Brazilian Literature

[JCamilo]

Sigmund Freud made a critic about Shakespeare: The greatest english author was not so original because a lot of things he wrote were already known in some greek myths.
I accept Freud's critic uppon Shakespeare. However, Shakespeare translated the ancient myths to his own time and historical context. So, in some way, Shakespeare was original too. Furthermore Shakespeare was popular on his own time.

Shakespeare was very original, but originality is not the creation of plots. Originality is how the story is told and Shakespeare, alone, created stories that basically replaceded in the western mind the archetypes that are supplied by the greek mythology. One man that is worth the entire culture developed by centuries and being this culture the most amazing culture of western world? That is because the quality of his text, the complexity. That is what give Shakespeare importance and keep him in our mind. Popularity (relative, Shakespeare was a popular theatre writer, not a popular writer since a dramaturgist was considered a second, if not third rate writer).

Today, there are a excess of idealism of the past when somebody says "Shakespeare was awesome and Coelho is awful". I am not saying Coelho is great, but he's as popular today as Shakespeare was and still is.
I don't apreciate Coelho, but I must respect the million of people who does. He is the most famous brazilian writer today. [/quote]

I do not understand you. You ask to leave Coelho out but you keep bringing him up. Anyways, Hitler was popular also. During the story of mankind several artists are popular during their lifetime while great genius lived under their shadow. Jorge Luis Borges only got famous in the 60's, Kafka decades after his dead, Emily Dickinson barely published while she was alive. Popularity is meanignless, a time lapse, an accident of fashion. Being popular does not say anything about quality. Democracy is an awful method to measure merit.
Coelho is the most famous brazilian writer today when our writing culture have been dragged down and it is nowhere as stunning as during the Modernists period. And even if you think, Shakespeare wrote 500 years ago and I doubt people can reckon plots of Coelho as they can reckon characters of Shakespeare even without reading him. Not to mention the fact he is the writer that originated more movies, more songs, more paintings, etc. Influence is the only kind of "popularity" worth and two decades after Coelho his influence have been nill.

Machado de Assis is great, the best, but most of people in the world don't know him. Yes, that's the truth, we must accept: Machado's texts is not for the majority of the world population.

I do not know if I praise god because the idea that a writer wrote something that is equallly valuable for all the world's population is so outrageous that I think I would kill such man.
But What make Machado no for the world population?? I understood and read him when I was 11. Are you telling me that the world is that uneducated and imbecile??

If we depends of Machado, the Brazilian literature would be forgotten. That's why I respect Coelho, he is Brazilian and he sells a lot of books. I don't like him, but it is irrelevant, million of people does.

That is outrageous. Ridiculous! Bollocks.
Machado de Assis , founder the academy that Paulo Coelho fought to be accepted, wrote 100 years ago and still remembered. Wait until Paulo Coelho manages to be remembered being dead for so long to claim such non sense. And I doubt he will, because what make a text be remembered is the quality and this is something Machado will always have and Coelho will always lack.
Do you think Coelho is the first best-seller success in the world? Where is Losang Rampa? Where is even Sidney Sheldon? Where was all the nobodies that sold much more books than Joyce or Faulkner?? They are forgotten.
And, if Coelho didn't sold as much, they would find someone else to do so. It is a marketing principle. Explore the public. But finding someone as good as Machado. You must be joking.

If a was english, I would be proud of J.K.Roling. I don't care if somebody says it is a poor literature. Million of children are reading Harry Potter, that's important. The same I say about Coelho controversy. I am proud, cause he sell a lot of books and he is brazilian.

After she trying to sue someone for authoral rights when she didn't had a single original idea while Writing Harry Potter I would be ashamed about her. Just a ganancious twit. As being proud of Coelho, I would be proud of something worthless such as Machado de Assis. Or Rui Barbosa. Or Santos Dummont. Or Vital Brasil. Or all the great brazilians who actually showed a genius beyond everyone else and not just to be market success. Xuxa is more popular than him. Be proud about her.

