Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): Se chover no dia da eleição, eu levo guarda‑chuva; caso esteja sol, vou a pé. - If it rains on election day, I’ll take an umbrella; if it’s sunny, I’ll go on foot.

You can normally replace caso with se without changing the basic meaning:
- Se estiver sol, vou a pé.
caso often sounds slightly more formal, or a bit closer to “in case” in English, but here it can be translated simply as if.

So the sentence could very naturally also be:

Se chover no dia da eleição, levo guarda-chuva; se estiver sol, vou a pé.

Why is it se chover and not se chova or se chove?

Because Portuguese has a future subjunctive, and for the verb chover, the future subjunctive form is chover.

se chover here means if it rains (in the future / on that day).
It refers to a future, uncertain event.

Compare the forms of chover (impersonal verb, 3rd person singular only):

Present indicative: chove – it rains / it is raining (now, in general)
Present subjunctive: chova – used in other subordinate clauses (Espero que chova – I hope it rains)
Future subjunctive: chover – used after se, quando, enquanto, etc., for future situations.

In European Portuguese (and Brazilian Portuguese), the normal pattern for future conditions is:

Se + future subjunctive, then present or future in the main clause:
- Se chover, levo guarda-chuva.
- Se chover, levarei guarda-chuva.

Why is it caso esteja sol and not something like caso é sol or caso está sol?

Two points:

Verb choice (ser vs. estar)
- To talk about the weather being sunny, Portuguese normally uses estar or fazer, not ser:
  - Está sol. = It’s sunny.
  - Faz sol. (more common in Brazil)
- É sol is not used for weather.
Mood and tense
- caso esteja sol uses esteja, which is present subjunctive.
- This fits because caso introduces a possible but uncertain situation.
- A very common alternative would be:
  - Se estiver sol, vou a pé. (future subjunctive estiver)

So the sentence is grammatically fine, but in very natural European Portuguese you’d more often hear:

Se estiver sol, vou a pé.
Se fizer sol, vou a pé.

Why is it eu levo guarda‑chuva and not eu levarei guarda‑chuva (future tense)?

Portuguese very often uses the present indicative to talk about future events, especially when they are:

planned,
or directly linked to a condition in the same sentence.

So:

Se chover, eu levo guarda‑chuva.
literally: If it rains, I take an umbrella.
but normally translated: If it rains, I’ll take an umbrella.

You can say:

Se chover, eu levarei guarda‑chuva.

This is correct, but sounds a bit more formal or written; everyday speech strongly prefers the present form levo in this type of conditional.

Why is it vou a pé and not something like andarei or caminho?

Vou a pé is the most idiomatic and common way to say I’ll walk / I go on foot.

vou is the present indicative of “ir” (to go), but as with levo, it often refers to the future in context:
- Amanhã vou a pé. = Tomorrow I’ll go on foot.
a pé literally means on foot.

Alternatives:

Vou a pé. – neutral, very common.
Vou andando. – also common, more colloquial: I’ll go walking / I’ll walk.
Caminho. – just “I walk”, without the idea of to a certain place unless context makes it clear.

So vou a pé is the most natural choice for this sentence.

Why is a pé written without an accent (a, not à)?

Because here a is a simple preposition, not a contraction with the article a.

a pé = on foot
– a is just a preposition.
à (with accent) = contraction of a + a (preposition + feminine article)
- e.g. Vou à escola. = I go to the school.

There is no article before pé, so it’s simply:

a pé (never à pé).

Why is there no article before guarda‑chuva (why not um guarda‑chuva)?

In Portuguese, with some common objects, when the meaning is generic (not focusing on one particular item), the indefinite article can be omitted:

Levo guarda‑chuva. = I (will) take an umbrella (in general).
Levo um guarda‑chuva. = I (will) take an umbrella (also correct; slightly more specific).

Both are correct here. Without um, it sounds a bit more general and matter‑of‑fact, and that’s quite natural in European Portuguese.

Some similar patterns:

Tenho carro. = I have a car.
Tenho um carro. = I have a car (more specific, often introducing it as new information).

Why is guarda‑chuva written with a hyphen? And how does it form the plural?

Guarda‑chuva is a compound noun:

guardar = to guard / to protect
chuva = rain
→ literally: rain‑guard, i.e. an umbrella.

Spelling under the current orthographic agreement:

guarda‑chuva (always with a hyphen).

Plural:

um guarda‑chuva → dois guarda‑chuvas
- only chuva takes the plural s: guarda-chuvas.

This is the same in European and Brazilian Portuguese.

Why do we have no dia da eleição instead of something like em o dia de a eleição?

Portuguese frequently contracts prepositions + articles:

em + o → no
- em o dia → no dia = on the day
de + a → da
- de a eleição → da eleição = of the election

So:

no dia da eleição = on the day of the election.

Other natural options:

no dia das eleições – on election day (plural “elections”).
no dia da votação – on the day of the voting.
na eleição – literally “in the election”, often used as “on election day” in context.

Why is there no explicit subject pronoun with chover (no ele)?

Weather verbs like chover are impersonal in Portuguese:

Chove. = It’s raining.
Vai chover. = It’s going to rain.
Se chover… = If it rains…

There is no real subject (no “it” like in English), and you never say:

Ele chove. (incorrect in this sense)

So the clause se chover is complete without any pronoun.

Is the eu in eu levo guarda‑chuva necessary?

Grammatically, no. Portuguese verb endings show the person, so you can omit the pronoun:

Levo guarda‑chuva. = I (will) take an umbrella.

Including eu adds:

a bit of emphasis (contrasting with someone else: I will, maybe others won’t),
or just a slightly more explicit, personal tone.

Both of these are perfectly correct:

Se chover, levo guarda‑chuva.
Se chover, eu levo guarda‑chuva.

Could we change the word order and say Eu levo guarda‑chuva se chover no dia da eleição?

Yes. Both word orders are normal:

Condition first (very common and slightly more natural):
- Se chover no dia da eleição, eu levo guarda‑chuva.
Main clause first:
- Eu levo guarda‑chuva se chover no dia da eleição.

The meaning is the same. Portuguese, like English, commonly puts the “if” clause first, but it’s not required.

Why does the sentence use a semicolon (;) instead of a comma or e (and)?

The semicolon separates two closely related, but still independent, clauses:

Se chover…, eu levo guarda‑chuva;
caso esteja sol, vou a pé.

You could write it in several ways:

With a semicolon (as given) – highlights a balanced contrast.
With e:
- Se chover…, eu levo guarda‑chuva, e caso esteja sol, vou a pé.
With a period:
- Se chover…, eu levo guarda‑chuva. Caso esteja sol, vou a pé.

All are acceptable. The semicolon here just emphasizes the parallel structure between the rainy‑day plan and the sunny‑day plan.

Is there any difference in tone between se estiver sol and caso esteja sol?

Yes, a small one:

Se estiver sol:
- most common,
- neutral, everyday speech.
Caso esteja sol:
- slightly more formal or careful,
- more often seen in written Portuguese or in more formal spoken registers.

In normal conversation, a European Portuguese speaker would almost always say:

Se estiver sol, vou a pé.