jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 ... the pluralisation of things, which can't be plural? E.g. Craig Paterson talking about "... the Nicky Laws, the Lee McCullochs ..." Then you get the guff about "you have to win the games against the St Mirrens, Partick Thistles ..." Bah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginger jambo98 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yesterdays feelgood factor didn't last long JV :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 Fortunately, if they say "the Hearts ...", they're correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejtee Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yesterdays feelgood factor didn't last long JV :-) I put it down to impending old age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 Pfft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 I put it down to impending old age! Never mind "what would John Smeaton do?" What would Happy Hutton have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 It's a horrible turn of phrase. I can excuse it if one thing is pluralized to represent a collective group for example in a discussion about football hard men one may refer to the 'Pasquale Brunos of the game'. But when Billy Dodds says "you've got your Motherwells, your Invernesses, your Dundee Uniteds, your Aberdeens, your St Johnstones all challenging for second place'" why pluralize if you're going to name them all Billyzzssszs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejtee Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Never mind "what would John Smeaton do?" What would Happy Hutton have said? He would just have smacked you on the side of the head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 Indeed. Two-year jail sentence for that, these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 It's a horrible turn of phrase. I can excuse it if one thing is pluralized to represent a collective group for example in a discussion about football hard men one may refer to the 'Pasquale Brunos of the game'. But when Billy Dodds says "you've got your Motherwells, your Invernesses, your Dundee Uniteds, your Aberdeens, your St Johnstones all challenging for second place'" why pluralize if you're going to name them all Billyzzssszs? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejtee Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Indeed. Two-year jail sentence for that, these days. Aye they get off with things too easily nowadays. Bring back corporal punishment for poor English (and numeracy too!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amoruso Lets it Run ... Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 ... the pluralisation of things, which can't be plural? E.g. Craig Paterson talking about "... the Nicky Laws, the Lee McCullochs ..." Then you get the guff about "you have to win the games against the St Mirrens, Partick Thistles ..." Bah Not sure, but thankfully there's plenty words to describe the utter welts of summarisers we have inflicted on us, like Craig Paterson, Craigan, Walker, Dodds etc which can be pluralised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 It shows up the poor language and presentation skills that some of these pundits have. Most of them are as thick as the hills, although I suppose they shouldn't need to have an honours degree in English. Just talking properly would be good. The other one that gets me is when they come out with "he just about kept that in", when the player has kept it in, or the goalkeeper "just about kept that out", when he has made a save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 "Afters" - that's another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 "Afters" - that's another one. "After" is the German for "anus". And if German formed its plurals by adding an -s, which it tends not to, "Afters" would be anuses. Which I suppose brings us back round to Billy Dodds, Chick Young etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco Fascione Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Why are Scottish football TV and radio programmes mostly garbage? Except Off the Ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Why are Scottish football TV and radio programmes mostly garbage? Except Off the Ball. Because the bulk of their coverage is aimed at the lowest common denominator amongst their audience - Rangers and Celtic fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboozy Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Because the bulk of their coverage is aimed at the lowest common denominator amongst their audience - Rangers and Celtic fans. the ranjurses & sellicks of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Is it not a case that it is an incomplete sentence rather than inappropriate pluralisation. For example one might say "The Rudi Skacels of this world", which would refer to people who were akin to Rudi Skacel, but it has become popular to shorten this to "Your Rudi Skacels" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister T Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Aye they get off with things too easily nowadays. Bring back corporal punishment for poor English (and numeracy too!) And hard labour for rich ones. Boom Boom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Aye they get off with things too easily nowadays. Bring back corporal punishment for poor English (and numeracy too!) Send Sky's Alan Smith to the same set of stocks. He has an absolutely infuriating habit of finishing sentences with the subject of that sentence, Alan Smith. He managed three successive sentences in the Newcastle game with the subject, the duff commentator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,186
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.