Some brazilians says "Pelé is a awful person, racist, and etc..." But I'm proud of Pelé cause he is the best football player in history and he is brazilian. People always seach defects.

Such is life. Pele is not a racist. I dunno if he is an awful person. But he is actually the best footballer ever. He wasnt just popular.

In Brazil, the traditional professors (the old ones) always say good things about Vinicius de Moraes, Chico Buarque, etc... But Raul Seixas, Renato Russo, Cazuza... are poor poets. What a shame say that!

I am not an old professor and I will say: The reason they say that is because Vinicius, who is one of the best poets ever and Chico Buarque are head, shoulders, chest, crotch, feet and shadow about those 3 walking cliches. A shame is to compare the prentencious and hipocrites Cazuza and Renato Russo to them. Raul Seixas was at least honest in his hippie life.

I am portuguese teacher and literature student and I'm also musician. I usually listen to italian opera (and I understand the italian words), Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven... and I love it. I love Bossa Nova and Brazilian popular music too. And also I love rock and roll, jazz, blues, salsa, tango, bolero, tarantella, arabic music... I don't have any prejudice about art.
Renato Russo, for example, had a potent voice. His composition are full of simplicity, but beaufiful. The words of his songs made him a poet and a hero for a entire generation.

He was not a poet. Writing lyrics for music may demand poetic language, but a poet is the one who writes poetry. I prefer the humble and most acceptable opinion of a real Poet that also wrote music, Leonard Cohen that the difference between the two works are enough.

So, when someone says "Chico Buarque is great and Renato Russo is nothing" I must be angry. Vinicius de Moraes, Chico, Caetano were importants to a past generation, but Cazuza, Renato Russo and Raul Seixas were importants to the new generation. The historical context is totally different and some people don't take this in consideration.

The one not taking it the context in consideration is you. Chico Buarque wrote during the militar dictadorship. Cazuza and Russo wrote protest musics during the democracy that they didn't helped to created. They are pop artists, playing for future MTV (which is one of the most banal things ever created by humankind) and while attacking the system, they are more than help to bend over for Globo and be the main theme of globo's sop operas. They had no spirit and their lyrics - which are basically portuguese versions of the english's punk in the 70's - are all false.
It have nothing to do with who was in the past one or the recent one, but who was good enough or not. I am not a fan of Chico music, but the guy had a domain of language, symbolism and rythim that Renato Russo could only dream about.

Shakespeare translated the ancient myth to his own time and context.
Renato Russo translated the angry, the sadness, the fears, and the love of the youth to his own context. Renato Russo made a song composition uppon Camõe's sonnet. It is wonderful!

He just wrote music for pop music. He wrote for Globo's characters. He didn't even realized what was happening in brazil while repeating the 70's jargons of Punk movement. Plus, I prefer the expression of surprise of Mallarme when a song offered as homage to sing one version of Mallarme poem. Mallarme just answered "But it was already musical". Transforming Camoes, above all, in music! Camoes already did it.

Russo's song words have paradox, antithesis, synizesis, etc. He's a person who does art. Every human art has something to present, something important.

People always idealize the past as perfect: "The past language was beautiful, the way they spoke at the past was better, the past books was awesome, the past singers were wonderfull..." Yes, I agree but not only the past, our present too. We have good things today. Some people just apreciate the conteporanean literature when it seems like the past literature. This is excess of tradicionalism and past idealism.

No, this is just good sense. There is 7000 years of literature. It is only natural that in 7000 years we are going to find more examples of good literature than the short space of today. Plus, chronology have nothing to do with quality. Right now there may be a great writer. But I doubt there is any as good as Dante. But when Dante was alive, he could say the best writer ever was alive and not in the past (and he almost didn't, amazing).

Also, I'd like to say: I don't belive in literary critics.

