"Where are Saints sitting on the table"
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8578
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
"Where are Saints sitting on the table"
This appears as a sub heading on saints.com.au
I see at least two problems with that. Who is checking this? Should I offer my services?
And don't get me started on "Who've we got next week"
I see at least two problems with that. Who is checking this? Should I offer my services?
And don't get me started on "Who've we got next week"
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8578
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
I had no problem with the sitting but we are not on a table, we have a ladder.
And we don't support Saints, we support THE Saints.
And what sort of a word is who've?
And we don't support Saints, we support THE Saints.
And what sort of a word is who've?
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 10:39am
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 105 times
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
Isn't that what you do with a whoover or are they what horses have on the end of their legs?kosifantutti wrote: And what sort of a word is who've?
- borderbarry
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
- Location: Wodonga
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
I thought you put an R on the end of it and vaccumed your house with it.
- borderbarry
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
- Location: Wodonga
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
Or put a short, cross dresser, and made him in charge of the FBI.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2622
- Joined: Thu 29 Sep 2011 9:45pm
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
Bogan idiot unqualified but probably do the job on the cheap influenceshmic_s wrote:Colorado influence?
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11231
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 136 times
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".kosifantutti wrote:I had no problem with the sitting but we are not on a table, we have a ladder.
And we don't support Saints, we support THE Saints.
And what sort of a word is who've?
The one that gets me is when people that seem to be genuinely intelligent post something like "his a great player", when they mean "he's a great player". The abbreviation of he is is he's, not his.
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8578
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
It may be logical but it don't make it right.Bernard Shakey wrote:Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".kosifantutti wrote:I had no problem with the sitting but we are not on a table, we have a ladder.
And we don't support Saints, we support THE Saints.
And what sort of a word is who've?
It didn't look right to me and didn't appear in dictionary.com
Other abbreviations such as we've eg "Who we've got next week" do appear.
Not saying that dictionary.com is the sole arbiter of what is acceptable English, but it was good enough for me to include it in my rant.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
People seem fairly liberal applying the 've suffix. You end up with abominations like shouldn't've. Given what else passes for English these days it's hard to say with certainty these uses are incorrect, but you're right that they're not proper.kosifantutti wrote:It may be logical but it don't make it right.Bernard Shakey wrote:Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".kosifantutti wrote:I had no problem with the sitting but we are not on a table, we have a ladder.
And we don't support Saints, we support THE Saints.
And what sort of a word is who've?
It didn't look right to me and didn't appear in dictionary.com
Other abbreviations such as we've eg "Who we've got next week" do appear.
Not saying that dictionary.com is the sole arbiter of what is acceptable English, but it was good enough for me to include it in my rant.
On a related note I once realised there were almost no uses of the term 'have got' that weren't more eloquently expressed with a simple 'have' (perhaps with a 'do' thrown in somewhere).
But that leads us to the notion that 'have' is a poor choice of word anyway, as it doesn't convey any information at all.
So 'Who've we got next week' < 'Who have we got next week' < 'Who do we have next week' < 'Who do we play next week'.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10390
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 699 times
Re: "Where are Saints sitting on the table"
y'all'd've used contradictions y'all oughtn't've, no?
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "