|
Post by roro on Mar 7, 2008 14:04:08 GMT
I think we should try and get Foster back, his kicking is something that really impresses me and played a big part for Watford's promotion the other season.
Would be a great signing if we went in for him. I know Nash has done nothing wrong, but I know who I would prefer to see in our pegs!
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Mar 7, 2008 14:06:58 GMT
Is he fit ???
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 14:08:11 GMT
Only just returned from long-term injury. Would he want to drop down a division?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 7, 2008 14:08:41 GMT
tinyurl.com/2bwl8dLooks like he'll end up on loan somewhere in the C'ship? Maybe back to Watford? It'd be nice to see him finally make his Stoke debut ;D Won't be us though, will it? Surely we wouldn't mess Nash around to that degree.
|
|
|
Post by roro on Mar 7, 2008 14:10:37 GMT
Manchester Utd have confirmed he can go out on load and has already recieved enquires about for him from several Championship teams and one League One side.
He needs first team football to get himself back in the frame for England, no matter what league it is at the moment, first team is better than reserve team.
Come on Stoke, bring him back for a few months!
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Mar 7, 2008 14:13:57 GMT
SAF was reported on SSN as saying he should go out to get games.
That won't be in the Prem, so he might be out there in a goal near us somewhere soon.
When suggested on here recently, a "mate" of his said he would never return as we'd fooked him over royally (or words to that effect - albeit his use of vocab was probably far more polite ;D)
|
|
|
Post by u2oxeterstokie on Mar 7, 2008 14:22:52 GMT
We've got Nash now so there's no debate is there.
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Mar 7, 2008 14:53:57 GMT
R.I.P to the word 'have' You will be missed.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 7, 2008 14:55:35 GMT
Should of is correct-its just the way us Stokies say it.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 14:58:30 GMT
how is it correct?
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Mar 7, 2008 15:03:17 GMT
I am born and bred Stoke and I say 'ave but I still wouldnt write it.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:04:20 GMT
It's a usage variation used by some native speakers of English. There's no "incorrect" about it.
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Mar 7, 2008 15:06:18 GMT
isnt OF a different word though?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:09:14 GMT
Yes. Doesn't make it wrong though, pieces of vocabulary are always replaced with new ones, it's a process of the development of language.
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Mar 7, 2008 15:14:58 GMT
....or the lack of development in education?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:28:50 GMT
If you follow that line of thinking, we should still be using pronouns like "thee" and "thine." We only don't because of "declining standards of education."
It's a misconception. Language develops naturally in any society, no amount of tightening of educational standards can stop it.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 15:29:47 GMT
If I started referring to potatos as "potartis", that would be an acceptable variation and not incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by u2oxeterstokie on Mar 7, 2008 15:32:00 GMT
At the end of the day, "should of signed" is simply poor grammar
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Mar 7, 2008 15:32:47 GMT
So in the future we wont be using the word 'have' then?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:36:50 GMT
rvd - it takes more than one person to change something in language, but if you existed as part of a community that used that word, of course it would be acceptable.
u2 - it's "bad grammar" in the sense that it is not standard grammar, and does not follow prescriptive grammar rules (which are made up anyway).
Robin - in that particular context it's possible that "of" will replace "have," yes.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 15:39:01 GMT
"should of" doesn't make any sense though. The word "of" has no belonging there. It's just a case of people misspelling "should've" which is an abbreviation of "should have".
|
|
|
Post by u2oxeterstokie on Mar 7, 2008 15:41:57 GMT
Then it is bad grammar potter log!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:42:46 GMT
rvd:
That's how language works.
Can you tell me the meaning of "it" in "it is raining?"
In fact, while we're at it, tell me the meaning of "have" in "should have signed."
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:45:58 GMT
Then it is bad grammar potter log! In that case it is bad grammar to use "you" instead of "thee," "your" instead of "thine," and countless other words which have just become naturally obsolete. What do you think came first, language or grammar?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 15:55:09 GMT
The "it" can refer to both the sky and the weather in that context. Both are objectified by "it". What about the "of" in should "of"?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 15:59:25 GMT
The "it" can refer to both the sky and the weather in that context. Both are objectified by "it". What about the "of" in should "of"? Nonsense. When have you ever heard anyone say "The sky is raining," or "the weather is raining." My point is that these words have no meaning, they're just arbitrary grammatical devices. Whether it's "have" or "of" in this particular context makes no difference. There's as much logic for it being "have" as there is for it being "of."
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 16:02:07 GMT
Not really. The "have" is the verb part of the past tense. "Of" is not a verb.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 7, 2008 16:03:23 GMT
Shouldn't 'of' bothered with this thread
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 7, 2008 16:15:18 GMT
Not really. The "have" is the verb part of the past tense. No it isn't. In some cases it is part of the present perfect tense. "Of" is not currently a verb, no, but that's kind of my point - these things can change.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 7, 2008 16:20:20 GMT
the fact that they haven't yet though would suggest that at this stage it remains bad grammar.
|
|