Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Brazil): Não importa se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade. - It doesn't matter if it rains, I want to walk in the city.

So não importa literally means “(it) doesn’t matter / (it’s) not important”.
In English you would normally translate it as “it doesn’t matter”.

Grammatically, it’s the 3rd person singular present of importar with negation:

(isso) importa = it matters
não importa = it doesn’t matter

Who or what is the subject of importa in Não importa se chove?

This is an impersonal type of construction.

You can think of the whole clause se chove (if it rains) as what is being evaluated by não importa:

Não importa [se chove].
= It doesn’t matter [if it rains].

Some grammars say there is an “understood” subject like isso (this), but in practice you can just remember that não importa is often used impersonal, like English “it doesn’t matter” where it doesn’t refer to anything specific.

What is the role of se in se chove?

Here se means if and introduces a condition:

se chove = if it rains

So the structure is:

Não importa se chove
= It doesn’t matter if it rains.

Se in Portuguese can mean if or whether, depending on context; here it’s clearly if.

Why is it se chove and not se chover? Are both correct?

Both forms can appear in real Portuguese, but they have slightly different feels:

se chove – present indicative
- Feels more like a general / habitual condition.
- Example idea: It doesn’t matter if it rains (in general); I like walking in the city anyway.
se chover – future subjunctive (same form as infinitive for this verb)
- Used a lot for future or specific hypothetical conditions.
- Common in sentences like: Se chover, eu fico em casa. (If it rains, I’ll stay home.)

For a specific plan like “today or tomorrow,” Brazilians very often say Não importa se chover, eu quero caminhar na cidade.

Your original se chove is grammatically okay and sounds like a more general statement about your attitude to rain, but se chover would also be very natural, especially for a particular future situation.

Why is there no word for it before chove, like in English “it rains”?

Portuguese does not use a dummy subject it for weather verbs.

English: It rains. / It is raining.
Portuguese: Chove. / Está chovendo.

The verb itself works without any pronoun. So:

se chove = if it rains (literally just if rains)
quando chove = when it rains

You never say “ele chove” or “isso chove” to mean it rains.

Could I say se está chovendo instead of se chove? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say se está chovendo; it’s correct, but the nuance changes a bit.

se chove
- Simple present: more general or neutral.
- Can talk about any time it rains.
se está chovendo
- Present continuous: more about ongoing rain, around now.
- Feels like “if it is raining (at that moment).”

For a future specific situation, even more natural is the subjunctive:

se estiver chovendo = if it’s raining (then)

Your sentence could appear in all these variants, each a bit different in feel:

Não importa se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade. (more general)
Não importa se está chovendo, eu quero caminhar na cidade. (about right now)
Não importa se estiver chovendo, eu quero caminhar na cidade. (about a future/unknown situation)

Why is there a comma after chove? Could I remove it?

The comma separates two main clauses:

Não importa se chove
eu quero caminhar na cidade

So the structure is:

Não importa se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade.

In Portuguese, you normally put a comma between two independent clauses that are just placed side by side like this.

If you remove the comma:

Não importa se chove eu quero caminhar na cidade.

it becomes harder to read and sounds like everything is jammed together. In writing, you should keep the comma here.

You can also invert the order:

Eu quero caminhar na cidade, não importa se chove.

The comma is still there, separating the two statements.

Why is it eu quero caminhar and not eu quero de caminhar or something like that?

In Portuguese, different verbs behave differently before another verb.

querer is followed directly by the infinitive, with no preposition:
- Quero caminhar. = I want to walk.
- Ela quer sair. = She wants to go out.

Other verbs do need a preposition:

gostar de: Gosto de caminhar. (I like to walk.)
começar a: Comecei a caminhar. (I started to walk.)
pensar em: Penso em caminhar. (I think about walking.)

So eu quero caminhar is the correct pattern; eu quero de caminhar is wrong.

What is the difference between caminhar and andar in this context?

Both can translate as to walk, but they have different typical uses:

caminhar
- More literally to walk, often with a sense of walking as an activity (exercise, a stroll, going on foot).
- Quero caminhar na cidade. = I want to walk in the city (as an activity).
andar
- Can mean:
  - to walk (on foot)
  - to go around / move around
  - to ride (in/on a vehicle) depending on the object:
    - andar de bicicleta = ride a bike
    - andar de ônibus = travel by bus

In your sentence, if you say:

Quero andar na cidade.

it can still be understood as walking, but caminhar is a bit clearer that you mean going on foot as a walk, not just “being around the city” or “moving in the city.”

What exactly does na cidade mean, and why na and not em a cidade?

Na cidade means in the city or within the city.

na is a contraction:
- em (in, on, at) + a (the, feminine singular)
  → na

So instead of em a cidade, Portuguese always contracts:

em a cidade → na cidade (in the city)
em a praia → na praia (at the beach)

Similarly:

em o parque → no parque (in the park)

You almost never say em a cidade; the contraction na is the normal and correct form.

Could I say pela cidade instead of na cidade? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, you can say pela cidade, and it slightly changes the meaning:

na cidade
- Focuses on location: in the city (as opposed to outside it).
- Quero caminhar na cidade. = I want to walk in the city.
pela cidade (por + a cidade)
- More like around / through / all over the city.
- Suggests movement through different parts of the city.
- Quero caminhar pela cidade. = I want to walk around the city / walk through the city.

Both are correct; pela cidade emphasizes moving around inside the city, na cidade just says the walk is located in the city.

Do I always need to say eu in eu quero, or can I drop it?

You can drop it, and often people do:

Eu quero caminhar na cidade.
Quero caminhar na cidade.

Both are correct.

Portuguese is a pro‑drop language: the verb ending already shows the person:

quero = I want
quer = he/she/you (formal) want

You use eu when you want to emphasize I:

Eu quero caminhar na cidade. (maybe in contrast with someone else)

In neutral statements, dropping eu is very natural:

Não importa se chove, quero caminhar na cidade.

Are there more natural or colloquial ways to say Não importa se chove?

Yes, several alternatives, with different levels of formality and tone:

More neutral/informal:

Tanto faz se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade.
- tanto faz ≈ it’s all the same / I don’t mind.
Não faz diferença se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade.
- não faz diferença = it makes no difference.

More colloquial:

Não tô nem aí se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade.
- Very informal: I don’t give a damn if it rains…
Pouco me importa se chove, eu quero caminhar na cidade.
- Stronger tone: I couldn’t care less if it rains…

All of these keep the same basic idea: the rain doesn’t affect your desire to walk in the city.