eelpie Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates.
sadoldgit Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Is this something that SFC does? If not should you have written it somewhere else?
S-Clarke Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 You should of written this in the muppet show. I would of.
Joneth Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Is there some way we could turn this thread around and save it from a premature demise? What events, signings, disallowed goals etc should of, could of, would of or might of happened in Saints history and where would we be now if they did?
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 I cannot understand why anybody should ever write 'of' instead of 'have' for goodness's sake. 'Of' has never been and never will be an auxiliary verb. Nobody would ever say 'I of been to the football today' or 'Of you seen my new car?'. Someone once asked my daughter what the rule was for when you say 'of' and when it should be 'have'. She found it very hard to accept that it is never 'of'. :face palm: I blame the schools. And the teachers. And the parents. And their friends...
Hatch Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Shouldn't of started a new thread for this, would of been better in muppet show.
sadoldgit Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 I cannot understand why anybody should ever write 'of' instead of 'have' for goodness's sake. 'Of' has never been and never will be an auxiliary verb. Nobody would ever say 'I of been to the football today' or 'Of you seen my new car?'. Someone once asked my daughter what the rule was for when you say 'of' and when it should be 'have'. She found it very hard to accept that it is never 'of'. :face palm: I blame the schools. And the teachers. And the parents. And their friends... Yep, should of been taught proper at school!
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 We should not have signed Osvaldo. Of that I'm certain.
Ewell Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 So some grammatical mistakes are more important than others...OK then!
mcbendy Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 It comes from e.g. should've which people hear as should of. Anyway: Rupert Lowe should've appointed better managers following the move to St Mary's. That said, who here would change history? Some of the best moments of my Saints supporting life have been in the last five years, and our Phoenix-like rise.
Saint Billy Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates. "And I" dear chap.
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 I cannot understand why anybody should ever write 'of' instead of 'have' for goodness's sake. 'Of' has never been and never will be an auxiliary verb. Nobody would ever say 'I of been to the football today' or 'Of you seen my new car?'. Someone once asked my daughter what the rule was for when you say 'of' and when it should be 'have'. She found it very hard to accept that it is never 'of'. :face palm: I blame the schools. And the teachers. And the parents. And their friends... It's all about the quality of the English teaching at school where English teachers teach the lesson of English to their pupils. Those pupils can effectively use their learning from English lessons in their future lives of writing English, reading English and speaking English. Who knows, some of those children may use their education from the English lessons they experienced to grow up and become English teachers themselves, teaching English to a new generation of young people. We can only hope this generation and future ones grow up understanding things like grammar, basic spelling and the use of capitalisation of English in these English lessons.
Redslo Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates. I should, of my many options, have elected not to respond to this thread.
Lighthouse Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates. I don't understand, can you be more pacific?
Leicestersaint Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 There does seem to be a lot of it about on this forum - I would have thought it was obvious.
niceandfriendly Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 and you're outta time, coulda woulda shoulda and you change you mind...
Ken Tone Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 It's all about the quality of the English teaching at school where English teachers teach the lesson of English to their pupils. Those pupils can effectively use their learning from English lessons in their future lives of writing English, reading English and speaking English. Who knows, some of those children may use their education from the English lessons they experienced to grow up and become English teachers themselves, teaching English to a new generation of young people. We can only hope this generation and future ones grow up understanding things like grammar, basic spelling and the use of capitalisation of English in these English lessons. Not to mention hoping they understand the difference in nuance between 'effectively use' and 'use effectively'
The9 Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates. I have a term for it: "of thicko". Having said that I gave up trying to change internet thickoes about 5 years ago.
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 It's all about the quality of the English teaching at school where English teachers teach the lesson of English to their pupils. Those pupils can effectively use their learning from English lessons in their future lives of writing English, reading English and speaking English. Who knows, some of those children may use their education from the English lessons they experienced to grow up and become English teachers themselves, teaching English to a new generation of young people. We can only hope this generation and future ones grow up understanding things like grammar, basic spelling and the use of capitalisation of English in these English lessons. But some are taught the difference between grammar and choices of style. Capitalisation is considered by many to be a question of style. Some will never learn and are doomed to follow slavish principles.
scotty Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Surely it's mainly used to convey a lack of seriousness in the post, and confirm that the comment is a joke?
Leslie Charteris Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Not to mention hoping they understand the difference in nuance between 'effectively use' and 'use effectively' �� That's more than nuance, that's a gaping chasm in terms of meaning!