Too bad. Stop studing literature as you claim because study of literature is the pratice of literary critic (Or you are just reading ,not studying). Stop writing those long analyses, because they are the pratice of literary critic. Also stop lacking respect for guys who spent their entire life studing with depth and passion one objetc they loved. Also, do not ever read Borges, which transformed literary criticism a new form of art. Also, avoid a list of great writers, all of them dedicated to literary criticism.

Literature is art, right? So, how can someone define what is beautiful, what is creative, what is ugly, what is original...? This is subjective, so, it depend, it comes from the personal taste.

Literature is not only art. But creative is not subjective, if it is not created new, it is not creative. What is original it is not subjective either.
What is beautiful or ugly is subjetive, but this is art appreciation. Qualification is something else, it is telling if something really achived the capacity to be beautifull while using the standards and techniques the work proposed. It is not as subjective.

A totally different thing is: a philosophical critics.
Philosophy is not art, so when a philosopher analasys a phylosophical work that kind of critic is objective.

That is new. Some philosophies are not even objective to be able to propose a model of objetive analyse.

The same thing we can say about the science. The scientifical critic about a scientific work is "objective" (actually it trys to be). But the literature (art) can not be as objective as phylosophy or science.

Considerable more than Philosophy because all artist use techniques. You can make technical analyses about every art work (not to mention the history of art) and those are objetive.
I am sorry, but it is not a matter of taste what is good art or not. Just what you like or not.

So, based also in Marx and Freud I say: everything we say about literature is our personal taste, influenciated by the ideology and the personal formation.

Marx was an awful literary critic and so are Freud because they did exactly that. There is advice, listen to many critics, not just two, because if 100 critics agree about something and for similar reasons, something must be true there. And 100 critics in different contexts, so you will know they do not share the same ideology and they do not have the same personal formation.
That is why Shakespeare is Shakespeare, there 300 years that he is acclaimed by a variety of individuals that anyone claiming it is a matter of personal taste, is not using their brain cells.

[Brasil]

Easy, be cool my friend! I'm not bringing P.Coe... back. He was just an example.
But Hitler was popular by force (ditatorial power) and the writer P.Coe... was popular by selling books. No one put a gun in the head of somebody to buy a book written by P. Coe. Very different, don't you think.

I don't know why, but the fact is: Machado is not so popular as Coe...
Unfortunately! I think both deserve to be popular. Machado is very good writer. The other one is maybe different, I don't know. Carismatic? Perhaps.
But the fact is: he sold a lot!

Losang Rampa and Sidney Sheldon are not Brazilians. Tell me a Brazilian best-seller? I know one.

At the time of Shakespeare, people shout at the central plaza calling to the show. Today we have advertising. What is the difference? "Marketing" is conteporanean factor. It does not make a writer good or bad, at all.

Lyric poetry at the beggining (Greece) was made for singing, not read. Also the minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers. So, I consider all words into a song as poetry.

Don't make me laugh. Vinicius and Chico were also in mass-media at their times. If they were popular at the 90's, they were also in MTV. Just matter of historical context. Stop thinkig they are messiahs send by god to save the Brazilians of the ditator state.
Cesaria Evora had a video in MTV. Is she a poor singer?

For Dante (who lived in Middle Age) the best writer was Virgilio (from the old Roman Empire)

To analyse a poem is totally different of making critics, specially the way you make critics.
To analyse is:
See graphic structure: how the poem is presented
See phonetic structure: rhythmic, enjabement, alliteration, etc
See semantic structure: style, figures of language, etc

You did not make a analysis. You're only saying "this is bad and this is good"
Again: "Beauty or ugly", "good or bad" is just a matter of personal taste. If you don't like, talk about other thing, something you like. Let me talking about what I like. Any debate about this topic will take the eternety. I'm not here for this purpose.

Now you has shown me that you don't even know what you're talking about.
You've said Marx was a literary critic?
Never, my friend! Marx was a scientific critic (history and sociology). I know his work. His conception of "ideology" was in my work of my first graduation.

