Jose Mourinho.

[Cambridgeblue]

Summarize: v.tr (also -ise)...

Concise (1,800 pages) Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 9th Ed, 1995. (my copy)

It's actually "ize". We are wrong, not the Yanks. It's been brought in from French (through schools) as an affectation, and from Down Under through the media into mass culture. We've gone over this before on the forum.

Anyway:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences</a>

see: -ise, -ize

"The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."

It goes on to say "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition."[47] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[48] Despite these denouncements, however, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[49]"

Summarise is not a word of greek origin - it comes from the Medieval Latin summarius which in turn comes from the Latin summa meaning total, whole, essence or gist. The OED rule therefore does not apply.

Noah Webster was an American Lexicographer and writer of An American Dictionary of the English Language and as such his opinion does not carry any weight when we are considering the correct British usage. According to Wikipedia "His most important improvement, he claimed, was to rescue "our native tongue" from "the clamor of pedantry" that surrounded English grammar and pronunciation. He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar."

Hence why the American's use -ize for everything... because they ignore the classical root of the word, which would suggest to me the the use of -ise is historically correct for words of Latinate origin at least as early as 1828. It would suggest that the American usage is not a "pure" usage that has preserved a historic british usage in isolation but is in fact a corruption based on an ideological and nationalistic bias.

 

[OB1]

If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.

thx for the contribution OB1, the force is indeed noted & appreciated; agree with you on VGaal. That said, JC has been involved with managerial/coaching talks with both the Netherlands national team and I think at least one other club team since I believe he last swore off management ten or so years back. In my humble estimation he's so damn good I'd try for him anyway, at least in some capacity. Why not when you have our cash? Why not if you really want to create something special?

in my opinion Cruyff would be worth busting the bank for, to tempt him back perhaps for one final challenge.

---

for the record I used to have season tickets, but when I started contract work here I found I was spending less and less time in the UK and my seasonal attendance suffered, and so did my consumption of a decent pint, fish & chips, and Abduls. Always a good prematch prep before walking through Witty Park and into Maine Road; ah, those were the days... if only I could transport back for one last weekend!

I'm pretty sure there were once rumours fo Franny Lee trying to persuade JC to manage City (I believe they know each other). I agree it would be worth our owner making him a offer he couldn't (maybe) refuse but doubt he's on their radar; you could always e-mail Gary Cook.

I must say that until two weeks ago I hadn't had a pre-match Hollands meat pie with chips and gravy (naughty but nice) since the Maine Road days that required a visit to the chippy next to the Kippax; not through non-attendance (although living in the Thames Valley means I have to pick and choose when to use the season ticket), just hadn't found a decent chippy near ground but finally spotted one. They don't do meat pies down South.

 

[law74]

However, I do believe that there are different degrees of probability and that, for example, Jose would give us a better chance than Hughesy: the past can be a guide to the future. I also think that the need to win is extremely important to the owners and most importantly the supporters, which could be symbolised by that f#*king banner. If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.

But surely that fcuking banner merely epitomises all that we detest our neighbours from hell for, the sheer arrogance of them and their contempt for any view other than their own, why then should we go down the same route with the only manager in world football more arrogant than sour purple nose of govan, imitation is oft said to be the greatest form of flattery, i want to batter the rags at every possible oppertunity, not to flatter them.
Jose = no way.

 

[Patientman63]

MCFC in USA

I personally am in agreement with all you suggest, the only other side i will go out of my way to watch is Arsenal, as much as Wenger comes accross as a bit odd, you cannot deny his sides do (for the most part) play football worth watching.

The problem appears to be one of patience. Once again it seems i am going to find myself in the Ransom in Sale surrounded by rags celebrating another PL Championship, last years being a particularly hideous experience with them winning and us getting bumholed 8-1 by Boro. How i didnt get into a fight i dont know.

But i want to stuff it down their collective throats, i am sick of standing in their festering shadow, surrounded by an entire generation of rags who have grown up knowing nothing other than success, a bad year for them is finishing third in the EPL and "only" qualifying for the CL. I want them to stand and watch while another team from their neighbourhood takes all the plaudits, while they rue another season lost. I WANT THAT NOW!!!!

But i know i am going to have to wait, and before i shuffle off this mortal coil, i sincerely hope your scheme or something like it happens, and i can have my moment in the sun

 

[Brucie Bonus]

Summarize: v.tr (also -ise)...

Concise (1,800 pages) Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 9th Ed, 1995. (my copy)

It's actually "ize". We are wrong, not the Yanks. It's been brought in from French (through schools) as an affectation, and from Down Under through the media into mass culture. We've gone over this before on the forum.

Anyway:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences</a>

see: -ise, -ize

"The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."

It goes on to say "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition."[47] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[48] Despite these denouncements, however, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[49]"

Summarise is not a word of greek origin - it comes from the Medieval Latin summarius which in turn comes from the Latin summa meaning total, whole, essence or gist. The OED rule therefore does not apply.

Noah Webster was an American Lexicographer and writer of An American Dictionary of the English Language and as such his opinion does not carry any weight when we are considering the correct British usage. According to Wikipedia "His most important improvement, he claimed, was to rescue "our native tongue" from "the clamor of pedantry" that surrounded English grammar and pronunciation. He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar."

