Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.

Even though we cannot put out the fire alone, we can prevent new outbreaks.

Breakdown of Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.

• novo: new
• poder: to be able to
• sozinho: alone
• não: not
• o fogo: the fire
• ainda que: even though
• apagar: to put out
• prevenir: to prevent
• o foco: the outbreak

Questions & Answers about Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.

What does ainda que mean here, and is it the same as saying embora or mesmo que?

Ainda que is a concessive conjunction; here it means “even if / even though / although.”

In this sentence:

Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.
Even if / even though we cannot put out the fire by ourselves, we can prevent new outbreaks.

You could also say:

• Embora não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, ...
• Mesmo que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, ...

All are grammatically correct in European Portuguese. Nuances:

• Embora and ainda que sound a bit more formal or written.
• Mesmo que is very common in speech and can feel slightly more colloquial.

Meaning-wise, for this sentence, they are effectively interchangeable.

Why is it não possamos (subjunctive) and not não podemos (indicative) after ainda que?

Conjunctions like ainda que, embora, and mesmo que normally trigger the subjunctive mood in Portuguese, because they introduce:

• Hypothetical situations
• Concessions (something that might be true or accepted, but doesn’t change the main idea)

So:

• possamos = present subjunctive of poder
• podemos = present indicative of poder

After ainda que, the standard, natural choice is subjunctive:

• Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos... ✅ (correct, natural)
• Ainda que não podemos apagar o fogo sozinhos... ❌ (ungrammatical in standard Portuguese)

The main clause often stays in the indicative:

• ...podemos prevenir novos focos. (indicative – this is presented as a real possibility)

What exactly is possamos in terms of verb form and person?

Possamos is:

• Verb: poder (to be able to / can)
• Tense/mood: present subjunctive
• Person/number: 1st person plural (“we”)

Present subjunctive of poder:

• (que) eu possa
• (que) tu possas
• (que) ele / ela / você possa
• (que) nós possamos
• (que) vós possais (rare in modern speech)
• (que) eles / elas / vocês possam

So não possamos = “(that) we may not be able to / even if we cannot.”

Could I say ainda que não podemos apagar o fogo instead, or is that wrong?

In standard European Portuguese, that is considered wrong.

After ainda que, the verb should be in the subjunctive, so you should say:

• Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo... ✅

Using the indicative podemos here sounds ungrammatical to most native speakers in European Portuguese and in careful Brazilian Portuguese as well.

If you want to use the indicative, you would normally change the conjunction:

• Mesmo assim, não podemos apagar o fogo sozinhos, mas podemos prevenir novos focos.
  (Even so, we can’t put out the fire by ourselves, but we can prevent new outbreaks.)

Why is sozinhos plural and masculine? Could it be sozinho or sozinhas?

Sozinhos is agreeing in gender and number with the subject nós (“we”):

• N nós (masculine or mixed group) → sozinhos
• Nós (all female group) → sozinhas

So possible forms in other contexts:

• Eu estou sozinho. (I am alone – male speaker)
• Eu estou sozinha. (female speaker)
• Nós estamos sozinhos. (group including at least one man, or default when gender is unknown)
• Nós estamos sozinhas. (group of only women)

In the given sentence, sozinhos assumes a mixed or unspecified-gender group of “we.” Using sozinho (singular) would be incorrect with nós, which is plural.

What is the difference between fogo and incêndio in Portuguese?

Both relate to “fire,” but they are used somewhat differently:

• fogo = fire in general; the element, flames, or a fire (can be neutral or positive)

  • acender o fogo – light the fire (e.g. fireplace, stove)
  • apagar o fogo – put out the fire

• incêndio = usually a destructive fire, like a fire in a building, forest, etc.

  • um incêndio florestal – a forest fire
  • um incêndio num prédio – a building fire

In this sentence, apagar o fogo is fine; context would usually make it clear whether we are talking about a dangerous incêndio. You could also say apagar o incêndio if you want to emphasise it is an actual damaging blaze.

What does focos mean here? I thought foco was “focus.”

Foco does mean “focus” in many contexts, but it also has the meaning of:

• “source / starting point / hotspot”

In the context of fires, focos usually means “new fire sources”, “new outbreaks of fire”, or “new fire spots.”

So novos focos ≈ “new fire outbreaks / new fire hotspots.”

This use is common in news about wildfires:

• Há vários focos de incêndio na região.
  There are several fire outbreaks in the region.

Why is it prevenir novos focos and not evitar novos focos? Is there a difference?

Both prevenir and evitar are possible, but they carry slightly different nuances:

• prevenir = “to prevent” in the sense of taking measures in advance to stop something from happening.

  • prevenir doenças – to prevent diseases (vaccination, hygiene, etc.)

• evitar = “to avoid” or “to prevent,” often with the idea of staying away from something or not doing something so it doesn’t happen.

  • evitar problemas – to avoid problems
  • evitar o contacto com fumo – to avoid contact with smoke

In podemos prevenir novos focos, the idea is taking proactive measures so that new fire outbreaks do not start. Evitar novos focos would also be understandable and acceptable, but prevenir is slightly more “technical” and common in this “risk management” context.

Why is the negative placed as não possamos apagar and not possamos não apagar? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, changing the position of não would change the meaning:

• não possamos apagar o fogo
  = we cannot put out the fire

• possamos não apagar o fogo
  = we might not put out the fire / it is possible that we do not put out the fire

The second structure (possamos não apagar) is theoretically possible but sounds more awkward and is not what is meant here.

In everyday Portuguese, the negative não normally goes directly before the conjugated verb:

• não possamos apagar
• não podemos ajudar
• não quero ir

Could I reverse the order of the clauses and say Podemos prevenir novos focos, ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos?

Yes, you can reverse the order:

• Podemos prevenir novos focos, ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos.

This is perfectly correct and natural. The meaning stays the same; you are just changing what you emphasise first:

• Original: starts by admitting the limitation (even if we cannot put out the fire...) and then presents the positive outcome (we can prevent new outbreaks).
• Reversed: starts with the positive point (we can prevent new outbreaks) and then acknowledges the limitation.

Why is there a comma after sozinhos in the sentence?

The structure is:

• Subordinate concessive clause: Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos,
• Main clause: podemos prevenir novos focos.

In Portuguese, when a subordinate clause comes before the main clause, it is normally followed by a comma:

• Quando chegarmos, ligamos-te.
• Se chover, não vamos à praia.
• Embora esteja cansado, vou trabalhar.
• Ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.

If you invert the order (main clause first), the comma is often optional and may be omitted unless needed for clarity:

• Podemos prevenir novos focos, ainda que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos. (comma common but not absolutely obligatory in informal writing)
• In speech, the pause is usually shorter or sometimes absent.

Is the use of the present tense here (“we cannot put out,” “we can prevent”) talking about now, or is it more general?

The present tense in Portuguese is quite flexible. Here, it expresses a general truth or general capacity, not just “right now”:

• não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos
  → in general, as a rule, we are not able to put out the fire on our own
• podemos prevenir novos focos
  → in general, we are able (it is possible for us) to prevent new outbreaks

So it reads like a general statement about what is (or isn’t) within our capabilities, rather than a description of a single moment only.

Are there common spoken alternatives to ainda que that I should know for European Portuguese?

Yes. In everyday spoken European Portuguese, you will often hear:

• Mesmo que não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.
• Embora não possamos apagar o fogo sozinhos, podemos prevenir novos focos.

Mesmo que is particularly common in speech. Ainda que is fully correct and used, but it often sounds a bit more formal or written, especially in news, essays, opinion pieces, or more “elevated” language.