"Where are Saints sitting on the table"

[kosifantutti]

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"

[loris]

Quel??

Don't they have any chairs?

[kosifantutti]

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?

[shmic_s]

Colorado influence?

[SinCitySainter]

And what sort of a word is who've?

Isn't that what you do with a whoover or are they what horses have on the end of their legs?

[borderbarry]

I thought you put an R on the end of it and vaccumed your house with it.

[borderbarry]

Or put a short, cross dresser, and made him in charge of the FBI.

[The Redeemer]

Colorado influence?

Bogan idiot unqualified but probably do the job on the cheap influence

[Bernard Shakey]

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?

Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".

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.

[kosifantutti]

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?

Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".

It may be logical but it don't make it right.

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.

[saint3d]

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?

Who've is a perfectly logical abbreviation of "who have".

It may be logical but it don't make it right.

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.

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.

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]

y'all'd've used contradictions y'all oughtn't've, no?