1. Would have, should have, could have… Stop it with the “could of” crap… Professional journalists don’t mess up basic grammar. That’s a prerequisite.

   • Are you the grammar police?.

     In fact the journalist was quoting Halilhodzic so your criticism is moot.

     • Quoting him…? He “said” a typo? ? It’s “could have” the writer wrote it incorrectly. As many ppl w/ a rudimentary grasp of the language might. Took you 2 years to come up w/ a response that makes you look even sillier? ?

       • Plus it was corrected, so… Umm… I guess I was right?

         • If you do not reproduce a quote verbatim you interpolate.

           I am aware that Halilhodzic used the wrong grammar but it is his second language.

           Only saw the article tonight, silly in your eyes perhaps, but your pomposity hasn’t abated with the passage of time.

         • Knowing grammar isn’t “pomposity.” He said “could have” and look up… It was corrected as such. Don’t double down on your ignorance; not a good look.

         • but anyone who looks at your post will see it’s pompous, and a little knowledge is dangerous if you don’t use it properly as you clearly demonstrate.

           Don’t you worry about my ignorance and the way I look Mimar. By your aggressive tone you obviously have issues, and you should address that superior complex that you try to convey.

           I’m done with you now so fill your boots 🙂

         • I’ll take that as; “I’m too proud to acknowledge that I’m wrong, so instead I’ll take shots at the person who corrected the error/me and make a sad attempt at saving face.” Or are you just one of those people who always has to have final word? Here, have at it. ✌

         • Or you could take it that when someone reads a “quote” they generally assume it to be a word for word, drum roll…. yes you guessed it – quotation. Including in it, any spelling or grammar mistakes made by the person being quoted and not by the writer who is relaying said quote and to argue any different makes you intellectually dishonest.

           Most people would (rightly) not try to accredit said mistakes to the writer of the quote and castigate them for any poor grammar contained within it and in fact, if the writer in question has subsequently corrected the wording and is as a result now misquoting Halilhodzic, then he or she is wrong to have done so and should have kept the quote as it was – warts, poor grammar and all.

           Even if it was the writer that made the mistake though it would certainly not have been evident to others without first checking the quote at source – clearly not something that voice of reason had done before jumping in with both feet and so @timp1204:disqus was absolutely right and correct in what he was and is saying.

         • Nope. There is no “could of” in the English language. “Could’ve,” as said by the manager in question, was written as “could of” by the writer…then edited to “could have” after the original comment/correction.

           Stop. In editing the article, the writer has already owned up to the initial error, you guys are just making yourselves look silly now.

         • You don’t understand how quotes work do you, they are meant to be word for word and if that means they end up including spelling or grammar mistakes then so be it.

           If you have seen the quote yourself and know that the writer was indeed the one who made a mistake and incorrectly quoted Halilhodzic whose own words did not contain said mistake, then fine but clearly voice of reason had not checked before having a pop at the writer and blaming him for it and as I say – you surely understand this and are trying to wriggle out of things by grimly hanging on to the fact the quote has subsequently been changed but unfortunately for you that doesn’t make voice of reason’s post any less ridiculous or Timp’s one telling him so any less correct.

         • Dude, seriously? It’s a grammar correction. The “quote” wasn’t incorrect, the way it was written down, by the writer was. Grammatically incorrect. “Could’ve,” no matter how halilhodzic pronounced it, is never “could of” because it doesn’t exist in the English language. Thus, the original poster was correct, and both of you aren’t. Apparently you aren’t aware of how quotes work, by your own logic.

         • You still do not understand quotes. If I say: 2+2=5 you don’t then say Case said “2+2=4” and if I say: I ain’t going to speak to you all night because you seem to be acting like a wally on purpose, you don’t then say Case said “I am not going to speak to you all night because you seem to be acting like a buffoon on purpose”

           Why do you not do those things? because a quote as denoted by the use of quotation marks should not have a built in auto-correct feature and shock news for you – just because something doesn’t exist in the English language it doesn’t mean that folks won’t still use it, especially ones for whom, as you even point out yourself English is not their first language. Using your logic though the writer is apparently duty bound to attribute to them a perfect dialect by correcting their grammar as he quotes it and that Sir, is utter nonsense.

