Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): Alguns amigos meus não confiam na democracia e dizem que nenhuma eleição muda nada. - Some of my friends don’t trust democracy and say that no election changes anything.

Alguns amigos literally means “some friends” without clearly saying whose friends they are. Context might make it obvious they are your own friends, but grammatically it’s not specified.

Alguns amigos meus explicitly means “some friends of mine”. The meus (“my”) makes it clear that these are the speaker’s own friends. So the full phrase is the most natural way to say “some of my friends” / “some friends of mine” in Portuguese.

What’s the difference between alguns amigos meus and alguns dos meus amigos?

Both can often be translated as “some of my friends”, but there is a nuance:

Alguns amigos meus
- Very close to English “some friends of mine”.
- Feels a bit looser and more indefinite. You’re just saying that among the people who are your friends, some of them have this opinion.
Alguns dos meus amigos
- More literally “some of my friends (out of the group)”.
- Slightly more partitive: you’re thinking of the whole set of your friends and saying that a subset of that specific group has this opinion.
- Often used when the set has already been mentioned or is very clear from context.

In practice, both are correct here; alguns amigos meus is very natural and maybe a bit more conversational.

Why is it amigos meus instead of meus amigos?

Both exist, but they’re used differently:

Meus amigos = “my friends” as a defined group.
- Example: Os meus amigos não confiam na democracia. – “My friends don’t trust democracy.”
Amigos meus = “friends of mine”, more indefinite.
- Example: Alguns amigos meus não confiam na democracia. – “Some friends of mine don’t trust democracy.”

Putting the possessive meus after the noun often gives this “of mine” feel, rather than referring to the whole, clearly defined group of “my friends”.

Why do you say não confiam na democracia and not não confiam democracia?

Because the verb confiar (“to trust”) in this sense is used with the preposition em:

confiar em algo / em alguém = to trust in something / someone

So you need em plus the noun:

confiar na democracia
= confiar em + a democracia
= “to trust in democracy”

You cannot just say confiar democracia. Without the preposition, it sounds wrong to a native speaker.

(There is another pattern confiar algo a alguém = “to entrust something to someone”, but that’s a different structure. Here we are using “trust in”.)

What exactly is na in na democracia?

Na is a contraction:

em (in/on) + a (the, feminine singular definite article) → na

So:

em a democracia → na democracia (“in the democracy” / “in democracy”)

Similar contractions you’ll often see:

em + o → no
em + os → nos
em + as → nas

Could you also say não confiam em democracia without the article? Would that change the meaning?

You can say em democracia in Portuguese, but it’s mainly used in certain fixed expressions, like:

viver em democracia – “to live in (a state of) democracy”
nascer e crescer em democracia

With confiar, the natural, idiomatic option is confiar na democracia:

não confiam na democracia is what people actually say.

Não confiam em democracia is understandable but sounds more unusual and very abstract, almost like “they don’t trust in democracy as a concept”. In everyday European Portuguese for this sentence, na democracia is strongly preferred.

Why does confiar take em (in confiar em), but the opposite desconfiar usually takes de?

This is one of those verb–preposition pairings you largely have to memorize:

confiar em alguém / em algo – to trust (in) someone / something
- Confio em ti. – “I trust you.”
desconfiar de alguém / de algo – to distrust / be suspicious of
- Desconfio da democracia. – “I’m suspicious of democracy.”

So:

não confiam na democracia – “they don’t trust democracy”
desconfiam da democracia – “they distrust / are suspicious of democracy”

Both sentences are natural, but the preposition changes with the verb: confiar em, desconfiar de.

Why is it dizem que and not estão a dizer que or disseram que?

The plain present dizem often expresses a general, repeated, or current attitude:

Alguns amigos meus … dizem que…
→ “Some friends of mine say (i.e. their general opinion is) that…”

Other options would slightly change the meaning:

estão a dizer que – “are saying that (right now, at this moment)”
- Focus on what they’re currently in the process of saying.
disseram que – “said that” (past, completed)
- Refers to something they said at some specific time in the past.

In your sentence, the idea is a standing opinion these friends have, so dizem que is the natural choice.

