Why such big differences between Brazilian and European?

''Estudo de aquisição do português brasileiro tendo como informante uma
criança de dois anos, mostra que na gramática internalizada dessa criança não aparece a preposição a. Já a preposição em consta entre as primeiras adquiridas pela criança juntamente com para e de. Esse fato de crianças brasileiras não possuírem a na sua gramática interna mostra que houve uma mudança, onde os falantes brasileiros optam por em ao invés de a.''

http://www.diaadiaeducacao.pr.gov.br/diaadia/diadia/arquivos/File/disserta%E7%E3o%20de%20mestrado.pdf

"YOU ARE WRONG.
Brazilian Portuguese has a tendency to use EM (in, into) with verbs of movement, especially CHEGAR (arrive), IR (go), VIR (come), as in Latin: in urbem ire (to go into town), or in German (in die Stadt gehen) or to a certain extent, modern English (arrive in Rome) or Italian (vado in discoteca). "

Tendency doesn't make an usage right. Rather, that the SPOKEN language has a certain preference. Trying to force a diacronic view based on Latin won't change the fact that "em" is a colloquial and wrong usage of a preposition for indicating direction. I don't know why you're trying to use German or Italian to try to prove what's WRONG.



"No Brazilian would ever say ''chego a casa'' or ''vou lá a casa''. It's ''eu chego em casa'' or ''eu vou lá em casa''. "

As for "chegar em casa" you might be right when it comes to the SPOKEN language. However, an EDUCATED person would write "chegar à casa" as one can see in an article from the "Folha de São Paulo".
"Racismo deve impedir Obama de chegar à Casa Branca, diz Chomsky"

Source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/mundo/ult94u408760.shtml

I say "chegar em casa" because it's common for doing so but will NEVER write like that. As for the example "Chegar em Roma", I would prefer "Chegar a Roma", which is , again, the CORRECT usage and I don't care if people around me say "Chegar em Roma".


I don't believe you say "I ain't got no money" just because people around could use it...


"1.
Look what dicionary of verbs says on this (Dicionário Prático de Regência Verbal, C.P Luft, Editora Ática):


''No português brasileiro também ocorre ir em, sobretudo na fala, o que pode ser até sobrevivência da língua arcaica, herança da língua-mãe (latim: 'in urbem ire'): Vou em casa. Foi no centro (no médico, no cinema, etc.). Ver documentação literária em Nascentes (1953: 171-4), Lessa
(81-3, 186-8), Barbadinho (60-2). Escreveu Mário de Andrade (Lessa: 187) em carta a Manuel Bandeira: "Os portugueses dizem ir à cidade. Os brasileiros: na cidade. Eu sou brasileiro".

Again, trying to force a diacronic view of the language doesn't help explaining how the language works NOW.
As for the last example, I don't feel as being PORTUGUESE for saying "Ir à cidade". I say it all the time and don't bother if people will think I'm snobbish.


"2. Modern Brazilian grammars (like Modern Portuguese, by Mario Perini, published by Yale University Press) are fine with this usage, it's a real fact of language, just like Americans say ON THE STREET and not IN THE STREET, Brazilians say CHEGO EM CASA and not CHEGO A CASA. My Portuguese professor never corrected us, and she was using chegar/ir/vir with EM normally, and she has an USP degree. "

A fact of the language can't substitute the normative grammar. Well, at least if one wants to get a decent job and be seen as an educated person.
There's no need for your teacher to correct you but I think she should at least show that "em" is more popular. Having a degree from USP has nothing no do with one's language usage since a godo speaker should be able to use the worst slangs at the same time that he/she can use the most formal language.



"3. Even Portuguese grammarians are fine with this Brazilian usage:
http://ciberduvidas.sapo.pt/pergunta.php?id=15632 "
Thanks for the link but I guess we're talking about Brazilian Portuguese, aren't we?

If you want to continue this conversation please make sure if you want to talk about "spoken" or "written" language because it seems you cannot differentiate them.

Cheers!!!

p.s In case you have been reading the posting on PB and PE you can clearly see that PE and PB are different when comparing the spoken language but quite close when comparing the WRITTEN language.

"Peculiaridades sintáticas da língua portuguesa falada no Brasil neste século

Evandro Eduardo Franklin Braga - (UERJ) "

I guess it makes no sense for you to copy people's opinions to base your arguments if you don't know what you're comparing. Don't use the grammar of the SPOKEN language to prove that PB is inferior to PE.

You're not the first neither will be the last person to do so. Make sure you know what you're comparing in order to get a trustworthy result.

I could compare a brand new Ferrari to a beetle year 63 and say that the beetle is a piece of junk and there will be MANY differences However, if one compares a Ferrari with a Lamborghini with similar specs, things will be a little different...


Cheers!!

p.s Just because there's a dissertation on the spoken language that won't make WRONG become RIGHT!!!At least not now...

”I wouldn't like to argue, it would be better for you to buy a real grammar, I recommend MODERN PORTUGUESE, Perini, Yale Uni. Press or or
Guia de uso de português. Helena de Moura Neves. Unesp ed.”