I am going to explain what a said:
"based on Marx (who describe the mechanism of the ideology) I can say that all literary critic (not analysis) is based on personal taste (personal taste comes from the ideology and also from other factors).
"based on Freud I can say that all personal taste comes from the personal formation (and other factors, like the ideology as well).

Don't even think comparing philosophical and scientific analysis with literary analysis. Totally different things. Do not mix art with science. Art is subjective itself, science try to be objective.

Again, good or bad art is too subjective, just a matter of taste.

You just search for objective reasons to justify your personal taste. This is just a game of words, there is nothing scientific, logic or exact to prove what you are saying. Try to read about logical mechanisms and you'll understand.

I , personally, think Tonico and Tinoco, L. Gonzaga, Alceu Valença, etc...were great poets of the Brazilian folk song. Maybe you say "their grammar was terrible, this is not poetry and they were caipiras (hillbilies) from the country".
But when Machado invented new words or committed an "error" you say "he did a poetic license".

So, If you dislike my future post, please try to ignore. Talk about what you apreciate. I will post more about Russo, Cazuza, etc. Ignore my post and let foreign people know more about it and let them take their own view.

[Brasil]

Legiao Urbana live:
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4

Ideologia (Ideology) by Cazuza (with english subtitles):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMHsBvVJdHE

Morging Train, sung by Raul Seixas (2:37 min):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH9y9AvWlfU

Obs: Coelho and Seixas wrote a lot of songs together.
For more details about Russo, Cazuza and Seixas, see the posts before (#35 and # 36) in this very thread.

[JCamilo]

Easy, be cool my friend! I'm not bringing P.Coe... back. He was just an example.
But Hitler was popular by force (ditatorial power) and the writer P.Coe... was popular by selling books. No one put a gun in the head of somebody to buy a book written by P. Coe. Very different, don't you think.

Hitler was not popular by force. He was popular by finding an idea and writing a book to represent it, using even democratic ways to make his party powerful and due to incridible charisma. They used very similar strategies - until today the raise of Nazi party is studied in Propaganda, Marketing and all as example of how selling an idea and applied in the mass media market... where is how popularity is won.

I don't know why, but the fact is: Machado is not so popular as Coe...
Unfortunately! I think both deserve to be popular. Machado is very good writer. The other one is maybe different, I don't know. Carismatic? Perhaps.
But the fact is: he sold a lot!

So? Until the XVIII Century there wasn't even a mass editorial market, a Writer was remembered due hiw quality. Virgil, Homer, Horace, Dante, etc didnt sell a lot. A lot of bad writers did and which one is meant to be remembered? Really, how many other writers from Dante's period do you remmeber?

Losang Rampa and Sidney Sheldon are not Brazilians. Tell me a Brazilian best-seller? I know one.

Err, Paulo Coelho selling lot is world wide phenomen, very few writers in the world sell as good as him. But he sells less than Mao Tsé, should we praise him for that? As I said, I would rather not sell a million like Paulo Coelho and write a story as great as The Alienist.

At the time of Shakespeare, people screen at the central plaza calling to the show. Today we have advertising. What is the difference? "Marketing" is conteporanean factor. It does not make a writer good or bad, at all.

So, why you keep saying "he sells book" which is a marketing phenomem?
Also, as I said, Shakespeare was a popular theatre creator. He didn't even published his texts. He was not a popular writer.

Lyric poetry at the beggining (Greece) was made for singing, not read. Also the minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers. So, I consider all words into a song as poetry.

Epic poetry also, all poetry was made to be sung at begining. And surprise, they stopped to be songs to be texts - Poetry is Not Music. They are two different things.

Don't make me laugh. Vinicius and Chico were also in mass-media at their times. If they were popular at the 90's, they were also in MTV. Just matter of historical context. Stop thinkig they are messiahs send by god to save the Brazilians of the ditator state.

