# \[Brazilian version of\] Portugese **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 16, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazilian-version-of-portugese/674053 "2013-11-16T12:33:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazilian-version-of-portugese/674053/41 "2013-11-18T22:39:16Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > 🙂 That’s a bit like what Dutch sounds like to my ears. When I was in the Netherlands, I kept thinking I was hearing Old English spoken-- the language sounded like recordings I’d heard of Beowulf. Which I guess makes a certain amount of sense. It would be interesting to see how mutually intelligible English and Dutch would have been without the Norman Invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazilian-version-of-portugese/674053/42 "2013-11-19T01:58:58Z")
Schnitte writes: \> Again: Latin is not just the classical Latin from the first centuries AD and BC \> simply because you try to define it that way or simply presuppose that . . . I said nothing of the sort. I was disagreeing with your statement: \> . . . modern standard Italian is very close to ancient Latin. No, it isn’t. The Italian of 2013 A.D. is not close to the Latin of 50 B.C. I said that a statement of the form “Italian is very close to Latin” is only true if you are referring to a very late form of Latin and a very early form of Italian. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazilian-version-of-portugese/674053.md?page=2)