Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
I care. UTBNo but most people in the deepest darkest parts of South Yorkshire don't care if it's a verb or not. They don't care if it's irregular or regular. They don't care if it's 'of' or 'have' that's used in a sentence.
It's bizarre behaviour to get wound up about such things. Unless your thing is to try and rubbish someone's opinion by correcting their grammar.
If you heard someone in a pub would you go over and scream "have! Fucking have!" In their face?
Why don't you just accept that some people don't understand the English language at the same level as you and just contribute to the thread.
So for 2 years?Best prospect they’ve had since Maddison.
So for 2 years?
I work in linguistics and was discussing this with a colleague the other day.
It's because English is a stress-timed language, and we put emphasis on the 'content' words that carry meaning and give weak forms to prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc. In the case above ("could of been sold") 'of' should technically be 'have' as it's the past form of the modal verb 'could'. However, when we speak 'have' takes a weak form which is phonetically written as /əv/ (instead of /hæv/) and sounds a lot like 'of'. Hence the reason that loads of people think of can be used with modals.
That said, 'written speaking' has become it's own genre due to text messaging and social media, and obviously language is always changing, so I suppose you could argue that the mistaken 'of' in past modals is accepted by enough people to be recognised as a legitimate structure...I'm not saying that's what I believe myself, but I do know that loads of my friends always use 'of'.
Best prospect they’ve had since Maddison.
Then loads of your friends, quite literally, talk nonsense.
On a related matter. It’s “its”. Fucking “its”.
Yes, but the word “of” makes sweet fuck all sense in that context. You might as well replace the word “have” with “piano” for the sense it makes.
In fact, let’s replace all words with other, nonsensical ones. Trouser fish grapple bear, which I’ve now decided means up the mighty Blades.
To be read: “Best prospect they’f ofd since Maddison”. If we must assault the English language let’s be consistent.
What exactly is a trouser? Is it half of a pair of trousers? That’s an odd one.
It’s a verb, so it’s “to trouser” rather than “a trouser”![]()
But can it also be a noun? And if so, what is it?
I'm guessing the bird table at the bottom of a very long garden.Did they used to sit you on your own table at the Christmas Do Pinch?![]()
Did they used to sit you on your own table at the Christmas Do Pinch?![]()
Nail on the head.I work in linguistics and was discussing this with a colleague the other day.
It's because English is a stress-timed language, and we put emphasis on the 'content' words that carry meaning and give weak forms to prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc. In the case above ("could of been sold") 'of' should technically be 'have' as it's the past form of the modal verb 'could'. However, when we speak 'have' takes a weak form which is phonetically written as /əv/ (instead of /hæv/) and sounds a lot like 'of'. Hence the reason that loads of people think of can be used with modals.
That said, 'written speaking' has become it's own genre due to text messaging and social media, and obviously language is always changing, so I suppose you could argue that the mistaken 'of' in past modals is accepted by enough people to be recognised as a legitimate structure...I'm not saying that's what I believe myself, but I do know that loads of my friends always use 'of'.
To my mind we should try and sweep up a good few low cost players like this... even at a couple of million a pop. You only need one to turn into a Maddison or Brooks to reep the benefits and you’re also attempting to future proof the team.
Add a Bayliss and Connell etc to the squad brings the age down and could turn into an absolute bargain even if they don’t immediately contribute. We can and should spare a few million of the prem gains to do this
Should we breed them too? Start our own “footballer farm”?
Seen the video his holiday pal has put on Twitter (Hickman)? Calls him “ten bags in one week”, not sure he’s one for us!
Seen the video his holiday pal has put on Twitter (Hickman)? Calls him “ten bags in one week”, not sure he’s one for us!
I admire your restraint in only calling him an-idiot,I would go a lot further than thatSaw that this morning, he says "he's gonna be on 10 bags in about 3 days". I assume that means 10k pw so must have a moved lined up.
The lad on that video is a complete plonker and has probably just ruined his own career. Never played a game for Coventry and goes on a rant saying his pockets are heavy, he's leaving Coventry and f**k them. Add that to him filming himself doing drugs at the same time. Idiot.
Saw that this morning, he says "he's gonna be on 10 bags in about 3 days". I assume that means 10k pw so must have a moved lined up.
The lad on that video is a complete plonker and has probably just ruined his own career. Never played a game for Coventry and goes on a rant saying his pockets are heavy, he's leaving Coventry and f**k them. Add that to him filming himself doing drugs at the same time. Idiot.
Just seen the video - what a prick. He’s grovelling on twitter that he loves the club etc. now.
As an aside, doesn’t mean Bayliss is anything like him. I’ve got mates who are into drugs, doing stuff on nights out, but i’ve never touched the stuff - i’ve no interest in it.
Link to video please?
Is he rumoured to join us on "10 bags"
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?