         • Either you don’t understand the nature of this grammar point, or you too simply can’t register that you have the capacity to be wrong, but this was NOT an error made by the original speaker. Why would the writer assume an error via pronunciation? Oh that’s right, he fixed it…

         • And did voice of reason know that when he wrote his snide comment b!tching at the writer for poor grammar – NO.

           Should he then have instead assumed that normal practice had been followed and the quote had been reproduced word for word as uttered by the original person who said it – YES.

         • [Headpalm] geez. No, because again, it’s an assumed grammatical error that the writer interpreted wrong, clearly as the difference between the actual English “could’ve” and the imagined common error “could of” is inaudible/imperceptible. Your case remains restless…

         • He did not hear any of what he writes about for it to be inaudible or otherwise because he was clearly not there and even refers to the third party that the manager was speaking to and so it is instead obvious, as with most all these types of articles that he is re-quoting from the written word.

           Your whole case is and has been based on an error in your understanding of how this quote has been sourced and relayed in the article above.

         • In which case, as I mentioned, it had to have been translated from the Turkish media, therefore still an error on the writer’s part. Just stop. Debating grammar can be fun, but this getting tiresome (and tangential).

         • Yes it may have been translated incorrectly but not necessarily by the writer above but by any number of other parties before he/she then relayed it here and as you’ve been told enough times now that it must surely have sunk in and be the reason you’re squirming in your efforts to try and save face – even if it was translated incorrectly by the very writer we are discussing – voice of reason did not know that when he jumped in with is castigations, did he?

           Hint: “No Case he didn’t” should be your answer, followed swiftly by “Yes, I see now that you were right all along and as Timp told him – he was quite wrong to make that baseless assumption”

         • You’re still wrong as a verbatim quote would’ve required a citation. And talk about conceited. Even when wrong you manage to be pompous. I can’t imagine how insufferable you’d be when right.

         • Or perhaps you’ve forgotten the point of this cite, to translate news into English so non-turkish readers can have access. Keep trying though…

         • You’re very clearly the one butting into a conversation/dispute and changing the parameters of the discussion.

           To your question, I wouldn’t have personally said that, but fact is, put yourself in a public forum, claim to be something (in this case journalist), and you’re prone to this type of criticism. The best response was that of the writer, ignoring the comment, correcting the article, and learning from the experience/hopefully not taking the criticism to heart. I know how it goes as a musician in this day and age. Not everyone on the internet is your buddy. And I’ve heard worse/much less justified criticism.

         • Well there you go then, if you wouldn’t have personally said it then we have some common ground because neither would I and I feel that by the same token as you say the writer must accept he is publishing his articles to an open and public forum and must accept a certain amount of criticism, then surely we can fairly apply that to voice of reason too.

           I don’t see where or how I have changed any parameters. To me it has only ever been about voice of reason’s unfair and (IMO) what to him at the time was surely unfounded criticism or at the very least he aimed it squarely at a person he did not know was the one to blame and I agree the writer handled it well but again by a similar token I saw nothing wrong with Timp’s post highlighting that voice of reason had overstepped the mark.

           Anyway I will likely delete my own posts from this thread because when all is said and done I doubt either of us have really represented our true selves overly well and I apologise for any of my comments that were of a personal nature – I have of course never met you and we have found ourselves in a tit for tat argument which never brings out the best in folks.

           I would love to say I was a musician but unfortunately can only lay claim to playing the guitar very poorly indeed 😉 it is fantastic fun though and I wish you the best with your musical ventures in life.

         • Actually that above post of yours is wrong anyway – there is no *had* about it. It still could have been the original person who said it wrong and so it is not a given that it was translated wrongly and so like everything else you’ve tried in your face saving attempts – you have failed to do anything other than prove yourself wrong.

         • So you’re the one backtracking, and yet I’m saving face? ? Once again “could’ve” spoken vs. “could of” isn’t audible enough to warrant writing it up as being grammatically incorrect. You and the OP may be assuming, but I’m not; I have the actual article and the fact that it’s been corrected as proof.

           And the OP clearly assumed correctly, as opposed to you. You’re out of your depth. Enough. You too can have last word, since you clearly need it. This is now a pedantic and useless conversation. Bye.

         • Thanks I graciously accept that you accept you have lost the argument and are now busy throwing a white towel with one hand, whilst waving a white flag with the other.

           I see that when you say “OP may be assuming” you are getting about as close to an apology and admission that Timp and I were right all along as your ego will allow you and that is something more at least than I expect you normally do so well done you for being brave enough to make it even that far.