Vinicius mass media ??? What are you talking about ? There was not even popular TV channels here when he started. He and most of the Bossa Nova group had to left brazil to make sucess and only in the 60's when he returned. Typical brazilian stuff, first out then inside. You like this. If Vinicius was absorved by The Mass Media (Globo mostly) it was because his past, unlike the sold out of the 80's.
To finish, Vinicius themes are not rebelion against system - It was love, joy, beauty - He was a conservador. His discuss was not empty like pseudo-punks in the 80's.
Chico was something special, when he started he was persecuted for daring to play in the festivals. He was an intelectual family and again, his attack was against the governament.

For Dante (who lived in Middle Age) the best writer was Virgilio (from the old Roman Empire)

Virgil was the best writer before him. Dante goes to Heaven, Virgil never.

To analyse a poem is totally different of making critics. Specially the way you make critics. To analyse is:
See graphic structure: how the poem is presented
See phonetic structure: rhythmic, enjabement, alliteration, etc
See semantic structure: style, figures of language, etc

That is one of the atributions of a critic.

You did not make a analysis. You're only saying "this is bad and this is good"

I did not made an analyse of what?

Again: "Beauty or ugly", "good or bad" is just a matter of personal taste. If you don't like, talk about other thing, something you like. Let me talking about what I like. Any debate about this topic will take the eternety. I'm not here for this propose.

Dude, that is the bad about Paulo Coelho. Life is made of bad and good. We must deal with everything. And only because I dislike and disagree with you, this does not mean they affect my life or that I can not make critics about them.

Now you has shown me that you don't even know what you're talking about.
You said Marx was a literary critic?
Never, my friend! Marx was a scientific critic (history and sociology). I know his work. His conception of "ideology" was in my work of my first graduation.

Marx and Hengels published a book with critics about art and literature. I do not think someone can be only one thing, if they sit in a table, analysed the history of art and literature (even the aesthetics) from the social point of view, I can call them literary critics because that is what matter here.

I am going to explain what a said:
"based on Marx (who describe the mechanism of the ideology) I can say that all literary critic (not analysis) is based on personal taste (personal taste comes from the ideology and also from other factors).
"based on Freud I can say that all personal taste comes from the personal formation (and other factors, like the ideology as well).

Marx and Freud are extremelly biased individuals. Their ideologies dominated their live and conclusions. As I said, they are guilty exactly of that.
But you seem to miss that I said: Everyone, included scientists, act like that. Not only literary critics. When you can trust literary criticism? When you search for more sources. Coleridge in the XIX and Borges in XX century share several conclusiion and views about literature and art despite having not the same ideology, formation, personal tastes. What you do to not fail in the opiniona makers? Seek more than one source, the knowledge that is shared among many can be more trusted. Go beyond Freud and Marx.

Don't even think comparing philosophical and scientific analysis with literary analysis. Totally different things. Do not mix art with science. Art is subjective itself, science try to be objective.

Art criticism is not art, Art is the studied object and Science can study subjetive objects as well.
Philosophy is not always objective and they all depend in a leap of faith. Philosophy analyse is filled by "I think this is better because it is what I believe". Almost or even more than art.

Again, good or bad art is too subjective, just a matter of taste.

No sense. Good art is the one where you can analyse the use of techinique, the domain of skills. Bad art is the one where it is pauper. You are trying to prove yourself wrong despite hundred of years of art study pointing you that what good art is not a matter of taste.

You just search for objective reasons to justify your personal taste. This is just a game of words, there is nothing scientific, logic or exact to prove what you are saying. Try to read about logical mechanisms and you'll understand.

Dude, you use Freud and Marx. They are master of manipulating the conclusion to show up what they want. I do not think you are able to pinpoint when logic is being used.

I , personally, think Tonico and Tinoco, L. Gonzaga, Alceu Valença, etc...were great poets of the Brazilian folk song. Maybe you say "their grammar was terrible, this is not poetry and they were "caipiras" (hillbilies). But when Machado invented new words or commited an "error" you say "he did a poetic license".

For example, they are not poets. But Tonico and Tinoco language was suited for the production they are using. I would not criticise them by using a perfect language or not.

