Breakdown of Na última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa mas falou com calma.
Questions & Answers about Na última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa mas falou com calma.
Na is one written word, but it comes from contracting the preposition em (in/at) with the feminine singular article a (the):
- em + a = na → na audiência = in/at the hearing
- similarly: em + o = no → no tribunal = in/at the court
In standard Portuguese you do contract em + a/o/os/as in almost all normal sentences, so em a última audiência would sound wrong; na última audiência is the natural form.
No, not with the same meaning.
- Na última audiência = in/at the last hearing (a setting or time frame)
- preposition em → location or time
- À última audiência would come from a + a (to the last hearing), and suggests movement or direction: to the last hearing (for example: I went to the last hearing).
So here we want the idea of during/at that hearing, so na (from em) is the correct choice.
In Portuguese, most adjectives come after the noun, but ordinal numbers like primeiro (first), segundo (second), último (last) usually come before the noun:
- a última audiência = the last hearing
- o primeiro dia = the first day
- a segunda parte = the second part
Audiência última would sound very strange and is not used in this meaning. So here, última must go before audiência.
Audiência is a feminine noun, which we see from:
- its article: a audiência (not o audiência)
- its typical ending: many nouns in -ência are feminine (e.g. a diferença, a paciência).
Because audiência is feminine, any adjective that agrees with it must also be feminine:
- a última audiência (feminine)
not o último audiência (masculine–feminine mismatch)
So yes, the gender of audiência determines that we have to say última (feminine), not último.
In Portuguese, testemunha (witness) is a noun that is grammatically feminine only, regardless of the real-life gender of the person:
- a testemunha – could be a man or a woman
- you never say o testemunha in standard Portuguese
If you need to emphasize that the witness is male, you usually show that with other words or context, not by changing the article:
- a testemunha, um homem de 40 anos…
- a testemunha, ele, afirmou que…
So a testemunha is always used, even for a male witness.
Adjectives in Portuguese agree with the grammatical gender of the noun, not necessarily the biological gender of the person.
- noun: a testemunha → grammatically feminine
- adjective: nervosa → feminine form to match a testemunha
So you say:
- A testemunha parecia nervosa. (correct, even if the person is a man)
If you then refer back to the person with a pronoun, you can still use ele for a man:
- A testemunha parecia nervosa. Ele tremia muito.
The witness seemed nervous. He was trembling a lot.
The feminine form nervosa is required because of the feminine noun testemunha.
Both are past tenses, but they give different nuances:
- parecia (imperfect) suggests:
- a background, ongoing or continuous state in the past
- how things looked over a period of time
- pareceu (simple past) suggests:
- a completed, more punctual event
- how something seemed at a particular moment
In a narrative like:
- Na última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa mas falou com calma.
the writer presents the nervousness as a general state during that hearing, not just a single flash of impression. That’s why the imperfect parecia fits better.
If you used pareceu:
- Na última audiência, a testemunha pareceu nervosa, mas falou com calma.
it would suggest more of a single impression: at some point she/they gave the impression of being nervous. It’s still correct, but the tone changes slightly.
Both refer to a state, but:
- parecia nervosa = seemed/appeared nervous
- focuses on appearance from the observer’s point of view
- implies some uncertainty: we don’t claim as fact that the person was nervous, only that they looked that way
- estava nervosa = was nervous
- states the nervousness more as a fact, a real internal state
So:
- A testemunha parecia nervosa → From what we saw, it looked like nervousness.
- A testemunha estava nervosa → We’re asserting that she/they really were nervous.
In legal or descriptive contexts, parecia is often chosen deliberately because it is more cautious and less categorical.
According to standard punctuation rules in Portuguese, yes, a comma is normally expected before mas when it links two clauses:
- Na última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa, mas falou com calma.
So the version without the comma:
- …parecia nervosa mas falou com calma.
is something you will see in real life, especially in more informal or less carefully edited writing, but in formal writing the comma before mas is recommended.
Mas is the most common word for but in Portuguese. It introduces a contrast:
- The witness seemed nervous, but spoke calmly.
Possible alternatives:
- porém – more formal/literary; normally used inside the sentence, often after a comma:
- …a testemunha parecia nervosa, porém falou com calma.
- no entanto, contudo – also formal; usually start a new clause:
- …a testemunha parecia nervosa. No entanto, falou com calma.
In everyday speech and most writing, mas is by far the most natural choice here.
Portuguese often uses the structure com + noun to express how something is done:
- falou com calma = spoke with calm(ness) → spoke calmly
- olhou com atenção = looked with attention → looked carefully
You can use the adverb:
- falou calmamente
Both are grammatically correct. The difference is mainly style:
- com calma is more colloquial and common in speech and neutral writing.
- calmamente sounds a bit more formal or literary and is used less often in everyday conversation.
So falou com calma is the most natural-sounding option in most contexts.
No. Calma without com here would be interpreted as an adjective (calm), and adjectives cannot directly modify verbs like that in Portuguese.
To describe how someone speaks (modify the verb falar), you need either:
- an adverb:
- falou calmamente (spoke calmly)
- or a prepositional phrase like com calma:
- falou com calma (literally spoke with calmness)
Falou calma is ungrammatical in this meaning.
In com calma, calma functions as a noun (calm, calmness), not an adjective.
- Structure: com + [noun] = with [something]
- com calma = with calm(ness)
As a noun, calma is grammatically feminine: a calma. Many abstract nouns ending in -a are feminine (e.g. a raiva, a força, a alegria).
The same word calmo/calma can also be an adjective:
- Ele está calmo. – He is calm.
- Ela está calma. – She is calm.
But in our sentence, calma is not describing a person; it’s the thing he/she speaks with (calmness).
Yes, you can move the time phrase around. All these are grammatically correct:
- Na última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa, mas falou com calma.
- A testemunha, na última audiência, parecia nervosa, mas falou com calma.
- A testemunha parecia nervosa na última audiência, mas falou com calma.
Differences are about emphasis and rhythm:
- Starting with Na última audiência (1) emphasizes the hearing as the time frame.
- In (2), inserting na última audiência between commas makes it a more parenthetical detail.
- In (3), mentioning na última audiência later shifts the focus first to the witness, then to when this happened.
All are fine; (1) and (3) are probably the most natural in neutral narration.
Yes, you can say:
- Durante a última audiência, a testemunha parecia nervosa, mas falou com calma.
Both na and durante a refer to that hearing as a time frame, but:
- Na última audiência = at/in the last hearing → a bit more neutral, very common.
- Durante a última audiência = during the last hearing → lightly emphasizes the duration or the whole span of the hearing.
The difference in meaning is small; it’s more about nuance and style than right vs. wrong.