Hence why the American's use -ize for everything... because they ignore the classical root of the word, which would suggest to me the the use of -ise is historically correct for words of Latinate origin at least as early as 1828. It would suggest that the American usage is not a "pure" usage that has preserved a historic british usage in isolation but is in fact a corruption based on an ideological and nationalistic bias.

Thanks for that. Sent you a PM.

 

[OB1]

However, I do believe that there are different degrees of probability and that, for example, Jose would give us a better chance than Hughesy: the past can be a guide to the future. I also think that the need to win is extremely important to the owners and most importantly the supporters, which could be symbolised by that f#*king banner. If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.

But surely that fcuking banner merely epitomises all that we detest our neighbours from hell for, the sheer arrogance of them and their contempt for any view other than their own, why then should we go down the same route with the only manager in world football more arrogant than sour purple nose of govan, imitation is oft said to be the greatest form of flattery, i want to batter the rags at every possible oppertunity, not to flatter them.
Jose = no way.

So what are you saying, you don't like Jose (well that's clear) or you don't want to win something soon?

 

[mcfc92lad]

Now, Rammy Blues seems to believe that a deal with this fella has already been done and that Hughes will leave at the end of the season.

I am of the opposite opinion that I believe Hughes will be given another season if we claim 7th place and qualify for Europe again. The other thing is that this is too high-risk for Jose, if he comes here and fails then his reputation fail after being a success with FC Porto, Chelsea and soon to be Inter Milan aswell. He has nothing to prove in this league anymore. Yes there is the subject of money but it depends on what JM puts first - his record of success or his bank balance.

When SGE was sacked everyone wanted this fella and now even more so because everyone knows he'd attract big names to the club. I don't know, I just think that if Hughes is given a decent amount of time we'll be alright and build up steadily - house on rock, house on sound story.

What does everyone else think?

i agree with you mate i think Hughes should have another 1 or 2 more seasons...we need to give him time then eventually we will get better and hopefully win a Cup a Banish this 33 years Long Dry Spell

 

[Rösler's Dad]

as I said on another post, but the one about Mancini/'Manciti', I believe the objectives & therefore the arguments surrounding this whole topic are the wrong ones we should be asking; even if this thread and the former one make cracking reading & debate!

here's the original post I made so as not to clog up the board again with a new one (and it's only a short two-page job):-

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529</a>

arguing about winning the EPL/CL etc etc and who can or cannot do it for us and how quickly is really pretty much a crapshoot, as all the arguments for and against Mourinho/Hughes et al just go to prove. Essentially nothing is guaranteed or evident until after the fact!

why not just aim for us to play some decent football, which would be achievable and sustainable, and let the rest take care of itself?

wouldn't we all end up winners like this?

I just bloody hope the people in power think this way too, as I'm not convinced Jose is the man for the above goal, although I do think he is an outstandingly good team manager; but even with him (baring his style of football) you're not guaranteed of 'winning' anything necessarily, so where does that leave you - as others have pointed out in the never ending circular argument that's going on...

please let's aim for something we can get, without question.

I'd love to see our side coached and managed to play the right type of football, and with talented touch & flair players, and with fast and mobile defenders, see a team unit created & shaped into something beautiful and entertaining to behold. Simple.

my 'manifesto' is in the above link for those who care to be bothered.

Cracking post, MCFCinUSA!

I totally agree playing style and players first, then if the rest follows, great. There are NO guarantees in football, but if we do as you suggest, whoever the manager, I suspect trophies would follow. But if not, at least we'd have plenty of fun on the way!

 

[hgblue]

MCFC in USA

I personally am in agreement with all you suggest, the only other side i will go out of my way to watch is Arsenal, as much as Wenger comes accross as a bit odd, you cannot deny his sides do (for the most part) play football worth watching.

The problem appears to be one of patience. Once again it seems i am going to find myself in the Ransom in Sale surrounded by rags celebrating another PL Championship, last years being a particularly hideous experience with them winning and us getting bumholed 8-1 by Boro. How i didnt get into a fight i dont know.

But i want to stuff it down their collective throats, i am sick of standing in their festering shadow, surrounded by an entire generation of rags who have grown up knowing nothing other than success, a bad year for them is finishing third in the EPL and "only" qualifying for the CL. I want them to stand and watch while another team from their neighbourhood takes all the plaudits, while they rue another season lost. I WANT THAT NOW!!!!

But i know i am going to have to wait, and before i shuffle off this mortal coil, i sincerely hope your scheme or something like it happens, and i can have my moment in the sun

Wow. Top post that mate. I just happen to believe that Jose is 'the special one', who will finally deliver the success we all crave.

 

[law74]

However, I do believe that there are different degrees of probability and that, for example, Jose would give us a better chance than Hughesy: the past can be a guide to the future. I also think that the need to win is extremely important to the owners and most importantly the supporters, which could be symbolised by that f#*king banner. If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.

But surely that fcuking banner merely epitomises all that we detest our neighbours from hell for, the sheer arrogance of them and their contempt for any view other than their own, why then should we go down the same route with the only manager in world football more arrogant than sour purple nose of govan, imitation is oft said to be the greatest form of flattery, i want to batter the rags at every possible oppertunity, not to flatter them.
Jose = no way.

So what are you saying, you don't like Jose (well that's clear) or you don't want to win something soon?

Of course i want us to win the lot as soon as possible, but not to the extent of becoming a caricature of the manky mob, & "the special one" epitomises everything that i have ridiculed the vermin for for the last 30+ years (only that he is a boring cnut that sends out boring teams)