So, If you dislike my future post, please try to ignore. Talk about what you apreciate. I will post more about Russo, Cazuza, etc. Ignore my post and let foreign people know more about and let them take their own view.

This is not your blog. This is a forum. People discuss with each other - And if you can claim anything you want, you better be read to listen what you do not want, Dr.Pangloss.

[Joe G]

I am also brazilian, however i live in the UK. Unfortunately i only have one brazilian book at home called "Cazuza"

[Brasil]

Analyse this:

Legiao Urbana live:
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4

Also, analyses the narration in "Faroeste Caboclo" and "Eduardo e Mônica". Describe the characters.



Ideologia (Ideology) by Cazuza (with english subtitles):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMHsBvVJdHE

Analyse also the words of "Exagerado" and "Faz Parte do Meu Show" and "Codinome Beija-Flor", if you like love songs.



Morning Train, sung by Raul Seixas (2:37 min):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH9y9AvWlfU

Obs: Coelho and Seixas wrote a lot of songs together.
For more details about Russo, Cazuza and Seixas, see the posts (#35 and # 36) in this very thread.

[Brasil]

I respect Jorge Amado, he is among the greats. But I don't apreciate him.
He's very pornographic. About this kind of reading, I prefer Nelson Rodrigues, but also I'm not very fan.

The best reading for me are political, philosophical, historical, sociological, and linguistic... I read a lot about other cultures, religions, as well.
So, in literature readings I seach for thouse kind of subjects. That's why I like the Divine Comedy, Odissey, Lusiadas...

About Brazilian literature, in my oppinion, Ariano Suassuna and João Cabral de Melo Neto were the best writers uppon the Brazilian northeast view.

And I apreciate very much "Literatura de Cordel". But some people may say "it's poor literature" cause the grammar is awful.
And I apreciate Gilberto Gil, but some people may say "it's not literature" cause it's sung, not read. However, the hymn, the ode, the rondo, the song and cantiga were considered literature at their times.
But some people may say "Gilberto Gil is a poor poet", cause he has an acoustic show recorded in MTV.

[Brasil]

The latin culture is very rich in traditional forms of poems indeed.
Francesco Petrarca (who developped the sonnet form is just one example).
The spanish, italian and portuguese literatures are rich in greek-latin inheritance. That is intrinsic in the language and inside the cultures of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile...

The english language has a very simple structure, a very very simple grammar. Compare the english grammar and the portuguese grammar, for example (I'm not saying english is a poor language). Portuguese grammar is very complex.

I speak also italian, spanish, and french fluently, but with some
vocabularies limitations when I speak and a few grammar errors when I write cause I'm not native.
And I speak some basic sentences in
german, japanese, chinese mandarin, arabic and russian but I can't write.
I know what I'm talking about. You can research or ask any linguistic:

About Western languages
Latin languages are more complex than the others.
German is the most difficult language, (for me, personaly).
English is the easiest language to learn and the most simple grammar.

Eastern languages (All of them are complex)
Japanese is very complex but easy to learn. It's totally differet of any western language.
Chinese mandarin grammar is very easy, but the phonetic is very complex
(there is subtle variations of high and low pitch)
Russian and arabic are complex too, each one on their own context.

Since the begining, the italians, spanish and portuguese people had their traditions base at greeks, romans and others. Anglo-germanics nations had influence from greek-latin too, but not so strong as romance language's speakers.

So, Portugal had a strong influence from the ancient greek-roman traditions. In addition, portuguese (people and language) had the
arabic influence for 350 years at Iberian peninsula.

Brazil (as Portugal's cologne) had a strong traditional greek-latin culture and arabic influence as well. In addition, Brazil have much more: the greatest native indian population in the globe, the african contribution and the immigrant culture (italians, germans, japaneses, leabanese...).
São Paulo, for example, has the biggest japanese population outside the Japan, in the world.

Imagine this caldron of cultures!
That's the beauty of Brazilian arts like music, dance, literature, architeture
(the city of Brasilia, for example), gastronomy, martial arts (Capoeira), etc.
A curious thing: there's no violence motivated by religion and different creeds.
The violence in Brazil is a social problem, not so different from many other countries.

So, Brazilians have one of the greatest ethinical and cultural diversity in the globe. The Literature from Brazil is as rich as its people.

obs: I'm saying that friendly, I'm not trying to be arrogant.
I apreciate all kinds of culture (erudit or popular, of all times):
since the ancient Chineseses and Indians legends until the modern Hollywwod movies form US, and Bollywood movies from India);
since the Arabic tales ultil Machado de Assis' tales and novels;
since Greeks and Roman epics and dramas until Shakespeare's;
since Italian Opera, british rock and Brazilian Bossa Nova until conteporanean Brazilian singers: Djavan, Legião Urbana (group), Cazuza, Raul Seixas,
Zé Ramalho, Alceu Valença, Olodum, Ivan Lins...
Since the Beatles ultil the egyptian singer Amr Diab;
I love them all, in resume, I apreciate the cultures from all times and all
nations, without prejudice, and I consider myself as a cosmopolitan.

For everyone in São Paulo or who goes to São Paulo:
Visit the Portuguese Language Museum, at the Luz Station.
To Know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_...guese_Language
(in english)

[Brasil]

ENGLISH----- PORTUGUESE

Present----- Presente
I love------- eu amo
you love----- tu amas
he loves----- ele ama
we love----- nós amamos
you all love--- vós amais
they love ----- eles amam

Past--------- Pretérito
I loved------- eu amei
you loved----- tu amaste
he loved----- ele amou
we loved----- nós amamos
you all loved--- vós amastes
they loved----- eles amaram

Future--------- Futuro
I will love------- eu amarei
you will love----- tu amarás
he will love----- ele amará
we will love----- nós amaremos
you all will love--- vós amareis
they will love----- eles amarão

So, I think English conjugation is very simple, almost no variation.
Now, look at the red letters in portuguese conjugation. That kind of variation is complex.
I've taken Portuguese grammar as example. The same I say about Portuguese is also for any neo-latin language.

[Brasil]

Compare:
English--------------Portuguese

I will fly------------------------eu voarei-----another possibility: eu vou voar
you may be flying--- -----------você pode estar voando
they might have been flying-----eles podem ter voado----another possibility: eles estavam voando
I had to fly---------------------eu tive que voar
I can fly-----------------------eu posso voar------other possibility: eu sei voar
I have to fly--------------------eu tenho que voar
I must fly-----------------------eu devo voar

But:
I need to fly---------------------eu preciso voar
We need to fly------------------nós precisamos voar
he flies-------------------------ele voa
we fly--------------------------nós voamos
they fly------------------------eles voam

etc. etc.

Follow me:
I would fly----------------------eu voaria
We would fly--------------------nós voaríamos
Etc...
Always "would" for every person (I, you, we, they...). There is no variation.

Now, look:
they might have been flying-----eles podem ter voado----another possibility:eles estavam voando
you might have been flying-------você pode ter voado----another possibility:você estava voando

English is a very practical language, that's why I like it.

[Brasil]

"Any language is practical if you have to speak it, read it, and write it".
- you're right!

Sorry, I did not express my self as good as I should.

Practical language: It means English is easy to learn (the basic grammar) and easy to think. But English has a complex phonetical system!!!! I personally don't like my own accent in English
Really, I wish to have a London accent, for me, the most beautiful accent!

Portuguese is difficult to learn. Futhermore, all romance languages are very "figuratives" more than English, I belive.

Now look at this:
1- Eu sou doente (it is "I am sick" in Portuguese)
2- Eu estou doente (it is "I am sick" in Portuguese)

But the verb (in red) is different, so as the meaning:
1- means the sickness is my essence, like a name or a profession.
2- means I am sick but it will pass, it is just a ocasional state.

