Questão 70761
(UFGD - 2010)
While in Copenhagen, Lula was also very strategic in his country's presentation before the committee. He brushed aside concerns of violence and crime in Rio, and to the president's credit, the Olympic Committee praised Brazil for recent security improvements. Lula also claimed that the Olympics would help build Brazil, and especially the city of Rio de Janeiro, by providing jobs for the poor, integrating civil society, and building a spirit of peace and cooperation through sport. Such a prospect no doubt appealed to the committee as this goal was one of the original touted benefits of the modern Olympics Games, dating back to their genesis at the end of the 19th century. Most important, though, was Lula's argument that Brazil deserved and needed the Olympics. Richer countries had had their turn, Lula said, and now it was Brazil's chance. Brazil ranks 10th among the world's wealthiest countries, but it is the only one of them never to have hosted the games. It will be the first South American country to do so. International sports tend to mirror politics. Today's decision will reveal, yet again, that Brazil is an emerging power, and that it has the talent, infrastructural capacity, and political commitment needed to play competitively in global political (and athletic) games. Such an endorsement will only boost Lula's ability to shape international discussions and forge closer ties with other foreign leaders. Perhaps since Lula visited Beijing in 2008 and publicly supported the government's efforts, the president of China will return the favor in 2016. There's also a larger story to tell about today's decision, one that speaks to other emerging nations on the brink of global power. Like Brazil, India's and South Africa's governments still confront a high degree of poverty, inequality, and weak infrastructure -- especially in rural areas. Like South Africa, recent winning bid for the soccer World Cup, Brazil's win shows that effective presidential stewardship, fearless competition, and a bit of strategy pays off at the international level and at home. Let the games begin!
All the sentences below are grammatical wrong, EXCEPT
A
Brazil is wealthier than South Africa.
B
Brazil is more wealthy than South Africa.
C
Brazil is wealthiest than South Africa.
D
Brazil is more wealth than South Africa.
E
Brazil is more wealthiest than South Africa.
Gabarito:
Brazil is wealthier than South Africa.
Resolução:
A) CORRECT: pois, de acordo com a gramática, se uma palavra de duas sílabas (como é o caso de "wealthy", dividido em "weal-thy") termina com '-y', ela é substituída por '-ier'.
B) INCORRECT: pois, segundo a gramática inglesa, a palavra ‘more’ é colocada antes do adjetivo multissílaba (mais de três sílabas) e advérbios que terminam em ‘-ly’. Neste caso é incorreto, porque wealthy possui duas sílabas e não termina em '-ly' (weal-thy).
C) INCORRECT: pois o uso da terminação '-iest' é uma marca do superlativo, e não da comparação. O grau superlativo é usado para comparar a qualidade com muitas ou todas as outras.
D) INCORRECT: pois "wealth" não é um adjetivo comparativo, mas sim um substantivo (que indica 'riqueza', ou 'fortuna'). Logo, não pode ser utilizado nessa situação.
E) INCORRECT: pois não se pode usar dois elementos de comparação relativos ao mesmo termo, algo que se vê em "more" e na terminação "-iest". É necessário utilizar um ou o outro e utilizar o elemento correto.
