When did super become the new very?
What is wrong with the word very? It has served me super well all my life.
2 Likes
Next thing we know …it’ll be blamed on neo liberalism 
I want to put in 101 all the scumbags who invaded our beaches over this last weekend and totally trashed it and set the dunes on fire.
This one photo is just a snap shot. Who goes to the beach and leaves their child’s chair, tent, sand toys and beer cans behind? I personally picked up about 10 laughing gas canisters as well as at least 50 plastic bottles and cans in about a 20 yard radius of my car earlier today.
I was on Southsea beach a couple of weeks ago and it was busy. I honestly didn’t see a single piece of litter. Why do my fellow scousers trash their own coast.
3 Likes
The use of Roster to describe anything squad related in football. Needs to be binned.
We don’t have a roster or draft or quarterback or anything related to American Football.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, it has become a word according to certain dictionaries.
But it began as American slang. However, if an incorrect word is used too much over time, it becomes a word (which is linguistically sadly very common for names of places/locations, where over centuries, the names often change)
It’s possible that it can die (hopefully), but for now, the only thing you can do is shame people who use it, in the hope that it actually dies 
1 Like
I think it’s the case that once a word is in the dictionary, it’s there forever. It may become archaic, but it will remain there as a stain on the English language.
There used to be a TV programme called “Call My Bluff” in which an archaic word would be given three possible definitions, and the team would have to work out the correct meaning.
I think my favourite word was “maness”, which was an archaic word for a woman. It seems unlikely, but it’s pleasingly logical.
3 Likes
Wow, I hate how common usage can be used to redefine and change word’s meanings.
Similarly, due to incorrect usage, I read recently that the word “literally” can now be correctly used to describe something which is not literally true.
For example: “my head literally fell off” is apparently fine. So now literally can mean the opposite of literally…
Check out how 1-3 contradict 4.
3 Likes
Wif was the word for a woman. Later they added man to it for inexplicable reasons (in Middle English, I think, but not sure).
I don’t mind that, but I do mind people who think Mankind is some how “sexist” when it literally encompasses both male and female. When I studied in York, I found it absolutely bonkers that there were (back then) new directives in British Academia, telling people to use “Humanity” instead of Mankind, because it meant the same but was not exclusively male (which makes no sense, as the origin of the word was not exclusively male and never has been). It doesn’t sound the same (and is NOT as poetic). And so I often use mankind on purpose, as the little rebel I am. Why ? Because I love history and I like preserving language, not water it down with the times for “politically correct” reasons when those reasons make 0 % sense.
Edit: I see that man was added as a compound to wif, far earlier than Middle English. So Wif-man. Regardless, Man, both in Old English and Norse, means human (with a variety of titles for the female man, that later became words for the female man), which is why it makes absolutely no sense (unless you hate languages and cultural heritage) to discard Mankind as a word, as the word is old indeed and humanity is Latin in origin and not Germanic. But that linguistical battle is probably lost too long ago 
But sometimes it amuses me to be “fight the power”, so I use Mankind instead, as it is more melodic and sounds far nicer than humanity 
1 Like
I am such a hopeless nerd. One that cannot even spell properly when I write if I forget to double-check what I have written 
1 Like
Totally agree…for once😉
I noticed a couple of posters recently referring to our “offensive” options.
I find that … well…quite offensive.
1 Like
Language is fluid. As long as the point gets across, it is all good.
Indeed, as you probably know, I used QB for Trent, as it felt like a good parallel/juxta positioning descriptor of what he did for us using a certain filter - it was both praising and damming as that was his dharma.
We don’t like to say Moneyball, instead of scouting, but it is what is in play in terms of assessing transfers or player coming through academies.
Sorry, but no.
Trent was a right back with a specific role, moving infield to affect play.
He wasn’t or isn’t a quarterback because that position doesn’t exist in football. There is zero fluidity in that language. It just doesn’t exist. It isn’t a position descriptor, as saying Allison is a batsman isn’t a descriptor. Next thing you know Frimpong is a running back…nonsense.
I know terminology in football evolves, with the annoying trend of describing players as false this or false that, but the truth is much simpler.
Players have a prescribed position, but the game has a fluidity that allows movement and thus sees positions becoming more hybrid than false. Trent is a hybrid full back/midfielder. The change in language and description is more SKY generated shite to make pundits sound clever. Towards the end of last season the term “chop back” was becoming popular…to describe a player cutting inside?? It had zero relevance to the game.
Football teams operate from a squad basis. It’s not a roster, simple as. They wear shirts, shorts and socks. Its a kit, not a uniform as someone on TIA once described it.
Its really trivial, unimportant perhaps, but the globalisation of language and sport is annoying. Let the old school supporters have at least this much. A language that describes the game properly.
Why the need to compare everything ??
2 Likes
Fair enough.
Discussing with a mate before how we’ll combat the low-block this season. Maybe use a high press with a double-pivot, or hit them in transition after counter-pressing the fuck out of them. Depends on who’s playing the number 8 and number 10 position I suppose.
Against press-resistant sides we’ll need to overload the channels and try to find the half-space, our clutch players will be crucial I think.
1 Like
Too many words to describe playing football!
To paraphrase Bill Shankly “football is a simple game made complicated by fools”.
2 Likes
Why it’s almost like Cardiff Pete lives and walks amongst us mere mortals once again.
2 Likes
Nah, that post is far too short and precise to be from Cardiff Pete.
1 Like
