Translation:This is the player who made all the goals.
Technically, yes. But "make a goal" sounds very unnatural in English and is usually only said by people learning english, with context of score
Is this made goals in the sense of scoring them or making a goal as in setting it up with a good pass?
In English when someone 'makes' goals it means he made the pass, so it was an assist... We even call these people 'goal makers'... what are these people called in Portuguese?
Every other "L" I've seen at the end of a word became an "i" when the word was pluralized. Is gols an exception, or is "ol" the exception? (All the other examples I can think of ended in "al" or "el" but not "ol".) I got it right, but only because "gois" looked funny.
I also wondered about this, and checked it in the great book called 'Modern Brazilian Grammar'. It says:
The letter '-l' becomes '-is', e.g. jornal>jornais ‘newspaper’, terrível>terríveis ‘terrible’, but note the following:
(i) '-el' and '-ol' become '-éis' and '-óis' respectively when the stress is on the last syllable, i.e. when there is no written accent elsewhere in the word, e.g. papel>papéis ‘paper(s)’, lençol>lençóis ‘sheet(s)', sol>sóis ‘sun(s)’;
(ii) '-il' becomes '-is' if it is the stressed syllable, e.g. fuzil>fuzis ‘rifle(s)’, sutil>sutis ‘subtle’; otherwise (i.e. if there is a written accent elsewhere in the word), '-il' becomes '-eis', e.g. fóssil>fósseis ‘fossil(s)’, réptil>répteis ‘reptile(s)’.
(iii)Exceptions: cônsul>cônsules ‘consul(s)’, gol>gols ‘goal(s)’, mal>males‘evil(s), harm’.
You can use "quem", no problem. It's not so common, but our teachers encourage us to use it in texts to avoid repetition of too many "que"s.
This link tells exactly that.
This other link also says it's ok.
They disagree in a single point:
When "quem" is used, the verb must decline according to it (3 person singular).
One of the links says it "must" the other says it "can". I'm not sure about which option is right here.
when "who" works as a relative pronoun it's usually translated as "que"
I have always thought that the plural for "o gol" is "os golos" - or does it work only in Portugal?
I've read that explanation but it is from a book about brazilian grammar. Perhaps I didn't make it clear but I wanted to ask whether there is a difference in plurals between portuguese spoken in Brazil and in Portuguese. Recently I have found "golos" in this article: http://desporto.sapo.pt/futebol/mundial/brasil_2014/artigo/2014/06/13/mundial2014-m-xico-vence-camar-es-apesar-de-dois-golos-mal-anulados
So this form is evidently in use but from the discussion above I presume that only in Portugal.
I'm Portuguese and I can say that we use "golo" (singular) and "golos" (plural). In Portugal we neve use "gol" or "gols". Also - as a curiosity - in Brazil the Goalkeeper is "goleiro" (the goal man) and in Portugal the Goalkeeper is a "Guarda-Redes" (the one that guards the nets) :)