Sports Commentary

Writing: Correction of texts.

Symbols:
ww: wrong word. g: grammar.
p: punctuation. : remove word.
s: spelling. f-ww.: (in)formal word.
wo: word order. : add a word.
wf: word form. *: possibly ok.

Ver también: Linkers para una lista de palabras que te pueden ayudar en tus escritos.

  

Ver también: Linkers para una lista de palabras que te pueden ayudar en tus escritos.

Write about the main differences between two cultures, ...

Text: If you like, try to correct the text first. I've given you a few hints. See the key above.

Corrected text:

   Download MP3

If you see Alonso passing Hamilton and after that, Hamilton eating grass (and his pride) because a supposed "god" cannot be passed by the two-time champion, please, don't get up out of your seats throwing your beers and insulting Hamilton.

I only think all the strategy of McLaren was a VERY BIG mistake. They stopped Alonso and they should have stopped Hamilton, at least this year. It was a difficult decision, but they have lost both the championship and the champion, and they now know how difficult it is to win it, and they will know more about it in the next few years. Anyway, only time will tell, and very soon, we won't have to wait for very long.

Alonso told his boss a few months ago, "Raikonnen will be the champion if we continue like this," and he laughed - ha, ha - "he who laughs last, laughs best."

You are blind if you can't see how the FIA has helped this year. It was a mafia, including two penalties against Alonso and two cleared penalties against Hamilton. - Have you ever seen a wrecker helping a car?!?! Incredible! Undefendable! - To sum it up, a 20-point difference. Or has the FIA helped Alonso even once!? Come on!! He is not going to search for a new job, he's going to look for a new team, because this year he had a very proud English group. ;-)

Rubén

Explanations:

"if you see Alonso passing to Hamilton and after that, Hamilton eating grass because a "god" cannot be passed by the bichampion and (wo) eat his proud." vs. "If you see Alonso passing Hamilton and after that, Hamilton eating grass (and his pride) because a supposed "god" cannot be passed by the two-time champion."

There are a few errors here: 1) The first word ("If") at the beginning of a sentence should be capitalized. 2) The combination "passing to" is a Spanglish error. In Spanish, you say "pasar a Hamilton." In English, we don't use the preposition "to" to communicate this type of idea. 3) I am confused by the phrase "because a "god" cannot be passed," so I need an adjective like "supposed" to clarify who and what you are talking about. "Supposed" also communicates that you are being ironic, which helps me, the reader, to understand. 4) The word "bichampion" is Spanglish and does not exist in English.

". . . please dont get up of yours chairs throwing your beers saying bad words againts Hamilton." vs. ". . . please, don't get up out of your seats throwing your beers and insulting Hamilton."

There are a few errors here: 1) The auxilary "don't" has an apostrophe to indicate a contraction. 2) The preposition "of" is incorrect in this sentence if used alone without the preposition "out." You can write either: "get up out of your chairs" or "get up from your chairs." 3) "Yours" is a possessive pronoun which replaces the combination "your chairs." "Your" is a possessive adjective which combines with a noun like "chairs." 4) While "chairs" is ok, I prefer "seats" because it has a more general meaning. 5) "Saying bad words" means "insulting." It's ok, but sounds Spanglish (like you don't know a better word in English). 6) The proper spelling of this preposition is "against." While "saying bad words against somebody" is ok, I prefer "saying bad words at," or even better, "cussing at."

"I only think (wo) it was a VERY BIG mistake all the strategy of McLaren, . . ." vs. "I only think all the strategy of McLaren was a VERY BIG mistake."

This is clearly a Spanglish word order. (This is how you say it in Spanish and you translate it directly to English.)

"they stopped Alonso and they might to stop Hamilton, at least this year." vs. "They stopped Alonso and they should have stopped Hamilton, at least this year."

There are a couple of points here: 1) In Spanish, you don't start new sentences as often as in English. In other words, in English, start new sentences more often. 2) The meaning is completely lost here with the modal verb "might," which is used erroneously as a past form of "must." (Also, we normally don't use "to" with modal verbs, except with "ought to." )

"It was a difficult decission but they losed the championship and the champion, and they know (wo) now what difficult is to win it and they will know more ." vs. "It was a difficult decision, but they have lost both the championship and the champion, and they now know how difficult it is to win it, and they will know more about it in the next few years."

There are a few errors here: 1) The correct spelling is "decision." 2) The past simple form of the verb "lose" is "lost." However, in this context the correct grammar to use is the present perfect which communicates that though they lost both the champion and the championship in the past, that there are consequences in the present. (The past simple communicates that there aren't necessarily any consequences in the present.) 3) The word order with adverbs is to (usually) put them before the main verb or after the verb "to be." 4) This is a frequent error with Spanish students of English. To ask for the level of difficulty of something, a simple question is "how difficult is something (it)?" 5) Compare the first question below to the second indirect question and to the other similar negative sentence:

Notice that the first part of "Do you know . . ." has a question word order, but the second part ". . . how difficult something is?" does not have a question word order. The same thing is true with the negative sentence "I don't know how difficult something is." 6) I need more information at the end of the sentence to clarify the meaning.