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Surely it's mainly used to convey a lack of seriousness in the post, and confirm that the comment is a joke? This may come as a bit of a shock but... the internet is not the real world
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 But some are taught the difference between grammar and choices of style. Capitalisation is considered by many to be a question of style. Some will never learn and are doomed to follow slavish principles. Find me a link to any one of these "many" people or sources who believe the word English should not be capitalised. I mean, there's "many" so it should be easy.
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Find me a link to any one of these "many" people or sources who believe the word English should not be capitalised. I mean, there's "many" so it should be easy. I am not in reach of my copy of Fowler's 'Modern English Usage' (1967 edition) at the moment. Much of the discussion on various forms of writing style predate the Internet so finding a link is not as easy as some youngsters might think.
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 I am not in reach of my copy of Fowler's 'Modern English Usage' (1967 edition) at the moment. Much of the discussion on various forms of writing style predate the Internet so finding a link is not as easy as some youngsters might think. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fowlers-Modern-English-Re-Revised-Edition/dp/0198610211#immersive-view_1436012927489 Here it is on Amazon with a handy image of the front and back cover, the blurb on the back clearly using "English" in the body text. Oh dear. Come on, "many" you said. Many. I only want one from you.
Toadhall Saint Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 For goodness sake, respected contributors, correct English is should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE, might HAVE.....etc. I am not a pedant, and make lots of grammatical mistakes, but this always grates. You need to get out more - oh and btw what's this got to do with saints?
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fowlers-Modern-English-Re-Revised-Edition/dp/0198610211#immersive-view_1436012927489 Here it is on Amazon with a handy image of the front and back cover, the blurb on the back clearly using "English" in the body text. Oh dear. Come on, "many" you said. Many. I only want one from you. That's a title, and it's the 2004 edition. Come on, keep up.
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 That's a title, and it's the 2004 edition. Come on, keep up. What part of me referring to the body text in the blurb of the back cover did you not understand? Anyway, "many" you said and still nothing. Anytime you like point me the direction of just one of these "many" that go against the slavish followers like me and say the word English should not be capitalised. There's many so just one little, tiny reference to it must be there somewhere.
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 What part of me referring to the body text in the blurb of the back cover did you not understand? Anyway, "many" you said and still nothing. Anytime you like point me the direction of just one of these "many" that go against the slavish followers like me and say the word English should not be capitalised. There's many so just one little, tiny reference to it must be there somewhere. Back cover? What 'back cover' (not on my browser, anyway). I never judge a book by its cover, what does this edition have to say on the subject of capitalisation? http://www.plainenglish.co.uk http://www.english.ox.ac.uk
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Back cover? What 'back cover' (not on my browser, anyway). I never judge a book by its cover, what does this edition have to say on the subject of capitalisation? http://www.plainenglish.co.uk http://www.english.ox.ac.uk Very quick look but every single mention of the word English is capitalised on both sites. So, this isn't going well is it?
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Very quick look but every single mention of the word English is capitalised on both sites. So, this isn't going well is it? Did you click on the links? You were supposed to read them
CB Fry Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Did you click on the links? You were supposed to read them Right. Your links were: 1. The link to the homepage of the faculty of English (their capitals, slavish followers) for Oxford University, so their entire website. 2. The home page of the Plain English (their capitals, slavish followers) campaign, so their entire website. Which parts of those entire websites will show me some of the "many" that think, like you, that the word "English" should not be capitalised. Point me in the direction of the "many".
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Right. Your links were: 1. The link to the homepage of the faculty of English (their capitals, slavish followers) for Oxford University, so their entire website. 2. The home page of the Plain English (their capitals, slavish followers) campaign, so their entire website. Which parts of those entire websites will show me some of the "many" that think, like you, that the word "English" should not be capitalised. Point me in the direction of the "many". Clue: count the capitals in the links.
eurosaint Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 I have a term for it: "of thicko". Having said that I gave up trying to change internet thickoes about 5 years ago. Surely the plural of thicko is thickos not thickoes ??
buctootim Posted 4 July, 2015 Posted 4 July, 2015 Surely the plural of thicko is thickos not thickoes ?? Thicket?
whelk Posted 5 July, 2015 Posted 5 July, 2015 Sure there must be a link in 'would off' who think lose is loosed? All in the sound.
eelpie Posted 5 July, 2015 Author Posted 5 July, 2015 Is this something that SFC does? If not should you have written it somewhere else? 'Should of' is a common expression in Saints threads, as you know. I'm glad to have made the point there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now