Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. - The waiter told me that the curry is not very spicy.

Literally, empregado de mesa is table employee, i.e., the person who works at the tables in a restaurant. It’s the standard European Portuguese term for waiter.

A few notes:

In Portugal, you’ll hear:
- empregado de mesa / empregada de mesa – formal/neutral.
- Just empregado / empregada – often clear enough in a restaurant context.
In Brazil, the common word is garçom (waiter) / garçonete (waitress), not empregado de mesa.

So in Portugal this sentence is very natural and polite-sounding.

Why is there an o before empregado de mesa and also before caril?

Portuguese uses definite articles (o, a, os, as) more often than English does.

o empregado de mesa → literally the waiter, but in English we often just say the waiter or sometimes a waiter. In Portuguese, you almost always include the article before a singular, countable noun like this.
o caril → literally the curry. Portuguese tends to use the definite article for specific items that both speaker and listener know about (e.g., the curry on today’s menu).

So:

O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril…
= The waiter told me that the curry…

Dropping the o in either place would sound wrong or very odd in standard Portuguese.

Why is the pronoun written as disse‑me and not separately as disse me or before the verb like me disse?

In European Portuguese, unstressed object pronouns (like me, te, lhe, nos, vos, lhes) are usually attached to the verb with a hyphen in affirmative main clauses. This is called enclisis.

disse‑me = he/she told me
(disse
- me with a hyphen)

General rule (European Portuguese, in simple affirmative sentences):

The pronoun goes after the verb with a hyphen:
- Ele disse‑me. – He told me.
- Mostrou‑nos o menu. – He showed us the menu.

Me disse (pronoun before the verb) is usual in Brazilian Portuguese, but in European Portuguese it normally needs a “trigger” word (like não, já, quem, que, etc.). With no trigger, disse‑me is the natural form:

O empregado de mesa disse‑me… ✅
O empregado de mesa me disse… ❌ (sounds Brazilian / non‑standard in Portugal)

Could we say falou comigo instead of disse‑me? What’s the difference?

Yes, you could say it, but it changes the nuance slightly.

disse‑me = told me / said to me (focus on the content of the message)
falou comigo = spoke with me / talked to me (focus on the fact of talking, less on the specific message)

In this sentence, we care about exactly what was said (“that the curry isn’t very spicy”), so disse‑me que… is the most natural:

O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. ✅
O empregado de mesa falou comigo e disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. (a bit longer, but also fine)

Why is the verb dizer in the past (disse‑me) but não é is in the present? Shouldn’t it be não era?

Portuguese allows both patterns in reported speech, depending on what you want to emphasize.

Present tense in the subordinate clause (as in the sentence):
- O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante.
  This suggests the statement is still valid now. The speaker treats “the curry is not very spicy” as a current fact.
Past tense in the subordinate clause:
- O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não era muito picante.
  This treats it more as something that was said then, without committing so strongly to whether it’s true now. It can sound more like indirect quotation in the past.

In everyday speech, it’s very common to keep the present if you believe the information still applies at the time you’re speaking.

Why is it não é and not não está picante? What’s the difference between ser and estar here?

Ser and estar both translate as to be, but they’re used differently:

ser picante → describes a general or inherent characteristic (“this dish/curry is spicy by nature”).
estar picante → describes a temporary state (“right now it is spicy”, maybe more than usual today).

In restaurant talk:

O caril não é muito picante.
= “This curry is not very spicy (as a general property, the way they make it).”

You can say:

O caril hoje está muito picante.
= “Today the curry is very spicy.” (today it’s unusually spicy)

But in your sentence, the waiter is describing the type of curry, so é is the expected choice.

What exactly does muito picante mean? Is it “very spicy” or “too spicy”? And how does não é muito picante sound?

muito is a general intensifier, and its exact feel depends on context:

muito picante usually = very spicy, quite spicy.
demasiado picante = too spicy (more clearly “excessively spicy”).

So:

O caril é muito picante. → “The curry is very spicy.”
O caril é demasiado picante. → “The curry is too spicy.”

Your sentence:

O caril não é muito picante.
= “The curry is not very spicy / not that spicy.”

It sounds reassuring, like “Don’t worry, it’s not very hot.”

What does caril mean, and is it always masculine (o caril)?

Caril is the European Portuguese word for curry (the dish or the curry sauce).

It is masculine: o caril, um caril.
Plural: os caris (though you’ll more often talk about specific dishes, like caril de frango – chicken curry, caril de gambas – prawn curry).

So:

O caril não é muito picante.
= “The curry is not very spicy.”

In Brazilian Portuguese, you’re more likely to see curry (borrowed from English), but in Portugal caril is common.

Why is it empregado de mesa and not empregado da mesa?

de and da are related but used differently:

de = “of / from”
da = de + a (“of the / from the”, feminine singular)

In empregado de mesa, de is used to form a compound noun describing the person’s function or area:

empregado de mesa = table waiter
empregado de balcão = counter clerk
sapatos de corrida = running shoes

It’s not literally “employee of the table”, but more “employee for the tables”.

da mesa would usually mean “of the table” in a more literal, possessive sense (e.g., “the legs of the table”: as pernas da mesa), which isn’t what we want here.

Could we leave out de mesa and just say o empregado disse‑me?

Yes, in context that would usually be understood as the waiter:

In a restaurant, o empregado is naturally interpreted as the waiter.
Adding de mesa is a bit more explicit and formal, and it’s very standard in writing and neutral speech.

So:

O empregado disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. – natural in context.
O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. – fully explicit, also very natural.

Is the word order fixed? Could I say disse‑me o empregado de mesa que o caril não é muito picante?

Portuguese word order is relatively flexible, but there’s a default order that sounds most natural.

Default and most common:

O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante. ✅
(subject – verb – pronoun – rest)

Reordering to:

Disse‑me o empregado de mesa que o caril não é muito picante.

is grammatically possible, but:

It sounds more stylized or literary.
It can give extra emphasis to disse‑me or to introducing this as a report of speech.

For everyday spoken Portuguese, stick to the original order.

How is this whole sentence pronounced in European Portuguese?

Approximate IPA for European Portuguese:

O empregado de mesa disse‑me que o caril não é muito picante.
/u ẽpɾɨˈɡaðu dɨ ˈmezɐ ˈdisəmɨ kɨ u kɐˈɾil nɐ̃w ɛ ˈmũjtu piˈkɐ̃tɨ/

Some hints:

empregado → stress on -ga-: em‑pre‑GA‑do
mesa → ME‑za
disse‑me → DI‑sə‑mə (very quick ‑me)
caril → ca‑RIL (with the Portuguese tapped r)
não → nasal, like “now” with a nasal n.
picante → pi‑CAN‑t(uh), with a nasal -can-.

In normal speech, the whole thing flows quite quickly, with many unstressed vowels reduced (sounding like a short “uh”).