Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): A guia disse‑nos que ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé nesse aquário. - The guide told us that she was going to show us a baby shark in that aquarium.

disse‑nos – said to us
- Verb: dizer (to say/tell)
- Structure: dizer algo a alguém → to say something to someone
- nos here = to us (indirect object)
mostrar‑nos – show to us
- Verb: mostrar (to show)
- Structure: mostrar algo a alguém → to show something to someone
- nos again = to us (indirect object)

So the guide:

said to us (first “nos”)
that she was going to show us (second “nos”).

If you removed one nos, you would remove one of those “to us” meanings and lose clarity.

Why is "nos" attached with a hyphen after the verbs (disse‑nos, mostrar‑nos) instead of written separately, like in English?

Because in Portuguese, unstressed object pronouns (me, te, se, nos, vos, o, a, lhe, etc.) are usually clitic pronouns — they “lean on” a verb and are written together with it, often with a hyphen.

In this sentence:

disse‑nos = disse + nos (told us)
mostrar‑nos = mostrar + nos (to show us)

In European Portuguese, this post‑verb placement with a hyphen (enclisis) is very common in affirmative main clauses and after infinitives:

Ele disse‑nos. – He told us.
Vai mostrar‑nos. – He/She is going to show us.

Compare:

English: told us (separate word)
Portuguese: disse‑nos (attached with hyphen)

Could I put "nos" before the verb, like "nos disse" instead of "disse‑nos"?

In European Portuguese:

In a simple affirmative main clause, the default is after the verb:
- A guia disse‑nos... (most natural)
Nos disse is not wrong, but it usually sounds:
- more formal, or
- influenced by Brazilian Portuguese, where proclisis (pronoun before the verb) is much more common.

So in Portugal you will hear primarily:

A guia disse‑nos que... ✅ (most idiomatic)
and only occasionally:
A guia nos disse que... (under Brazilian influence or in very formal written style)

However, in the second clause, because of "que", the rules change; see next question.

Why is it "ia mostrar‑nos" and not "ia nos mostrar"?

Two things are going on:

"ia mostrar" is "ir" (imperfect) + infinitive
- ia mostrar = was going to show.
With infinitives in European Portuguese, pronouns normally attach directly to the infinitive:
- mostrar‑nos – to show us
- ver‑te – to see you
- ajudar‑me – to help me

So in EP:

ia mostrar‑nos ✅ (standard)
ia nos mostrar ❌ (sounds Brazilian; not standard for Portugal)

In Brazilian Portuguese, ia nos mostrar is very natural; in Portugal, prefer ia mostrar‑nos.

What tense is "ia" here, and why not just "vai mostrar‑nos"?

Ia is the imperfect tense of ir (to go), used in the construction:

ir (imperfect) + infinitive → "was going to do" something.

So:

ia mostrar‑nos ≈ was going to show us / was going to be showing us

We use ia here because the whole sentence is in past reported speech:

At some point in the past, the guide said to us that she *was going to show us...*

If we said:

A guia diz‑nos que vai mostrar‑nos...
→ The guide tells us that she is going to show us... (present reporting)
A guia disse‑nos que vai mostrar‑nos...
→ grammatically possible, but it mixes past reporting with present/future viewpoint and is less neutral than ia mostrar‑nos in this context.

So ia mostrar‑nos correctly matches disse‑nos in the past.

Could we say "mostraria‑nos" instead of "ia mostrar‑nos"? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say:

A guia disse‑nos que nos mostraria um tubarão bebé nesse aquário.

Mostraria is the future subjunctive / conditional form (here, conditional-like).

Differences:

ia mostrar‑nos
- Very common and natural in spoken Portuguese.
- Direct equivalent of English “was going to show us”.
- Slightly more informal / everyday.
mostraria‑nos
- Feels more formal / literary.
- Often associated with written narratives, formal reports, or careful style.
- Can also suggest a more hypothetical or conditional nuance depending on context.

In everyday speech, ia mostrar‑nos is more typical.

Why is it "nesse aquário" and not "neste aquário" or "naquele aquário"?

Portuguese has three basic demonstrative sets (this / that / that over there):

neste (em + este) – in this (here, close to the speaker)
nesse (em + esse) – in that (near the listener, or previously mentioned / in context)
naquele (em + aquele) – in that over there (far from both, or more distant in context)

In practice, especially in European Portuguese:

nesse aquário is often used for:
- “that aquarium (we’re both talking about)”,
- “that aquarium you can see / you know which one I mean”,
- “the aquarium just mentioned in the conversation”.