So, in Portuguese you have to say:
1- Eu sou John, eu sou professor, eu sou americano.
2- Eu estou doente, eu estou gripado, eu estou cansado.

In English, it is written and said:
1- I am John, I am professor, I am american.
2- I am sick, I am cold, I am tired.

The differences between "Eu sou/Eu estou" is a almost exclusive in Portuguese and Spanish. Other romance languages do not have this particularity:

Io sono John, Io sono qui (Italian)
Je suis John, Je suis ici (French)
Yo soy John, Yo estoy aquí (Spanish)
Eu sou John, Eu estou aqui (Portuguese)
I am John, I am here (English)



Other detail, the word cold in English has two meanings: 1- a disease caused by a virus and 2- adjective of something that is not hot.

In Portuguese, cold is frio (frio means cold in the second definition). When you refers to the disease you have to say gripe (gripe is cold in the first definition).

We have in Portuguese the verb that means "to get a cold". It is gripar. See the conjugation at the Present:
Eu gripo, Tu gripas, Ele gripa, Nós gripamos, etc...
(=I get a cold, you get a cold, he get a cold, we get a cold...)

The word gripado is the past participle of the verb gripar.
The word gripar is the infinitive form.

If you are a female you have to say: Eu estou gripada
If you are a male you have to say: Eu estou gripado

English does not have declinations by male/female and singular/plural.
English article "a" in Portuguese can assume four forms: um, uma, uns, umas.
English article "the" in Portuguese can assume four forms: o, a, os, as.

That is why I think English is simple and easy. You don't have to conjugate verbs and there is (almost) no declination.

See how it is complex? And this is only one example!

I know, there are a lot of beautiful poems in English and they are very "figurative". Portuguese has figures of speech (as English) too, but in addition has a more complex grammar. Imagine!

So, it is a hard thing to explain. If you knew portuguese it would be easier! But ask your husband about French.

French is a romance language too. You can make a debate with him.
Have fun!

[Brasil]

Present----- Presente
I love------- eu amo
you love----- tu amas
he loves----- ele ama
we love----- nós amamos
you all love--- vós amais
they love ----- eles amam

English does not have a plural form of you

I have to define vós = all of you (or you all)

All romance languages have the plural form:
voi, vous, vosotros, vós (italian, french, spanish, portuguese)

"In English the same word can have a very different pronunciation and mean something very different." - Yes, but all languages I speak have this too. This is not an English particularity.

But Portuguese is easy to learn and speak the basic things. You can learn if you want it.

[Brasil]

Le 900 milliones de personas qui parla portugese, francese, espaniol, italiano, romaniano, etc. e mesmo le parlatores de anglese comprende un texto technic in interlingua sin studio previe. Illo tamben es relativemente intelligibile a eruditos parlatores de linguas germanic (germano, per exemplo) e slave (como le russo).

Tell me if you have undestood it.

That is Interlingua (international auxiliary language)

My oppinion:
All the ocidental world must study Interlingua at school.

Know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interli...n_illustration

[JCamilo]

I do not think Portuguese is very hard at all, neither english - But Portuguese is a more elaborated language with specific turn about of rules while english is a language more favorable for the flow of the text. Almost as if one is Prose and the other poetry but is just silly.

[Brasil]

Original:
Le 900 milliones de personas qui parla portugese, francese, espaniol, italiano, romaniano, etc. e mesmo le parlatores de anglese comprende un texto technic in interlingua sin studio previe. Illo tamben es relativemente intelligibile a eruditos parlatores de linguas germanic (germano, per exemplo) e slave (como le russo).

Translated
Nine hundred million people which speak Portuguese, French, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian, etc. and even English speakers can understand a technical text in interlingua without previous study. Also, it is relatively undestandable to erudit speakers of the germanic languages (German, for example) and Slavic languages (like Russian).

Votre français n'est pas mal! Je voudrais parler avec toi, moi aussi, je pense que le français est trés difficile et j'ai besoin de pratiquer.

A bientôt!