[SIGNED FOR PNE] Stuart Beavon

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Thet're 'hopeful' of signing him apparently. Can't see us jumping in now, and i'd rather we spent money on the wings than anywhere else if i'm honest
 
With or without Beavon, Preston will be up there at the end of the season IMO.

Some really good recruitment this close season.
 
They may have made some good recruitment, but if they dont get promoted this year, they will become team number 5 to suffer from the Risdale effect. How can a man with no money to his name keep sanctioning player purchases at team after team?
 
dont think we'll sign another striker! we need matt phillips type winger lol
 
davidpinder said:
we should of signed beavon instead of miller and blackman
Click to expand...

Quite happy with Blackman & Cofie. Both are pacey - Cofie is very powerful & Blackman's work rate looks excellent. Not sure about Miller but he was very highly rated 12 months ago so hopefully will come good again.
 
stannyblade said:
Lets give them a chance to prove themselves before we slag them off.
Click to expand...
Not slagging them off i just think we are moving into the new season with our fingers crossed that these 3 new strikers will take to this league, i think signing a player like beavon or even lowe may have been a better bet.
 
davidpinder said:
we should of signed beavon instead of miller and blackman
Click to expand...

Sorry davidpinder, this is not aimed at you specifically, but at a widespread and infuriating habit that is undermining our language.

The word "of" is a preposition. In fact, it is one of the most flexible prepositions in the English language, having multiple uses. It is a very fine word indeed. Its versatility, however, does not extend to transforming itself into a verb, even a slightly irregular one such as "to have".

"'Should have" like its brothers "could have" and "would have" and its cousins "might have" and "may have" is a modal auxiliary verb phrase that serves us well. "Should of" is incapable of any sensible meaning at all.

The more text speak invades our language the poorer we shall be, or, to follow the growing trend, shall of, which is of exactly the same grammatical construction as "should of" and just as meaningless and just as objectionable.

We should leave such nonsense to the Teenage Illiterate Lager Drinkers.

On a more parochial note, people are getting rather carried away about a certain striker. I'd much rather take my Cofie black, man.
 

One of the most irritating grammatical errors in the English language. It is creeping in more and more, and it drives me up the wall.
 
axel smeets said:
One of the most irritating grammatical errors in the English language. It is creeping in more and more, and it drives me up the wall.
Click to expand...

It's bad enough if it's an error Axel, but I suspect, at least in some cases, that it's text-speak laziness. Either way Shakespeare, Dickens and Keats are ruefully shaking their ghostly heads.
 
Pinchy said:
It's bad enough if it's an error Axel, but I suspect, at least in some cases, that it's text-speak laziness. Either way Shakespeare, Dickens and Keats are ruefully shaking their ghostly heads.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm not sure that it is to do with text speak. I think it's because when people say 'should've' which is of course short for 'should have' it sounds like 'should of' so people assume that is how it's written. Either way, winds me up as well :)
 
Pinchy said:
It's bad enough if it's an error Axel, but I suspect, at least in some cases, that it's text-speak laziness. Either way Shakespeare, Dickens and Keats are ruefully shaking their ghostly heads.
Click to expand...

All of course true. I recently heard Jeremy Kyle use 'would of'. Nuff said. If I hear/see it I certainly don't think it's 'text-speak laziness', more a sign of an appalling education or, even worse, an attempt to 'get down wiv da kidz.'

Innit?

However...what do you think of 'gotten'?
 
grafikhaus said:
However...what do you think of 'gotten'?
Click to expand...

As a contraction of 'forgotten' or more likely as a poor spoken replacement for 'got' as past participle of 'get'?

The latter is either laziness, coloquialism, dialect or more likely another case of American use becoming the norm. We conjugate it as get-got-got (the last being the past participle of 'get'), Americans conjugate it get-got-gotten. "By the end of the game we'd got/gotten very wet."
 
SouthEssexBlade said:
As a contraction of 'forgotten' or more likely as a poor spoken replacement for 'got' as past participle of 'get'?

The latter is either laziness, coloquialism, dialect or more likely another case of American use becoming the norm. We conjugate it as get-got-got (the last being the past participle of 'get'), Americans conjugate it get-got-gotten. "By the end of the game we'd got/gotten very wet."
Click to expand...

Yes but I seem to remember that it was taken from here as the "correct" usage and it was us that changed.
 
grafikhaus said:
All of course true. I recently heard Jeremy Kyle use 'would of'. Nuff said. If I hear/see it I certainly don't think it's 'text-speak laziness', more a sign of an appalling education or, even worse, an attempt to 'get down wiv da kidz.'

Innit?

However...what do you think of 'gotten'?
Click to expand...

It has, at least, the quality of a valid etymology. Personally I find it inelegant, but it has a meaning, so we should be thankful I suppose!

"As past participles of get, got and gotten both date back to Middle English. The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English, though even there it is often regarded as non-standard. In North American English, got and gotten are not identical in use. Gotten usually implies the process of obtaining something, as in he had gotten us tickets for the show, while got implies the state of possession or ownership, as in I haven’t got any money."

O.E.D.
 
For Beavon's sake have we not signed him yet?
 
Just signed for Preston North End.
 

can't seem him getting much of the ball bearing in mind Westley's style of play
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom