O árbitro apita no início e no fim do jogo.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Portuguese grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Portuguese now

Questions & Answers about O árbitro apita no início e no fim do jogo.

What does apita literally mean? Where is the word whistle in the Portuguese sentence?

Apita is the 3rd‑person singular present of apitar, which means to blow a whistle / to whistle (with a whistle).

In Portuguese you often use the verb apitar instead of saying blow the whistle with a separate noun. So:

  • O árbitro apita.
    = The referee blows the whistle. (literally: “the referee whistles”, but it’s understood that it’s with the match whistle)

The noun apito means whistle (the object), but you don’t need to say it here.
You could say O árbitro toca o apito or O árbitro sopra o apito, but O árbitro apita is the most natural and usual form.

Why is it O árbitro and not just Árbitro? Can I drop the definite article like in English?

In European Portuguese, you normally keep the definite article (o, a, os, as) before singular countable nouns, even when English would drop the.

  • O árbitro apita… = The referee blows…

Saying just Árbitro apita… sounds incomplete or like a newspaper headline, not normal speech.

So in most neutral sentences about specific people or things, include the article:

  • O professor explica. – The teacher explains.
  • A médica chega. – The doctor arrives.
How do you pronounce árbitro, and where is the stress?

In European Portuguese, árbitro is pronounced approximately:

  • [ˈaɾ.bi.tɾu]

Key points:

  • Stress is on the first syllable: ÁR-bi-tro.
  • The r in the middle (between vowels) is a tapped r, similar to the single r in Spanish: a quick flick of the tongue.
  • The final -o is often a fairly closed sound, close to -u: not “troh”, but more like “tru”.
  • The t is a plain t, not “tch”: ár-bi-tro, not ár-bitcho.

So you get something like “AR-bi-tru” with a quick light r sounds.

What verb form is apita? How would I conjugate apitar in the present tense?

Apita is:

  • Present indicative, 3rd person singular (he/she/it):
    ele / ela / o árbitro apita

Present tense of apitar (European Portuguese):

  • eu apito – I blow the whistle
  • tu apitas – you blow the whistle (informal singular)
  • ele / ela / você apita – he / she / you (formal) blow(s) the whistle
  • nós apitamos – we blow the whistle
  • vocês apitam – you (plural) blow the whistle
  • eles / elas apitam – they blow the whistle

In the sentence, O árbitro apita…, the subject is ele (he), so apita is the correct form.

Could I drop O árbitro and just say Apita no início e no fim do jogo?

Yes, grammatically you can. Portuguese is a “null-subject” language: you often drop the subject pronoun (or noun) when it’s clear from context.

  • (O árbitro) apita no início e no fim do jogo.

If everyone already knows you’re talking about the referee, omitting O árbitro is fine in context, especially in narration or commentary.

However, as a complete, stand‑alone sentence introducing the idea, O árbitro apita… sounds more natural.

What is no, and why is it not written as em o início or em o fim?

No is a contraction of:

  • em + o → no
  • meaning roughly in the / at the / on the (for masculine singular nouns)

So:

  • no início = em + o início = at the beginning
  • no fim = em + o fim = at the end
  • no jogo = em + o jogo = in the game

These contractions are obligatory in normal usage. You don’t say em o início; you must say no início.

Other forms:

  • em + a → na (feminine singular)
  • em + os → nos (masculine plural)
  • em + as → nas (feminine plural)
Why is it no início e no fim do jogo and not no início do jogo e no fim do jogo?

Portuguese allows you to avoid repeating the same complement when it clearly applies to both parts of a coordination.

The “full” version would be:

  • O árbitro apita no início do jogo e no fim do jogo.

But since do jogo (of the game) is the same for both início and fim, you can say:

  • O árbitro apita no início e no fim do jogo.

It’s understood as no início (do jogo) e no fim do jogo.
This omission of the repeated part is very common and completely natural.

What is the difference between início and começo? Could I say no começo do jogo?

Início and começo are very close in meaning: both mean beginning / start.

  • início – slightly more formal or neutral; very common in writing and speech
  • começo – slightly more colloquial; also very common

In this sentence, you could absolutely say:

  • O árbitro apita no começo e no fim do jogo.

The meaning is the same. In European Portuguese, início is maybe a bit more frequent in this kind of neutral, general statement, but começo is also perfectly natural.

What does do in do jogo mean, and how is it different from no?

Do is a contraction of:

  • de + o → do
  • meaning of the / from the (masculine singular)

So:

  • do jogo = de + o jogo = of the game

In contrast:

  • no = em + o = in the / at the / on the

In the sentence:

  • no inícioat the beginning
  • no fimat the end
  • do jogoof the game

So the structure is literally:
at the beginning and at the end of the game.

Why is the present tense (apita) used here? Wouldn’t English often use something like “will blow” or “blows (every time)”?

In Portuguese, the simple present is used for:

  • general truths / rules / habits
  • scheduled or regularly repeated actions

Here O árbitro apita no início e no fim do jogo describes what referees generally do in a match. That’s a rule or habit, so the present apita is exactly right.

English can also use the simple present for this (“The referee blows the whistle at the start and at the end of the game”), so the usage is actually parallel here.

Why are all these words masculine (o árbitro, o início, o fim, o jogo)? How would you say it if the referee is a woman?

In Portuguese, every noun has a grammatical gender, usually masculine or feminine. In this sentence:

  • árbitro – masculine (referee)
  • início – masculine (beginning)
  • fim – masculine (end)
  • jogo – masculine (game)

The articles and adjectives must agree with that gender, so you get o árbitro, o início, o fim, o jogo.

If the referee is a woman, you change the noun (and the article) to the feminine:

  • A árbitra apita no início e no fim do jogo.

Only árbitro → árbitra and o → a change; the rest of the sentence stays the same.

Could I say O árbitro sopra o apito instead of O árbitro apita? Is there a difference?

You can say O árbitro sopra o apito, and it’s understandable:

  • soprar = to blow
  • apito = whistle (object)

So it literally means The referee blows the whistle.

However, in natural Portuguese (especially in a sports context), people almost always use:

  • O árbitro apita.

This is shorter and idiomatic. O árbitro sopra o apito sounds more descriptive or literary, not wrong, but much less common in everyday speech and in sports commentary.