"Fortunately none of the passengers was injured."
Translation:Felizmente nenhum dos passageiros se machucou.
I suddenly realised I've got no clue about when to use 'nenhum' vs. 'ninguem'....anyone?
Nenhum is used for things: none, no. (Eu não tenho nenhum dinheiro [I have no money]). But pay attention: we use, for instance, nenhum deles (none of them) to refer to people and things. (As in this example proposed by Duo. Nenhum deles, dos passageiros, etc - always in plural form. It means "ninguém", but ninguém remains alone, that is, you can't say "ninguém de vocês, dos passageiros, etc". You may hear "ninguém de vocês", but it is a bit akward).
Ninguém is used for people: nobody, no one. (Ninguém me entende (nobody understands me), eu não preciso de ninguém (I don't need anybody)).
nenhum + people + verb (singular/plural). ninguém + verb (singular)
Following your rule I can say: "Felizmente nenhum dos passageiros lhes machucaram".
Does "Felizmente nenhum dos passageiros foi machucado" also make sense? I tried it, and it did not work.
yes, but it may mean that they were hurt by someone. As in an accident, for instance, "se machucar" works better because it was not intentionally provoked.
This sentence sound more like "fortunately none of the passengers injured themselves"..? In such case and in English, reflexive sounds more like it was semi-provoked, like when you go into a construction zone well aware of the risks, and barely escape serious injuries after an accident. But both my translation and the DL one overlap each other and are context-dependent, and so aren't really tied to one definition.
I agree in English, but Ii think the reflexive way is more commom in PT, e.g. if you read in newspapers about an accident etc. In English "was hurt" really implies a passive form of infliction, and if the hurting was inflicted by others, I think the entire sentence would be different, explaining just that. :-)
Technically, if we're going to be pedantic and use fusty old style guides, "was" is more correct. Both should be accepted, IMO, because "were" is widely used and sounds better to a lot of native speakers.