I think we might just of seen

[MikeTheCubed]

To the casual observer you'd never have guessed that Luc was a recently-turned 18 year old making his competitive debut.

[gang]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

The dreaded "of" verb again.....

Of is a preposition not a verb.

[Dodgin]

I see 18 year old Luc has been at the club Ten years

[EN1 FFC]

De Fougerolles did well in the partnership with Bassey, but if Tosin doesn't leave I expect him to be the Right CB cover.
You could also say Silva's normal starting 1st line-up is
Leno (Rodak)
Tete (Castagne) Diop (Tosin) Ream (Bassey) Robinson (Ballo-Toure)
Reed (Lukic)  Palhinha (Iwobi)
Reid (Wilson) Pereira (Cairney) Willian (Adama)
Raul (Vinicius-Muniz)
not many of those started against Ipswich
I think most of their replacements did well and it was a good game, it's good to know we have most positions covered for injury and suspensions, except may be a better starting striker. And that Lukic, Reid, Cairney & Iwobi are very adaptable in midfield.

[btffc]

De Fougerolles was superb, a great debut.
Composed, classy on the ball, even started demanding the ball a bit more mid way through the first half when he clearly thought he could do this. Only slight issue was his heading as he didn't make that many.
First thing I'd be doing this morning at motspur park is a paternity test, as he's clearly got Ream's genes.

Heading could be an issue as he is rather short for a CB.

[hovewhite]

Early days, I think I could have looked good against tonight's opposition but fair play to him.

You can only beat what's in front of you.
Personally think this is unfair to ipswich. Who are second in the championship right now, so their closer to us in league position then anyone in the top 6 of the prem.

Maybe so but they looked a poor version of a Championship side tonight.
Partly down to the way we played but they never made it hard for us in my opinion.
I'm not complaining, just saying.

[hovewhite]

Early days, I think I could have looked good against tonight's opposition but fair play to him.

You can only beat what's in front of you.
Personally think this is unfair to ipswich. Who are second in the championship right now, so their closer to us in league position then anyone in the top 6 of the prem.

Maybe so but they looked a poor version of a Championship side tonight.
Partly down to the way we played but they never made it hard for us in my opinion.
I'm not complaining, just saying.

you can only beat what's in front of you

[Eton White]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would of or should of, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.

[HV71]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

[Eton White]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

[Willham]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

I for one like of as a verb, the English language is always expanding and evolving and the northerners who have used 'of' as a verb the longest are often forgotten in English dictionaries and southerners always seem to push us more towards the romantic languages of French. I also enjoy the cultural ties we share with germanic languages more and with that, I will continue to use of when 'officially' shouldn't be used.

Isn't the point of language to convey, if the sentence is understood then what is the problem?

The change is slowly finding its way into official things, here's a dictionary website that has a meaning under 'auxiliary verb'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of
Not official in the Oxford dictionary yet, but this is how it begins [*starts rubbing hands together*]

[HV71]

Perfectly good point about understanding. The only problem I had ( even as a northerner ) I did not  understand the title of the original post when I first read it

[Eton White]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

I for one like of as a verb, the English language is always expanding and evolving and the northerners who have used 'of' as a verb the longest are often forgotten in English dictionaries and southerners always seem to push us more towards the romantic languages of French. I also enjoy the cultural ties we share with germanic languages more and will continue to use of when 'officially' shouldn't be used.

Isn't the point of language to convey, if the sentence is understood then what is the problem?

The change is slowly finding its way into official things, here's a dictionary website that has a meaning under 'auxiliary verb'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of
Not official in the Oxford dictionary yet, but this is how it begins [*starts rubbing hands together*]

That link you posted describes it as below, which is absolutely right.
It's used in place of "have" in uneducated speech.

Basically, people use it by mistake because they don't understand English properly. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing:

"of"

auxiliary verb
nonstandard
HAVE — used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech

[Willham]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

I for one like of as a verb, the English language is always expanding and evolving and the northerners who have used 'of' as a verb the longest are often forgotten in English dictionaries and southerners always seem to push us more towards the romantic languages of French. I also enjoy the cultural ties we share with germanic languages more and will continue to use of when 'officially' shouldn't be used.

Isn't the point of language to convey, if the sentence is understood then what is the problem?

The change is slowly finding its way into official things, here's a dictionary website that has a meaning under 'auxiliary verb'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of
Not official in the Oxford dictionary yet, but this is how it begins [*starts rubbing hands together*]

That link you posted describes it as below, which is absolutely right.
It's used in place of "have" in uneducated speech.