Well, I explained you about "em" and "a" but if you insist on a "real grammar", I used the "Novíssima Gramática da Língua Portuguesa" by Domingos Paschoal Cegalla page 455:

「Chegar
Na língua CULTA (emphasis given), o adjunto adverbial de lugar do verbo chegar é regido pela preposição A (Emphasis given again):

Chegamos a (e não em) São Paulo pela manhã.
A noiva chegou à (e não na) igrejas às 18 horas.
O lugarejo a que chegamos fica entre morros.
"Vejam a que ponto chegou a audácia desses criminosos!
"Ao alvorecer devemos chegar às portas de Jerusalém" (Eça de Queirós)

Na linguagem COLOQUIAL (emphasis given), admite-se a preposição EM:

Chegamos em São Paulo no dia seguinte
As crianças chegaram em casa exaustas.

If you still think it's alright to use "em" you're my guest. However, if you want to find a job for using Portuguese and must WRITE you will be left out.

Cheers!!

p.s This grammar you recommended me is about the SPOKEN language, isn't it?

-Chegar em Roma", I would prefer "Chegar a Roma",-

They not mean the same thing form 99 % of Brazilians:


Chegar em Roma = Arrive in Rome
Chegar a Roma = Chegar até Roma = Reach Rome



You are wrong about being ''educated'' speakers preferring this or that. Where is your survey? Marcos Bagno (one of the most famous Brazilian linguists had a linguistic survey on that, and yup: 90% of educated Brazilians used EM with verbs of movement).

And as for Brazilian newspapers, they are all laughable. I prefer having examples from Brazilian literature as a proof. Thanks to Brazilian journalists (Deus me livre da revistinha direitista ''Veja'') and lawyers, Brazil is one of the least progressive countries in the world, just like Banana republics like Honduras or ElSalvador.

Seu velho coroca carioca, vai tomar um banho!

http://books.google.com/books?id=I3Le_CLkXSkC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=marcos+bagno+verbos+de+movimento&source=bl&ots=n8iWlXqCMJ&sig=UAQJBMuki-L0knt5tstJlq3FGek


I wouldn't use ''chegar/ir A'' (in the sense of ENTER) just like I wouldn't use ''It is I'' or ''I shall'' in English, and yes, most traditional grammars advocate these old-fashioned forms.

''I say it all the time and don't bother if people will think I'm snobbish.

Você não passa de um baita lixo.
Fim de papo! Ainda bem que tu se mudou pro Japão. Nem vou lhe ver por aqui. Toda praia só pra mim.

「-Chegar em Roma", I would prefer "Chegar a Roma",-

They not mean the same thing form 99 % of Brazilians:
Chegar em Roma = Arrive in Rome
Chegar a Roma = Chegar até Roma = Reach Rome



「You are wrong about being ''educated'' speakers preferring this or that. Where is your survey? Marcos Bagno (one of the most famous Brazilian linguists had a linguistic survey on that, and yup: 90% of educated Brazilians used EM with verbs of movement). 」

Who's saying that educated speakers prefer that? In my former posting I wrote that "in order to sound educated" one should use "a", which is the CORRECT (Percentage of people using something doesn't mean anything to me). Well, the survey didn't reach me so it doesn't mean that 100% prefers this kind of usage.

「And as for Brazilian newspapers, they are all laughable. I prefer having examples from Brazilian literature as a proof. Thanks to Brazilian journalists (Deus me livre da revistinha direitista ''Veja'') and lawyers, Brazil is one of the least progressive countries in the world, just like Banana republics like Honduras or ElSalvador. 」

Wow, then you must be an authority in order to criticize all newspapers and magazines. Why are you quoting about "Veja" if the example I gave if from "Folha de São Paulo"? I guess you might dislike "Jornal do Brasil" as well...

「http://books.google.com/books?id=I3Le_CLkXSkC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=marcos+bagno+verbos+de+movimento&source=bl&ots=n8iWlXqCMJ&sig=UAQJBMuki-L0knt5tstJlq3FGek


I wouldn't use ''chegar/ir A'' (in the sense of ENTER) just like I wouldn't use ''It is I'' or ''I shall'' in English, and yes, most traditional grammars advocate these old-fashioned forms.」

Thanks for the link but it says the same thing I wrote in my posting quoted from "Novíssima Gramática da Língua Portuguesa", i.e. "em" is colloquial and not accepted by the normative grammar. Being said that one has three choices in terms of language usage:

1) Speak like everybody else but WRONG

2) Speak correctly and be seen as crazy or snobbish

3) Know the difference between right and wrong and code-switch according to the situation.

Since most people seem to prefer the first option many speakers of PE think that they've seen it all about PB and say our language is wrong. (maybe the spoken language is) That might mean they chose only one variety of the language.

Just to wrap up my participation in this thread I say again:

Popular language doesn't represent an entirety and my language usage isn't based on researches and/or what linguists say because what might be accepted might not be correct (That could change in the future, though).

Cheers!!