"Alonso told to his boss a few months ago, Raikonnen will be the champion if we continue like as and he laughed jeje .....' who laugh the last, laugh better'" vs. "Alonso told his boss a few months ago, 'Raikonnen will be the champion if we continue like this,' and he laughed - ha, ha - 'he who laughs last, laughs best.'"

There are a few errors here: 1) The basic pattern with "tell" is to "tell somebody something" and the structure with "say" is "say something to somebody." 2) The word "as" here is perhaps a Spanglish error, but in English it has no meaning. 3) "jeje" means nothing in English as well. We usually indicate laughter with "ha, ha" or something more modern like "lol" (laugh out loud). 4) The correct expression or proverb is "he who laughs last, laughs best"

"Anyway the time will say it, and very soon, we are not to wait a lot of time." vs. "Anyway, only time will tell, and very soon, we won't have to wait for very long."

There are a few points here: 1) The correct expression is "only time will tell." 2) The phrase "you are not to do something" means that you are obliged to "NOT" do something (for example, you "mustn't" or "can't" do something.) On the other hand, what you mean to say is that there will not be a necessity to do something, for example, "we will not need to wait." In English, we use "do not have to" ("no tener que") to say that there is no necessity to do something. And, to talk about the future we use "will." So, we can also say, "we will not have to wait." 3) When we talk about time, we often use the word "long." For example, to ask questions about duration we use "how long. . .?" or "how long will we have to wait?" In the answers we use "long" as well. For example, "we won't have to wait for a long time."

"you are blind if you dont see the helps of FIA this year," vs. "You are blind if you can't see how the FIA has helped this year."

There are a few problems here (a couple repeated from before): 1) Capitalize the first letter in a sentence. 2) The auxiliary "don't" has an apostrophe to indicate that it is a contraction. In this type of context, we usually use the modal verb "can't" instead of "don't." "Do" is used in the present simple, which is used to communicate information about habits and characteristics. In this case, I don't think you mean to say that this is a habit or characteristic of the other person. What you mean is somebody is unable to do something. 3) The noun "helps" in this sentence is a Spanglish translation from "ayudas." "Assistance" is a better choice. However, I prefer to transform the noun into a verb because "assistance" sounds too positive. 4) Also, the present perfect is a better choice of grammar than the present simple because of the phrase "this year." As I said before, the present simple generally communicates ideas about routines and characteristics. The perfect tenses, however, communicate more complex ideas about two different times; in this case, about the present and the past. In other words, the FIA helped earlier this year and it's helping now. Also, there is the idea in this sentence ("the FIA has helped") that there is a consequence to this help in the present.

"it was a mafia, including, two penalties against Alonso and two desappear penalties against Hamilton" vs. "It was a mafia, including two penalties against Alonso and two cleared penalties against Hamilton."

There are several problems here: 1) Again, capitalize the first letter in a sentence. 2) Don't use a comma after "including." 3) One translation of "desaparecidos" is "cleared," but "disappeared" doesn't work. Normally, we don't "disappear" something. While disappear can be a transitive verb , it is much more frequently intransitive . I.e. an object can "disappear," but not usually "be disappeared."

"have you been ever a wrecker helping a car????" vs. "Have you ever seen a wrecker helping a car?!?!"

There are a couple of points here: 1) Memorize the structure in this order, "have you ever done/been/seen/walked/etc. something." It's always the same, it's very frequent and it's very useful. The adverb "ever" comes before the main verb. 2) The correct verb is "seen," not "been," which looks like a silly mistake.

"incledible, undefendible," vs. "Incredible! Undefendable!"

Both of these words are misspelled and should probably each have an exclamation mark for emphasis.

"in resum... 20 points of diference...or can you say only one on your hand??" - "To sum it up, a 20-point difference. Or has the FIA helped Alonso even once!?"

There are a couple of errors here: 1) This is a Spanglish error. One correct translation of "en resumen" is "to sum it up." You can see a few other linkers here: Summarizing. By the way, a résumé is a curriculum vitae in American English. "To resume" is to continue after a stop. 2) We can make an adjective from "20 points" if we use a hyphen (-) and the singular "point" instead of the plural "points." I.e. "A 20-point difference." 3) The meaning in the last sentence is completely lost.

"come on!!" vs. "Come on!!"

Again, capitalitalize the first letter in the sentence.

"he is going to search (wo) not a new job, a new team yes, because he had this year a very english (wo) proud group. ;-)" vs. "He is not going to search for a new job, he's going to look for a new team, because this year he had a very proud English group. ;-)"

There are several errors here: 1) Capitalitalize the first letter in the sentence. 2) The correct word order is "he is not going to do something." Keep your sentences simple until you master the simplest grammar. 3) The phrase "a new team yes" is Spanglish, rewrite it. 4) Nationalities are capitalized in English.

Exercises:

Ruben's Sports Commentary Quiz
Ruben's Sports Commentary Cloze

Speaking:

Speaking about Sports.

More Activities:

Grammar: Presente Continuo.