By the way - I'm a very keen student of the English language.
Would anybody explain to me the language structure behind an expression I see around here all the time - "would of" - does it mean that the would actually belonged to somebody?
Then there's also the cousin expression - "should of".
Another one you just got to love is "prolly".
Like Mr English said. Just to make it easier, rob used it. It is incorrect english.
<Mal Smith> "give an example" - no need to go very far... just check out OP's posts 1 and 2...
Your etymological note is pretty convincing actually.
On another note - thanks for the reminder. I do need to go into my shed and get the rust off of the old guillotine...
<ChessofPlayer> Thanks for your advice - I started using "would of" myself now - and I just feel so much better! It does make things easier :-)
I feel rehabilitated!!
Case in point: post #2 here - https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/why-do-they-say-quotdont-premove-in-the-openingquot
By the way - I'm a very keen student of the English language.
Would anybody explain to me the language structure behind an expression I see around here all the time - "would of" - does it mean that the would actually belonged to somebody?
Then there's also the cousin expression - "should of".
Another one you just got to love is "prolly".
That happens when ppl use words or an expression and the mispronounciation become more common than the correct one. Like" for all intents and purposes"becomes "for all intensive purposes" .
This reminds me of the late James Gandolfini in his role as "Tony Soprano",who having heard of the French resort "cap d'Antibes" he referred to it as " captain Tibbs"...
<Dude 667> !!!!!!! still more hilarity to this morning in Mexico City!!
Chapeau!
<Dude 667> !!!!!!! still more hilarity to this morning in Mexico City!!
Chapeau!
Thanks! Enjoy Mexico City!
Rob's English is not poor. He is a master of the Queen's English and the Scouse sub-variation of the Northern variation. ("He took me rook" is another example of the Northern variation of "He took my rook"). "He took one's rook" would be the Queen's variation...
Mato Jelic has a really cool gambit line against the Parnham attack on You Tube. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfxgedJJ2bE
My favourite was a poster on another forum who thought someone who takes the blame is the 'escape goat' 
Learn proper English, watch Shakespeare's Richard III on BBC iPlayer. It starts with the evil one issuing forth the immortal words, "Now is the Winter of our discontent,..." while playing chess with himself.
<DavidPeters2> Escape goat isn't quite that bad actually, as distortions go - as I'm sure that "scape" has the same etymology as "escape" - this is a case when one distorts the phrase but fully keeps the meaning.
You lost NOT because of your inability to handle 2. Qh5, but basically your inability to handle most of the opponent's moves. In terms of move quality, your response to Qh5 was far from the worst. It was probably somewhere middle of the park. There are far worse moves made by you.
So white brought out the queen to h5 on the 2nd move and caused me all sorts of problems. I panicked a bit and it got a bit out of hand. But I chilled out took a breath knuckled down and fought back some position and material back. But a momentary lapse of judgement saw me release the whit bishop from a pin I had them in they took me rook and it got a bit messy there after. I think I done well to get a foot hold back in the game. Please could any one give me some advice on to react to 2.Qh5. And also any advice on how I could of handled the aftermath better.
So all this come about because of my inability to deal with 2. Qh5. And I feel that I rushed this game too.
Thank you guys
So white brought out the queen to h5 on the 2nd move and caused me all sorts of problems. I panicked a bit and it got a bit out of hand. But I chilled out took a breath knuckled down and fought back some position and material back. But a momentary lapse of judgement saw me release the whit bishop from a pin I had them in they took me rook and it got a bit messy there after. I think I done well to get a foot hold back in the game. Please could any one give me some advice on to react to 2.Qh5. And also any advice on how I could of handled the aftermath better.
So all this come about because of my inability to deal with 2. Qh5. And I feel that I rushed this game too.
Thank you guys
So white brought out the queen to h5 on the 2nd move and caused me all sorts of problems. I panicked a bit and it got a bit out of hand. But I chilled out took a breath knuckled down and fought back some position and material back. But a momentary lapse of judgement saw me release the whit bishop from a pin I had them in they took me rook and it got a bit messy there after. I think I done well to get a foot hold back in the game. Please could any one give me some advice on to react to 2.Qh5. And also any advice on how I could of handled the aftermath better.
So all this come about because of my inability to deal with 2. Qh5. And I feel that I rushed this game too.
Thank you guys
So white brought out the queen to h5 on the 2nd move and caused me all sorts of problems. I panicked a bit and it got a bit out of hand. But I chilled out took a breath knuckled down and fought back some position and material back. But a momentary lapse of judgement saw me release the whit bishop from a pin I had them in they took me rook and it got a bit messy there after. I think I done well to get a foot hold back in the game. Please could any one give me some advice on to react to 2.Qh5. And also any advice on how I could of handled the aftermath better.
So all this come about because of my inability to deal with 2. Qh5. And I feel that I rushed this game too.
Thank you guys
Would anybody explain to me the language structure behind an expression I see around here all the time - "would of" - does it mean that the would actually belonged to somebody?
Can you give an example? English is misused in multiple ways; unlike the French, we don't have old blokes who guillotine you for not using the language "properly". Off the top of my 'ead, I think it's mostly used as a vulgarisation of "have". That is, low born churls might say, "I would of play better if ...." instead of "I would have played better if..." It involves fewer mouth movements, and less typing, so it satisfies the lazy and the hurried.