So nesse aquário = in that aquarium (the one already in the shared context).

You could say:

neste aquário – if the guide is talking about the aquarium she is in or right next to, emphasizing here.
naquele aquário – if it’s further away, maybe one among many, pointed out as more distant: “in that aquarium over there”.

Context would decide which is best; nesse is a very common “neutral that” referring back to something already known.

Why is it "A guia" (feminine) and not "O guia"?

The noun guia is common gender: its gender depends on the article:

o guia – male guide
a guia – female guide

So:

A guia disse‑nos... → The (female) guide told us...
O guia disse‑nos... → The (male) guide told us...

The form of the noun itself (guia) does not change; only the article (and any adjectives) indicate the gender.

Note: guia can also mean guidebook / ticket / slip etc., but there the gender may be fixed by convention (often feminine: a guia).

What exactly is "tubarão bebé"? Should there be a hyphen ("tubarão‑bebé")?

Literally:

tubarão – shark
bebé – baby

So tubarão bebé = baby shark.

About the hyphen:

You will see both tubarão‑bebé and tubarão bebé in real usage.
According to modern spelling rules, many noun + noun combinations can be written without a hyphen unless they form a fixed compound in dictionaries.
In practice:
- tubarão‑bebé emphasizes the two‑word compound as a single unit (like “baby‑shark”).
- tubarão bebé treats bebé more like an apposition (“a shark, [a] baby”).

Both are understandable. In ordinary writing, tubarão bebé is common and perfectly fine.

Is "bebé" an adjective here or still a noun?

Grammatically, bebé is a noun:

um bebé – a baby
uma bebé – a baby girl

In tubarão bebé, it behaves like a noun used as a modifier of another noun. This is quite common in Portuguese:

roupa bebé – baby clothes
cadeira bebé – baby chair
comida bebé – baby food

So even though the position is “adjective‑like”, bebé remains a noun used to describe the type of shark: a shark that is a baby.

What is the function of "que" in "disse‑nos que ia mostrar‑nos..."? Why do we need it?

Here que is a complementizer (a conjunction) that introduces reported speech or a subordinate clause:

disse‑nos que ia mostrar‑nos...
= told us *that she was going to show us...*

You have two clauses:

A guia disse‑nos – The guide told us (main clause)
que ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé nesse aquário – that she was going to show us a baby shark in that aquarium (subordinate clause)

Without que, you would have to switch to direct speech:

A guia disse‑nos: “Vou mostrar‑vos um tubarão bebé nesse aquário.”

So que is what makes it indirect/reported speech instead of a quotation.

Is "nos" in "mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé" a direct object or an indirect object?

In mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé, the structure is:

mostrar algo a alguém – to show something to someone

So:

um tubarão bebé = direct object (what is being shown)
nos = indirect object (to whom it is shown)

Same in English:

She was going to show *us a baby shark
*a baby shark
= direct object
- us = indirect object

In disse‑nos, it’s the same pattern:

dizer algo a alguém – to say something to someone
- nos = indirect object (to us)

Could we leave out one of the "nos" to avoid repetition, for example:
"A guia disse‑nos que ia mostrar um tubarão bebé nesse aquário."?

Yes, grammatically you can omit the second nos:

A guia disse‑nos que ia mostrar um tubarão bebé nesse aquário.

Then the meaning is:

The guide told us that she was going to show *a baby shark in that aquarium (to someone, not specified).*

We no longer know to whom she was going to show it. It could still be inferred as “to us” from context, but it’s not explicit.

With ia mostrar‑nos, it is crystal clear:

ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé
→ was going to show *us a baby shark*

So the original sentence is more precise; it tells us:

She told us, and
She was going to show us (not someone else).

In the clause "que ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé", why isn’t the pronoun before the verb, like "que nos ia mostrar um tubarão bebé"?

Here, both are actually possible and natural in European Portuguese:

que ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé
que nos ia mostrar um tubarão bebé

Explanation:

After "que", pronouns usually move before the finite verb:
- que nos disse
- que nos ia dizer
But with ir + infinitive, you have a choice:
- attach the pronoun to the infinitive (mostrar‑nos), or
- place it before the auxiliary verb (nos ia mostrar).

So:

que ia mostrar‑nos um tubarão bebé ✅
que nos ia mostrar um tubarão bebé ✅

Both mean “that she was going to show us a baby shark”. There is no real difference in meaning; it’s mostly a stylistic / rhythm preference.