Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): O Pedro ficou chateado, mas no fundo sabe que a decisão foi justa. - Pedro got upset, but deep down he knows the decision was fair.

In informal spoken EP, using the article with names is very frequent: O Pedro, A Ana, etc.
In more formal contexts (newspapers, official documents, introductions), you’re more likely to see Pedro, without the article.
In Brazilian Portuguese, using the article before given names is much less common and can sound regional or marked.

So in this sentence, “O Pedro ficou chateado…” is perfectly normal, natural European Portuguese.

What exactly does “ficou chateado” mean, and why use ficar here?

Ficar + adjective often means “to become / to get + adjective”.

ficar chateado ≈ “to get upset / to become annoyed”

So:

O Pedro ficou chateado = “Pedro got upset.”

Why ficar and not estar or ser?

ficar emphasizes a change of state: he was not upset before, then something happened and he became upset.
estar chateado would describe a state: “he is upset”, without focusing on the moment of change.

Compare:

O Pedro está chateado. – Pedro is upset.
O Pedro ficou chateado. – Pedro got / became upset (as a reaction to something).

What nuance does “chateado” have? Is it “upset”, “annoyed”, “bored”…?

Chateado can cover a few English ideas, and the exact nuance depends on context and country.

In European Portuguese, it most often means:

annoyed / irritated / mildly upset
sometimes bothered, put out, or a bit hurt

In some contexts it can also mean bored (especially with something that is tiresome or tedious), but that’s less common in this kind of emotional context.

So here:

ficou chateado ≈ “he got upset / annoyed about it”

It does not usually mean very strong emotions like “devastated” or “furious”; it’s more moderate. For something stronger, you might hear:

ficou zangado – he got angry
ficou muito magoado – he was deeply hurt (emotionally)

What does “no fundo” mean literally, and how is it used?

Literally:

no = em + o (“in the”)
fundo = “bottom”, “depth”

So literally it’s “in the bottom / in the depths”, but the idiomatic meaning is:

“deep down”, “deep inside”, “at heart”

In this sentence:

mas no fundo sabe que…
→ “but deep down he knows that…”

You can move no fundo a bit in the sentence:

O Pedro ficou chateado, mas sabe, no fundo, que a decisão foi justa.
No fundo, o Pedro sabe que a decisão foi justa.

All are acceptable; the version you have is very natural and smooth.

Why is the verb “sabe” in the present tense when the beginning of the sentence is in the past?

The sentence mixes a past reaction with a present, lasting knowledge:

ficou chateado – preterite (simple past): “he got upset” (a completed event)
sabe – present: “he knows” (an ongoing state, still true now)

The idea is:

He was upset at the time,
but (even now) he knows the decision was fair.

If you used soube (past of saber), it would normally mean “found out”, “learned”:

…mas no fundo soube que a decisão foi justa.
sounds like “but deep down he found out that the decision was fair”, which is not the intended idea here.

So sabe in the present is correct because his knowledge is seen as a continuing state.

Why is there no pronoun like “ele”: why “O Pedro … sabe” and not “O Pedro, ele sabe”?

In Portuguese, subject pronouns (eu, tu, ele, ela, etc.) are often omitted because the verb form itself shows the person:

sabe clearly indicates 3rd person singular → ele/ela.

Here, “O Pedro sabe” already gives you the subject very clearly:

O Pedro sabe = “Pedro knows (he knows)”

Adding a pronoun like:

O Pedro, ele sabe que…

is possible but would usually sound redundant or stylistically marked (for emphasis, or in very colloquial speech).

So the natural, neutral version is simply “O Pedro sabe”.

How does “mas” work here? Could we use “porém” or “só que” instead?

Mas is the standard, most common word for “but”:

O Pedro ficou chateado, mas no fundo sabe que…

You could use other contrast words:

porém – more formal/literary, often placed after a pause or comma:
- O Pedro ficou chateado; porém, no fundo sabe que…
só que – very colloquial, a bit like “it’s just that”:
- O Pedro ficou chateado, só que no fundo sabe que…

Nuance:

mas – neutral, fits almost any context.
porém – a bit more formal or written style.
só que – more informal, conversational, sometimes carries a slight “objection” feel (“yeah, but…”).

In your sentence, mas is the most natural and neutral choice.

Why is it “a decisão foi justa” and not “era justa”?

Portuguese distinguishes between:

foi (preterite) – completed fact in the past
era (imperfect) – ongoing, habitual, or background description

Here, foi justa treats the decision as a single, completed event that is being evaluated:

a decisão foi justa = “the decision was (indeed) fair / turned out to be fair”

If you said:

a decisão era justa

it would usually sound like you’re describing the decision in an ongoing past context, or contrasting with something else (e.g., “A decisão era justa, mas ninguém a aceitou.” – “The decision was fair, but nobody accepted it.”).

In your sentence, you’re judging that specific decision, so foi is the natural tense.

Why is it “justa” and not “justo”? How does the adjective agreement work here?

In Portuguese, adjectives agree in gender and number with the noun they describe.

decisão is a feminine singular noun
therefore the adjective justo must also be feminine singular → justa

Forms of justo:

masculino singular: justo
feminino singular: justa
masculino plural: justos
feminino plural: justas

Examples:

um castigo justo – a fair punishment (masc. sing.)
uma decisão justa – a fair decision (fem. sing.)
uns juízes justos – fair judges (masc. pl.)
umas leis justas – fair laws (fem. pl.)

So “a decisão foi justa” is correct agreement.

What exactly is “no” in “no fundo”? Why not just “em fundo”?

No is the contraction of the preposition em (“in/on/at”) with the masculine singular article o (“the”):

em + o = no

Similarly:

em + a = na
em + os = nos
em + as = nas

You can’t normally say em fundo here, because you need the article o:

em o fundo → must contract → no fundo

So:

no fundo = “in the depth” → idiomatically “deep down”

Could the word order be “O Pedro, mas no fundo, ficou chateado…” or “Mas o Pedro no fundo ficou chateado…”?

You could rearrange words, but not all orders sound natural or keep the same emphasis.

Most natural versions include:

O Pedro ficou chateado, mas no fundo sabe que a decisão foi justa. ✅
O Pedro, no fundo, sabe que a decisão foi justa, mas ficou chateado. ✅ (different emphasis)
No fundo, o Pedro sabe que a decisão foi justa, mas ficou chateado. ✅

Versions like:

O Pedro, mas no fundo, ficou chateado…
sound awkward and confusing, because mas no fundo is separating the subject from its verb in an unnatural way.

The original word order is the smoothest and clearest.

How would you say this in a slightly more formal or slightly more informal way in European Portuguese?

Original (neutral):

O Pedro ficou chateado, mas no fundo sabe que a decisão foi justa.

Slightly more formal:

O Pedro ficou aborrecido, mas, no fundo, sabe que a decisão foi justa.
- aborrecido is a bit more formal/neutral than chateado here.

More informal / conversational:

O Pedro ficou chateado, mas no fundo ele sabe que a decisão foi justa.
(adding ele for extra emphasis in speech)
O Pedro ficou chateado, mas lá no fundo sabe que a decisão foi justa.
(lá no fundo is a very natural colloquial variation of no fundo)

All of these keep essentially the same meaning, just with slightly different tone.