Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): Ela escreve no diário como se estivesse a falar com um amigo sábio. - She writes in her diary as if she were talking to a wise friend.

Because diário is masculine singular (o diário), em o diário contracts to no diário. In speech and writing, the contracted form is the normal, natural one; em o diário sounds wrong/unnatural.

Why is it no diário and not no seu diário if we mean “in her diary”?

In European Portuguese, possession is often clear from context, so the possessive (seu/sua) is frequently omitted when it would be obvious whose thing it is.

Ela escreve no diário
= She writes in her diary (we assume it’s hers, because it’s her action).

If there were any doubt, or if you wanted to emphasize that it’s specifically her own diary (not someone else’s), you could say:

Ela escreve no seu diário. – She writes in her diary (emphasis on ownership).

But in a neutral sentence like this, no diário is completely normal and usually understood as her diary.

Why is it no diário (with “the”) instead of something like num diário (“in a diary”)?

Portuguese uses the definite article (o/a/os/as) more often than English uses the, especially with things that feel unique or specific in the situation.

A personal diary is typically a specific object we imagine she owns:

o diário – the diary (her diary, the one she uses)

So no diário feels natural, like “in the (usual / known) diary”.

If you said num diário (em um diário, “in a diary”), it would sound more like:

some diary, not a particular one, maybe any diary in general,
or you don’t have a specific diary in mind.

Given the usual context (“she writes in her diary”), no diário is the idiomatic choice.

Could you just say Escreve no diário… and leave out Ela?

Yes. In Portuguese (including European), subject pronouns like ela are often dropped when the verb form already makes the subject clear.

Ela escreve no diário… – She writes in the diary…
Escreve no diário… – (She) writes in the diary…

Both are grammatically correct.
Differences in feel:

With Ela: more explicit, can be used to contrast with someone else (e.g. Ela escreve…, ele não escreve…).
Without Ela: more neutral, typical narrative style once it’s clear who you’re talking about from context.

Why is it escreve (simple present) instead of something like está a escrever?

The simple present in Portuguese (escreve) can express:

A habitual action:
- Ela escreve no diário todos os dias. – She writes in her diary every day.
A general description of behavior or style:
- Ela escreve no diário como se estivesse a falar…
  – She writes in the diary as if she were talking…

Here we’re describing how she generally writes (her way/style), not just what she’s doing at this exact moment. The simple present is perfect for that.

If you said:

Ela está a escrever no diário… – She is writing in the diary…

you’d emphasise a specific ongoing action right now. That would change the meaning to “She is (currently) writing in her diary as if she were talking…”, which is different from describing her usual way of writing.

What does como se mean, and is it different from just como?

como = as / like / how
como se = as if / as though

Como se introduces a comparison that is imagined or hypothetical, not literally true:

Ela escreve no diário como se estivesse a falar…
– She writes in the diary as if she were talking…

If you used only como, you’d usually be comparing with something real or direct:

Ela escreve como uma criança. – She writes like a child.
Ela escreve como um profissional. – She writes like a professional.

So:

como → real/straight comparison (“like”)
como se → imagined / as-if situation (“as if” / “as though”), and it normally triggers the subjunctive in Portuguese.

Why is it estivesse instead of estava after como se?

Because como se typically takes the subjunctive when the comparison is hypothetical or unreal.

estava = past imperfect indicative
estivesse = past imperfect subjunctive

The structure is:

como se
- imperfect subjunctive → “as if [someone] were… / as if [something] happened…”

So:

como se estivesse a falar ≈ “as if she were talking”

If you said como se estava a falar, it would sound wrong to native speakers; como se in this type of meaning almost always calls for estivesse, not estava.

What does estivesse a falar literally mean, and why use this progressive form here?

Literally:

estivesse – (that) she were (subjunctive of estar)
a falar – speaking / talking (European Portuguese progressive form)

So estivesse a falar = “were (to be) talking”.

Why progressive?

Because the English idea is “as if she were talking (to a wise friend)” – not just a one-time act of speaking, but an ongoing way of communicating. The progressive fits that ongoing feel well.

You could also say:

como se falasse com um amigo sábio.

This is also correct. Subtle nuance:

como se falasse… – a bit more compact, slightly more formal or literary.
como se estivesse a falar… – more vivid, emphasises the process / ongoing nature of “speaking”.

In everyday European Portuguese, estar a + infinitive is a very common way to express progressiveness, including in hypothetical contexts like this.

Is estar a falar specifically European Portuguese? How would Brazilians say this?

Yes, estar a + infinitive is the main progressive form in European Portuguese.

European: estar a falar – to be speaking
Brazilian: estar falando – to be speaking

So a natural Brazilian-Portuguese version of the second half of the sentence would be:

…como se estivesse falando com um amigo sábio.

In European Portuguese, …como se estivesse falando… is also understood, but estar a falar is more standard and more natural.

Why is it com um amigo sábio and not para um amigo sábio?

Because:

falar com alguém = to talk with / to someone (interactive, as in a conversation)
falar para alguém = to speak to someone (more one-directional: addressing, speaking in someone’s direction, sometimes like giving a speech)

Since a diary is like a conversation with an imagined person, falar com um amigo sábio (“talk with a wise friend”) captures the idea of an intimate, two-way kind of communication, even if the friend is imaginary.

Falar para um amigo sábio would sound more like she’s making a speech addressed to that friend, which doesn’t fit the diary image as well.

Why is the adjective after the noun (amigo sábio) and not before (sábio amigo)? Does the order change the meaning?

In Portuguese, the default order is:

noun + adjective: amigo sábio – wise friend

Putting the adjective before can change the nuance or sometimes the meaning:

amigo sábio
- neutral, descriptive: a friend who is wise.
sábio amigo
- possible, but now it can sound a bit more expressive / literary / poetic, or can emphasize the emotional value of the friend: “my wise friend” with a warmer, perhaps slightly more elevated tone.

In everyday speech, you’ll hear amigo sábio more often.
Sábio amigo is not wrong; it just has a different flavour (poetic, emphatic, or addressing the friend directly: “Ó sábio amigo, ajuda-me…”).

Does diário always mean “diary”? I’ve heard it can mean other things.

Diário has a few related meanings, depending on context:

Noun – diary / journal
- Escrevo no meu diário. – I write in my diary.
Adjective – daily
- rotina diária – daily routine
- jornal diário – daily newspaper
Noun – (less common) daily newspaper
- Comprei o diário na banca. – I bought the daily (newspaper) at the newsstand.

In this sentence, because of escrever no diário and the “as if she were talking to a wise friend” idea, the meaning is clearly personal diary / journal.