Basically, people use it by mistake because they don't understand English properly. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing:

"of"

auxiliary verb
nonstandard
HAVE — used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech

You missed the example underneath:
I could of beat them easy

As I said, this is not official and i said the beginning, its starting to creep,

Here is another unofficial dictionary sporting 'of' as a verb

https://wordtype.org/of/of

People don't use it by mistake, it's a very cultural thing, you can consider people are using it by mistake because you may like to live by the book, but language is a living thing, the books are based on what we speak.

This is though, an age old argument, and no definitive answer will ever give credence to both sides, I will not answer any more responses because we could argue these matters for weeks and probably get no where,

I do understand the need to standardise things, which makes life much easier overall, but I enjoy quirks and individualism more so I tend to sway that way often.

[perry geyton]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

I for one like of as a verb, the English language is always expanding and evolving and the northerners who have used 'of' as a verb the longest are often forgotten in English dictionaries and southerners always seem to push us more towards the romantic languages of French. I also enjoy the cultural ties we share with germanic languages more and with that, I will continue to use of when 'officially' shouldn't be used.

Isn't the point of language to convey, if the sentence is understood then what is the problem?

The change is slowly finding its way into official things, here's a dictionary website that has a meaning under 'auxiliary verb'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of
Not official in the Oxford dictionary yet, but this is how it begins [*starts rubbing hands together*]

It's just Twig being a smart arse, he loves to correct people, not the first time he's done it too me and won't be the last,
I also live in the states now so might have something to do with it ,  plus  I'm slightly  dyslexic, I was terrible at school but a creative kid so I'm ok with it

[perry geyton]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out why it happens - I'm not saying it's right!

By the way, your quote of mine seems to have corrected the "would of" and "should of" I typed, to "would have" and "should have".
Was that you, or does the forum automatically do that?!

I for one like of as a verb, the English language is always expanding and evolving and the northerners who have used 'of' as a verb the longest are often forgotten in English dictionaries and southerners always seem to push us more towards the romantic languages of French. I also enjoy the cultural ties we share with germanic languages more and will continue to use of when 'officially' shouldn't be used.

Isn't the point of language to convey, if the sentence is understood then what is the problem?

The change is slowly finding its way into official things, here's a dictionary website that has a meaning under 'auxiliary verb'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of
Not official in the Oxford dictionary yet, but this is how it begins [*starts rubbing hands together*]

That link you posted describes it as below, which is absolutely right.
It's used in place of "have" in uneducated speech.

Basically, people use it by mistake because they don't understand English properly. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing:

"of"

auxiliary verb
nonstandard
HAVE — used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech

You missed the example underneath:
I could of beat them easy

As I said, this is not official and i said the beginning, its starting to creep,

Here is another unofficial dictionary sporting 'of' as a verb

https://wordtype.org/of/of

People don't use it by mistake, it's a very cultural thing, you can consider people are using it by mistake because you may like to live by the book, but language is a living thing, the books are based on what we speak.

This is though, an age old argument, and no definitive answer will ever give credence to both sides, I will not answer any more responses because we could argue these matters for weeks and probably get no where,

I do understand the need to standardise things, which makes life much easier overall, but I enjoy quirks and individualism more so I tend to sway that way often.

So I'm not as thick as I thought I was then, excellent !!

Actually I find the northern association interesting as my grandad who I spent a lot of time with growing up was a Geordie

[love4ffc]

He has become my favorite canuck.  Hope he continues to be a great player for Fulham with a bright future 

[Roberty]

Remember, the only person who NEVER made a mistake NEVER did anything.

Age is not an important factor, that is always; are you good enough !

If he is, then he needs to play or he will never develop and like so many others will move to a club who will play him. Matt O'Riley comes to mind; at age 20 he was still only an occasional player and was on his bike instead of signing a new contract.

Of course a younger player may need a more hands on approach to manage good and bad performances, but that it an issue for the coach.

If MS cannot work with young players, to being them through, then our academy is a pointless display of affluence. Brentford did away with theirs and we always praise their recruitment, but they were left with no other options.

[Twig]

Might just have seen not, of seen. Please.

This seems to happen more and more these days unfortunately.

Stating the obvious I know, but it's because would've or should've sound like would have or should have, when they're just shortened versions of would have and should have.


You are right of course  - in terms of what has happened to language  - but whilst we are all capable of grammatical mistakes ,Twig is right to point out  that  " of seen " is a tad obscene.

Just to add that I was being somewhat lighthearted. I hope Perry didn't take me too seriously and I certainly meant no offence.

[Colton F.C.]

De Fougerolles was superb, a great debut.
Composed, classy on the ball, even started demanding the ball a bit more mid way through the first half when he clearly thought he could do this. Only slight issue was his heading as he didn't make that many.
First thing I'd be doing this morning at motspur park is a paternity test, as he's clearly got Ream's genes.

Heading could be an issue as he is rather short for a CB.

Never an issue for Babby Moore.