Why is it nenhuma eleição muda nada with muda in the singular, and not mudam?

The subject of the verb is nenhuma eleição:

eleição is singular (“election”)
nenhuma = “no / not any”, also singular

So the verb agrees with this singular subject:

nenhuma eleição muda nada – “no election changes anything”

Even though in English we often say “no elections change anything” (plural), in Portuguese you keep it singular here because you’re literally saying “not any election changes anything”.

Is nenhuma eleição muda nada a double negative? Is that actually correct in Portuguese?

Yes, there are two negative elements (nenhuma and nada), and yes, this is perfectly correct Portuguese.

Portuguese uses negative concord: multiple negative words in the same clause normally give one overall negation, not a “double negative = positive” like in standard English.

Some patterns:

If the negative word comes before the verb, you usually don’t need não:
- Ninguém veio. – “Nobody came.”
- Nunca falo disso. – “I never talk about that.”
- Nenhuma eleição muda nada. – “No election changes anything.”
If the negative word comes after the verb, you normally add não:
- Não veio ninguém. – “Nobody came.”
- Não falo disso nunca. – “I never talk about that.”
- As eleições não mudam nada. – “Elections don’t change anything.”

In nenhuma eleição muda nada, both nenhuma (“no/none”) and nada (“nothing/anything”) are negative; together they reinforce the idea that there is absolutely no change.

Could you say nenhuma eleição muda alguma coisa instead of nenhuma eleição muda nada? What’s the difference?

In this exact structure, nenhuma eleição muda alguma coisa is not really idiomatic. Normally you’d pair:

nenhum / nenhuma with nada, coisa nenhuma, or coisa alguma:
- Nenhuma eleição muda nada.
- Nenhuma eleição muda coisa nenhuma.
- Nenhuma eleição muda coisa alguma. (a bit more formal/literary)

Alguma coisa on its own is more natural in:

Questions:
- Isso muda alguma coisa? – “Does that change anything?”
Some affirmative sentences:
- Isso muda alguma coisa na tua vida. – “That changes something in your life.”

So for your meaning (“no election changes anything (at all)”), natives would say:

Nenhuma eleição muda nada. (most common, neutral)
Nenhuma eleição muda coisa nenhuma. (more emphatic)
Nenhuma eleição muda coisa alguma. (slightly more formal)

Why don’t we use the subjunctive after dizem que, like dizem que nenhuma eleição mude nada?

After dizer que there are two main uses, with different moods:

Reporting what someone says / thinks is true → indicative
- Dizem que nenhuma eleição muda nada.
  = “They say that no election changes anything.”
  You’re just reporting their statement/belief, so muda (indicative) is used.
Telling someone to do something / giving orders or requests → subjunctive
- Dizem que eu mude de emprego.
  = “They say (they tell me) that I should change jobs.”
  Here dizem means “they tell (me)” and mude (subjunctive) expresses a desired or requested action.

In your sentence, dizem que is clearly just “they say that…”, i.e. a statement of belief, so the indicative muda is correct.

Can you drop que and say … e dizem nenhuma eleição muda nada like in English “they say no election changes anything”?

No, in standard Portuguese you normally cannot drop que here.

The clause nenhuma eleição muda nada is the direct object of dizem, and in Portuguese we almost always introduce such finite subordinate clauses with que:

dizem que nenhuma eleição muda nada – correct and natural
dizem nenhuma eleição muda nada – sounds wrong/foreign

There are cases where que can be omitted in very informal speech, but not in this kind of structure in careful or standard Portuguese. Here, que is required.

Is there a difference between não confiam na democracia and desconfiam da democracia?

Yes, there’s a nuance:

não confiam na democracia
- Literally “do not trust in democracy”.
- Focus on the absence of trust. It’s relatively neutral: they just don’t have confidence in it.
desconfiam da democracia
- Literally “distrust / are suspicious of democracy”.
- Stronger and more active: suggests mistrust, suspicion, perhaps expecting bad intentions or hidden problems.

Both could fit the context, but the original não confiam na democracia is slightly less loaded and sounds like a simple lack of faith rather than active suspicion.