since a point in time (to now).
The phrase 'We have time enough' is grammatically correct. You should consult an Oxford dictionary for more details.
That aside, as a rule, the English language admits adjectives preceding a noun. For instance: A tall boy, a good man, etc. In this way, 'enough', which is a determiner (FYI determiners behave like a hybrid of the adjective and the pronoun), should go before a noun to meet the rule.
In addition, bear in mind that 'enough' is also an adverb with a distinctive position in reference to the elements which it modifies, specifically, adjectives and adverbs. It always goes after an adjective or an adverb. For instance: She is beautiful enough for the role of Juliet. He ran fast enough to catch the bus.
I'm not a native of English so there may be mistakes in my analysis. I'm willingly open to learn others' thinking of this grammatical point.
Dungna, obrigado para sua ajuda. I think, in my long practice of English I have used/heard 'We have time enough' often enough. But most likely outside of USA/GB/Canada. It is still a discussion among non-native Englisch speakers here. Come on, you native girls and boys, have an authoritative say! paco
OK, the authoritative word from someone who born and lived 20-30 years in the UK and 10-20 in Canada and USA. (Dungna, estou 100% de acordo com sua análise).
"Time enough" is a fairly common construction in the UK, though declining. It is much less common in North America and will likely only be encountered there in older literature.
The further back in time you go, the more likely you are to see "enough" coming after certain common nouns, not just "time": I wouldn't be surprised by "room enough (e.g. for us all to lie down)", "food enough (for you to join us at dinner)" etc etc. But these are now definitely antiquated and "time enough" is on the same path.
The famous C17 poem "To His Coy Mistress" begins "Had we but world enough, and time / this coyness, Lady, were no crime"...
The main point for English learners, however, is that in modern English, you just put "enough" before the noun every time. This whole argument is really academic.
muito obrigado jipsi, this was exactly the type of intervention i was waiting for. as a learner speaker of English with experience mainly from outside the English native speaker world, i am often in a situation that i can make myself understood but i am not sure if i use 'proper' English. your contribution clarifies the matter. have a nice weekend paco
Putting "enough" after the noun sounds a bit old fashioned, but at least in British English it is common in some set phrases, and as wimatoka says, "time enough" is one of them. Another example is "room enough" and that seems to be acceptable in American English as well: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/enough.
"We have (or we will have) enough time" is the most common and most neutral way of expressing it. Reversing the order "time enough" is common in set phrases (World enough and time...) and in poetical expressions. It has an archaic flavour and expressions like those are probably seeded into a given modern work to raise the tone or for some other rhetorical purpose.
There is a bit more info here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2395692 where one of the people discussing the issue quotes the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (which is likely to be related to your book). Paraphrasing somewhat, I agree with the conclusion that "We have time enough" doesn't sound quite as natural as a sentence like "We will have time enough for that later".