Que Termos A Expressão Tudo Isso Retoma

Using "que termos a expressão tudo isso retoma" in Portuguese writing and speech

This expression comes up when you need to tie together a long chain of arguments or observations and signal that what follows is built on everything you just laid out. It's not something you reach for every day, but it shows up enough in academic writing, formal reports, and polished essays that you should know how to handle it properly. At its core, the expression works as a cohesive device. It refers back to previously stated content and uses that as a foundation for the next point. Think of it as a verbal footnote that says, "yes, I just spent three paragraphs establishing X, and now I'm building Y on top of that." The literal sense is roughly "with all these terms, this expression recalls/reference back to everything." It's formal register, not casual conversation territory. I ran into a practical issue with this last year while editing a legal brief. The draft had the expression placed after a list of statutory references, but the sentence that followed didn't actually depend on any of those references. It was making an independent argument. The expression was technically correct grammatically, but it was misleading the reader into thinking there was a logical connection that didn't exist. I moved the sentence earlier in the paragraph where the relevant precedents were discussed, and the flow improved immediately. The moral is that the expression demands a genuine rhetorical link, not just proximity.

Here's how to use it without sounding like you're padding word count. First, make sure you've actually laid out substantive material beforehand. The expression doesn't work as a transition after a single sentence or a brief mention. It needs weight behind it. Three or four sentences minimum of actual content is a reasonable floor. Second, the clause that follows should explicitly build on or respond to what came before. Don't just drop the expression and pivot to something adjacent — that's where most people mess it up. One thing beginners consistently get wrong is the register mismatch. You'll see this expression stuffed into business emails, Slack messages, and internal memos where it sounds bizarrely stiff. It belongs in contexts where formality is already the norm: academic papers, judicial opinions, policy documents, literary criticism. Using it in a casual context creates friction because the reader's expectations shift suddenly. Another counter-intuitive point: the expression can actually weaken your argument if you overuse it. I've seen drafts where every paragraph transition relied on some form of retrospective reference, which makes the writing feel circular rather than progressive. Each use should earn its place by signaling a genuine structural relationship between ideas, not just serving as a default transition mechanism. If you find yourself reaching for it more than twice in a single piece, step back and check whether your argument structure itself needs reworking.

The expression also has a quirk with pronoun agreement. Since it references prior content, the verb and any associated pronouns need to clearly align with what you're pointing back to. A common error is starting the next sentence with "portanto" or "logo" without making sure the logical connection is actually valid. The expression does the referencing work, but it doesn't guarantee the argumentative logic is sound. You still have to check that separately. Structure-wise, it typically appears at the beginning of a sentence or clause, often followed by a comma. Examples of standard placement: Que termos a expressão tudo isso retoma, podemos concluir que... (With all this expression referring back, we can conclude that...)

O autor argumentou extensivamente sobre o tema; que termos a expressão tudo isso retoma, a conclusão parece inevitável. (The author argued extensively on the topic; with this expression recalling all of it, the conclusion seems unavoidable.) The main limitation of this expression is that it can feel archaic or overwrought to modern readers, especially in Brazilian Portuguese where more direct transitional phrases have largely replaced it in contemporary usage. In European Portuguese it's slightly more common in formal writing, but even there it's declining. If your audience skews younger or the context is anything close to informal, consider alternatives like "diante do exposto," "tendo em vista o anteriormente dito," or simply restructuring the sentence so you don't need a retroactive reference at all. For practical purposes, keep it to formal written contexts, ensure there's substantial prior material to reference, verify the logical connection isn't just superficial, and don't use it more than necessary. Beyond that, it's a tool that works when used sparingly and fails when used as a crutch.