Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): No final, a juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso e disseram que a família havia de encontrar paz. - In the end, the female judge and the male judge smiled and said that the family would find peace.

What does "No final" mean here? Is it the same as "finally" or "in the end", and how is it different from "no fim" or "finalmente"?

"No final" literally means "at the end" or "in the end". It’s an adverbial phrase of time, like "in the end, ..." at the start of an English sentence.

"No final" / "no fim"
These are very close in meaning and often interchangeable in this kind of narrative sentence:
- No final, a juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso…
- No fim, a juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso…
  Both = "In the end, the (female) judge and the (male) judge smiled…"
"Finalmente"
This is closer to "finally / at last", often with a stronger emotional nuance (relief, impatience, etc.):
- Finalmente, a juíza deu a sentença. = Finally, the judge gave the sentence (at last!).

So in this sentence, "No final" is a neutral temporal marker – it just situates the action at the end of events, without necessarily implying relief or impatience.

Why do we say "a juíza e o juiz" instead of just "os juízes" (the judges)?

Portuguese normally allows a generic masculine plural for mixed-gender groups:

os juízes = the judges (men and/or women)

But here, the sentence deliberately mentions:

a juíza = the (female) judge
o juiz = the (male) judge

This:

Makes gender explicit – it tells you clearly there is one woman and one man.
Emphasizes the pair as individuals, not just “a group of judges.”
Can be a stylistic choice, adding a bit of rhythm or balance: a juíza e o juiz.

Grammatically, both "a juíza e o juiz" and "os juízes" are fine; they just convey slightly different focus.

Why do we use the definite articles "a" and "o" before "juíza" and "juiz"? In English we just say “judge” without “the”.

In European Portuguese, it’s very common to use a definite article before a profession when you’re talking about a specific person with that role:

a juíza = the (specific) female judge
o juiz = the (specific) male judge

Some patterns:

a professora chegou = the (female) teacher arrived
o médico falou comigo = the doctor spoke to me

English often drops the article with professions when they function almost like titles:

“Judge Smith smiled.”
“Doctor, can you help me?”

Portuguese tends to keep the article unless the noun is used directly as a title before a name:

a juíza falou
but Juíza Silva falou (no definite article before Juíza Silva).

So "a juíza e o juiz" is the natural way to say "the judge (f.) and the judge (m.)" in this context.

Why is the verb in the plural "deram" when we have "a juíza e o juiz"?

In Portuguese, the verb agrees with the whole subject, not just the closest word. The subject here is a coordination of two nouns:

a juíza e o juiz
→ two people → plural subject

Therefore, the verbs must be in the 3rd person plural:

deram (they gave)
disseram (they said)

If the subject were just one person, you’d have:

A juíza deu um sorriso. = The (female) judge gave a smile.
O juiz disse que… = The (male) judge said that…

Why "deram um sorriso" and not simply "sorriram"? Don’t both mean “they smiled”?

Both are correct, but there’s a nuance:

sorrir = to smile (verb)
- A juíza e o juiz sorriram. = The judge and the judge smiled.
dar um sorriso = literally “to give a smile”, a verb + noun expression
- A juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso. = The judge and the judge gave a smile.

Differences:

Style / register:
- dar um sorriso can sound a bit more narrative or descriptive, sometimes slightly more literary or visual.
- sorrir is more direct and neutral.
Aspect:
- deram um sorriso can suggest a single, brief smile (a specific act).
- sorriram can be more general (they smiled, were smiling).

You can usually swap them without changing the basic meaning, but "deram um sorriso" gives a bit more of a “one, particular smile” feeling.

What is the role of "que" in "disseram que a família havia de encontrar paz"? Why not "disseram para..."?

Here, "que" introduces reported speech (indirect speech):

disseram que… = they said that…

So:

disseram que a família havia de encontrar paz
= they said that the family would find peace / was bound to find peace.

"dizer para" usually has a different function:

Giving instructions / telling someone to do something:
- Disse para fechares a porta.
  = He/She told you to close the door.
Sometimes more colloquial with the sense of “to tell someone”
- infinitive:
- Disseram para esperar. = They said to wait.

In your sentence, they are not giving an order to the family, they are stating a prediction or reassurance, so "disseram que" + a full clause is the correct structure.

What does the construction "havia de encontrar" mean? Is it the same as "vai encontrar" or "encontraria"?

"havia de + infinitive" is a periphrastic (multi-word) verb construction. Here:

havia de encontrar ≈ would find / was bound to find / was destined to find.

Nuances:

It often carries a sense of eventuality or destiny, like “sooner or later”, “it is meant to happen”.
In European Portuguese, it can be quite natural in narrative or slightly formal / literary language.

Rough comparisons:

vai encontrar paz = will find peace (simple future; neutral prediction)
encontraria paz = would find peace (conditional; hypothetical)
havia de encontrar paz = would (surely/eventually) find peace (future seen from a past point, often with a tone of moral certainty or destiny)

So in this context, "havia de encontrar paz" implies they reassured the family that, in time, peace would come.

Why is it "havia de encontrar" and not "há de encontrar"?

The difference is tense:

há de + infinitive uses "há" (present tense of haver used as an auxiliary here)
→ refers to the present or future from the speaker’s current point of view:
- A família há de encontrar paz.
  = The family will (surely) find peace.
havia de + infinitive uses "havia" (imperfect)
→ refers to a future from a point in the past (like English “would” in reported speech):
- Direct speech (at the time):
  - A família há de encontrar paz. = The family will surely find peace.
- Reported later:
  - Disseram que a família havia de encontrar paz.
    = They said that the family would (surely) find peace.

So "havia de" is the past version of "há de" in this kind of reported-speech context.

Does "de" in "havia de encontrar" have a meaning by itself, like “of” or “from”?

In this construction, "de" does not carry its usual “of / from” lexical meaning. It’s part of a fixed verbal expression:

haver de + infinitive
- hei de fazer
- havemos de ver
- havia de acontecer

Here, "de" is just the preposition that links "haver" to the infinitive to create a modal-like meaning (eventuality, destiny, a kind of “will / shall” nuance).

So you should learn "haver de + infinitive" as one unit, rather than trying to interpret "de" separately.

Why is it "a família" (singular) when it refers to several people? How does that affect the verb "encontrar"?

In Portuguese, "a família" is grammatically singular, even though it refers to a group. This is similar to English:

“The family is here.” (AmE often uses singular)
“My family has arrived.”

So:

a família havia de encontrar paz
→ subject = a família (singular)
→ verb = havia de encontrar (3rd person singular)

In European Portuguese:

Collective nouns like a família, a equipa, o governo usually take singular verb agreement:
- A família chegou. = The family arrived.
- A equipa ganhou. = The team won.

Sometimes, especially in speech, you may hear plural verbs when the speaker is emphasizing the individuals inside the group, but singular is the standard and what you have in this sentence.

Why is there no article before "paz"? Could we say "a paz" instead of just "paz"?

Here, "paz" is used as an abstract, uncountable concept, and Portuguese often drops the article in that case:

encontrar paz = to find peace (in general)

You can say "a paz", but it slightly shifts the nuance:

encontrar a paz
- often sounds like “to find (the) peace”, maybe a more specific or desired peace, often with a bit more emotional or symbolic weight.

Compare:

precisamos de paz = we need peace (in general)
precisamos da paz = we need (the) peace (could refer to a more specific, already-mentioned peace: world peace, peace in our country, etc.)

In your sentence, "encontrar paz" sounds perfectly natural and means to find peace in their lives / hearts, in a general sense.

Why is there a comma after "No final"? Could we place "no final" somewhere else in the sentence?

"No final" is an adverbial phrase of time, and at the beginning of the sentence it functions as a sentence adverbial. In Portuguese, when you put such an adverbial at the very start, it’s normal to separate it with a comma:

No final, a juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso…

You could also change the position:

Mid-sentence (optional commas, depending on emphasis):
- A juíza e o juiz, no final, deram um sorriso…
  Here the commas mark "no final" as extra information.
End of the sentence (often no comma):
- A juíza e o juiz deram um sorriso no final.

All of these are grammatically correct. The original version, with "No final" at the start, gently sets the scene like an English: “In the end, the judge and the judge smiled…”