Já Não É Possível Viver Sem…

It's Not Possible To Live Without...

Can Carla and Marcelo last the whole weekend without their cell phones?


  • bom dia! A não ser que te apeteça ir jantar a um restaurante a que já tenhamos ido. why is it not “apetecas” because it’s te? and why it’s not tinhamos ido? because it’s talking about a restaurante they’ve been to, and that’s a fact happened already in the past, while conjuntivo presente talks about possibilities. Thanks for help!

    • Olá, Hana! “Apeteças” is not used because the subject of the sentence is not “tu”. The verb “apetecer” is being used impersonally, without subject, and “te” is its indirect object. Because of that, the verb isn’t conjugated in the second-person singular, “apeteças”.

      The second half of the sentence asks for the pretérito perfeito (simple past). It would be fine to use the pretérito perfeito do indicativo (…a um restaurante a que já fomos), but it is just as fine to use the pretérito perfeito composto do conjuntivo (…a um restaurante a que já tenhamos ido) because both refer to past events that are already concluded. “Tínhamos ido” wouldn’t make sense in this context, because this tense (pretérito mais-que-perfeito composto do indicativo) points to a “past before the past”, so to speak – it’s a different timeline that doesn’t fit here.

  • Hi, thanks so much for your reply. Ït’s clear and thorough. Can I just ask another further question?

    why is Marcelo using the impersonal in the sentence “‘a nao ser que te apeteca ir jantar…..”? Clearlly he’s refering to Carla, right?

    • You’re welcome! And sure, ask away. This is just how the verb apetecer works. When we want something, we become the indirect object of the verb and the thing we want is the direct object. For example: Apetece-me uma bebida. Direct object (what we want): uma bebida [a drink]. Indirect object (who wants it): -me [me/I]. In the dialogue, Marcelo is wondering if Carla wants to have dinner at a certain place, so Carla is the indirect object (te) and having dinner at X place is the direct object.

What did you think? Leave a Comment for Rui & Joel:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.