         • Nope. Not letting you put words in my mouth. Nor be a little troll and talk shit on no merit. I said clearly both sides involve an assumption, and yours proved to be the incorrect one before you ever knew this conversation was happening. Furthermore, the assumption that this was wrong was clearly the more ‘educated guess’ given that the purpose of this site is to translate news of Turkish football into English.

           It really kills you to be wrong, huh? Damn. Honestly, being wrong can’t be such a burden, man. It means you’ve lost the purpose of debating about anything in the first place. It’s not about ego, child.

         • Hahaha you are so funny 🙂 Like Timp says – you have a real chip on your shoulder, it is so big folks can see it from miles away and you also have an inferiority complex which makes you have to be right all the time so you can try and feel superior. I couldn’t give a monkey’s about being wrong and am quite happy to say so whenever I am, this however is not one of those occasions.

           You say child but yet you are the one who tried to depart in childlike fashion with your ‘you can have the last word because you clearly need it’ – designed of course to make me refrain from reply in the hope you could skulk off with your tail between your legs telling yourself you had won yet another internet argument.

           Well, tough bananas matey – you won f all. You know full well the answer here is that voice of reason should not have made and then based his criticism on an assumption, that is it, period, full stop and anything else is just flannel.

         • You only have insults, nothing to actually found your cockiness in.

           I’ve already addressed your points and you keep circling back foolishly, rehashing your same flawed argument over and over.

           And that’s quite the glass house you’re throwing those rocks from, saying someone shouldn’t argue something on an assumption when your whole argument in reply comes from merely the opposite (and proven incorrect) assumption.

           The only way in any universe you could be right would be by showing me some fictional primary document where halilhodzic himself wrote those words, specifically grammatically incorrectly as “could of.” But we both know that document can’t possibly exist, as the article above has ALREADY been corrected. This is dumbfounding.

           You can sling insult after insult, but it won’t make you right in any way, and it really proves a number of things, most of all that your need to defend the (corrected) article, and the other incorrect poster makes you suspect. What’s the purpose of this nonsensical defense of a clear error?

         • A load more flannel from you and as it happens I have this very second further destroyed your argument above.

         • This is exactly what makes you so childish. The need to keep proclaiming yourself victorious, as if you could be considered in any way impartial/legitimate as such. Especially when you’re clearly wrong.

           It has absolutely not been established that he received someone else’s transcription. If he had, he would’ve kept it as such with a [sic] and not corrected it. Not to mention, if there’s a transcription of this news in English somewhere else, they just lifted someone else’s article? Besides that being of questionable ethics journalistically, it gives us a simple solution; show me the article with the grammatical error…?

         • See above post.

         • You just don’t get it do you. You simply cannot grasp a very simple concept – I do not care whose fault the grammatical error was it was wrong of voice of reason to assume it was the writers without knowing and attack him on that basis.

           I do not need to concern myself with assumptions of my own and you make yourself look silly by suggesting otherwise because they do not pertain to me in this argument as whether voice of reason’s own assumption was *right or wrong* was never my argument – that is what you have tried to turn this into through stupidity – either intentionally put on to save face or perhaps it is innate. It matters not though and we can prove that by putting it this way:

           Lets say voice of reason’s assumption was right – *he was still wrong in attacking the writer on the basis of assumption alone* what do you not understand about that.

         • That is laughable and yet more subterfuge. The reality being that out of nowhere you have reintroduced this ‘inaudible’ nonsense into the equation where it has no place being.

           The writer here was not the person who transcribed the words in the quote at the original press conference where they were spoken, we have already established that. Which means that if indeed any mistake was made it is either with the person(s) at the press conference (the speaker themselves or the transcriber) or any number of parties who have subsequently, translated, written and rewritten the quote and the whole basis of this discussion is that voice of reason had no knowledge of who was at fault and rather than make a polite enquiry he instead chose to go in all guns blazing and attack the writer here based on the assumption it was their fault – that was wrong and no amount of your circular nonsense since changes that fact.

           My earlier point still stands – it is intellectually dishonest of you to try and argue otherwise. That though is what people like you who cannot stand to be wrong do.

         • Also, we’re assuming a Bosnian(?) manager in Turkey was speaking English? If this was translated by the writer, you guys are doubly wrong.

           As for “quotes” look up. It was corrected to “could have” so… Wrong again…?

Comments are closed.