Learn Hardcore Portuguese (Portugal): A médica diz que basta que eu durma mais para o meu corpo recuperar melhor. - The doctor says that it is enough that I sleep more for my body to recover better.

In European Portuguese, when you are talking about a specific person with a profession as the subject of the sentence, you normally use the definite article:

A médica diz… = The (female) doctor says… (a particular doctor we have in mind).

Compare:

A Maria é médica. – Maria is a doctor.
Here médica is after the verb ser and used as a profession; in this position, you usually drop the article.
Uma médica disse… – A (female) doctor said… (some doctor or other, not identified).

So:

A médica = the specific doctor we’re talking about.
Uma médica = some doctor, non‑specific.
Bare médica is fine after ser (é médica), but not normally as the sentence subject (médica diz… sounds wrong).

Why are there two que in diz que basta que eu durma mais? Can I remove one?

The two que have different roles:

diz que… – this que = that introducing reported speech:
A médica diz que… = The doctor says that…
basta que… – here basta que is a fixed structure meaning it is enough that… and it normally takes the subjunctive after it.

So the internal structure is:

A médica diz que / (é suficiente) basta que eu durma mais…

You cannot simply remove the second que and keep the same structure. If you want to avoid the second que, you normally change the construction:

A médica diz que basta eu dormir mais… (using basta
- infinitive instead of basta que
  - subjunctive)

Both patterns exist, but:

basta que + subjunctive is more clearly “textbook” / standard;
basta + infinitive is also very common in speech.

Why is it durma and not durmo in basta que eu durma mais?

Durma is the present subjunctive of dormir, not the present indicative.

Present indicative: eu durmo – I sleep / I am sleeping (a fact, statement).
Present subjunctive: (que) eu durma – used in subordinate clauses after certain expressions, including basta que.

The expression basta que… (it is enough that…) triggers the subjunctive, because it’s talking about a condition / desired action, not a simple fact:

Basta que eu durma mais – It’s enough that I sleep more / I just need to sleep more.

So durmo would be grammatically wrong here; basta que requires the subjunctive: durma.

When do I use basta que + subjunctive versus basta + infinitive?

Both exist and are common:

basta que + subjunctive
- More “formal” / clearly structured.
- Very explicit that the following verb is in a subordinate clause.
- Example:
  Basta que eu durma mais. – It’s enough that I sleep more.
basta + infinitive
- Often sounds a bit more colloquial or neutral.
- The subject of the infinitive is understood from context.
- Example:
  Basta dormir mais. – It’s enough to sleep more.
  Basta eu dormir mais. – It’s enough if I sleep more.

In your sentence, both are possible in European Portuguese:

…basta que eu durma mais… (subjunctive)
…basta eu dormir mais… (infinitive)

The meaning is practically the same; it’s mainly a stylistic choice.

Why is it para o meu corpo recuperar melhor and not para que o meu corpo recupere melhor?

Both structures are valid, but they use different grammar:

para + infinitive
- para o meu corpo recuperar melhor uses an infinitive (recuperar) to express purpose:
  - in order for my body to recover better
- The subject of the infinitive is explicitly stated: o meu corpo.
- This is very common in Portuguese, especially in European Portuguese.
para que + subjunctive
- para que o meu corpo recupere melhor also expresses purpose, but with a full finite clause:
  - so that my body recovers better.
- Here recupere is in the present subjunctive.

Meaning-wise they’re almost identical. para + infinitive is often a bit more straightforward and very typical in everyday European Portuguese. para que + subjunctive can feel slightly more formal or explicit.

Shouldn’t it be recuperar-se (reflexive) instead of just recuperar?

Both are used in practice:

recuperar-se – reflexive, “to recover (oneself)”
recuperar – can be transitive (to recover something) or used intransitively, especially with body/health contexts.

So you might hear:

…para o meu corpo recuperar melhor.
…para o meu corpo se recuperar melhor.
…para o meu corpo recuperar-se melhor. (more typical placement in European Portuguese)

All are understandable. Many speakers prefer the reflexive form (recuperar-se) in the sense of health recovery, but recuperar without se is not strange when the subject is clearly the body.

In European Portuguese, with an infinitive, placing the clitic after the verb is very natural:

recuperar-se melhor (EP)
In Brazil, se recuperar melhor is more usual.

Why is it para and not por in para o meu corpo recuperar melhor?

Para here introduces purpose:

para o meu corpo recuperar melhor
= in order for my body to recover better / so that my body recovers better.

In Portuguese:

para is used for aim, purpose, intention:
- Estudo para melhorar o meu português. – I study to improve my Portuguese.
por is used more for cause, means, reason, route, exchange, etc.:
- Fiz isto por ti. – I did this because of you / for you.
- Passámos por Lisboa. – We went through Lisbon.

So with “in order to / so that”, para is the correct preposition.

Why is it o meu corpo instead of just meu corpo?

In European Portuguese, it’s very common (almost default) to use the definite article with possessive adjectives:

o meu corpo – literally the my body
a minha casa – the my house
os meus pais – the my parents

This is normal and sounds natural in European Portuguese.

In Brazilian Portuguese, people often drop the article:

meu corpo, minha casa, meus pais

In European Portuguese, saying meu corpo without the article is possible but tends to sound more emphatic, stylised, or influenced by Brazilian usage. In everyday EP, o meu corpo is the usual form.

Can I change the word order to para recuperar melhor o meu corpo?

You would change the meaning if you do that.

para o meu corpo recuperar melhor
→ subject = o meu corpo
→ for my body to recover better
para recuperar melhor o meu corpo
→ subject is now an implicit eu (or someone else), and o meu corpo looks like the direct object:
→ in order to recover my body better (as if I’m doing something to my body)

So:

Original: the body is doing the recovering.
Changed version: “I” (or another subject) am recovering the body.

To keep o meu corpo as the subject, you need it before the verb: para o meu corpo recuperar melhor (or para que o meu corpo recupere melhor).

Why is mais after durma? Can I say que eu mais durma?

In Portuguese adverbs like mais usually come after the verb when they modify it:

durma mais – sleep more
trabalhar mais – to work more

Putting mais before durma (que eu mais durma) is not standard word order and sounds very unnatural in this context.

So:

✅ que eu durma mais
❌ que eu mais durma (odd, would only appear in very marked, poetic or unusual emphasis)

What exactly does melhor modify in para o meu corpo recuperar melhor?

Here melhor functions as an adverb meaning better and it modifies the verb recuperar:

recuperar melhor – to recover better (i.e. in a better way, more effectively).

So in the sentence:

durma mais → sleep more (more quantity of sleep)
recuperar melhor → recover better (better quality of recovery)

This is why both mais and melhor appear: one affects how much you sleep, the other affects how well the body recovers.

The doctor is talking about the future; why is durma in the present subjunctive and not in some future tense?

In Portuguese, when a main clause is in the present (like a médica diz que… / basta que…), the subordinate clause that talks about a future or hypothetical situation often uses the present subjunctive, not a special future tense:

Basta que eu durma mais… – literally It’s enough that I sleep more… but it’s understood as that I will sleep more / if I sleep more (from now on).

So:

Present main clause: basta que…
Present subjunctive: eu durma…
Time reference: future or general condition.

That’s normal Portuguese sequence of tenses; you don’t need (and don’t have) a separate “future subjunctive” here after basta que.