***whu v pep's city official match thread***

[PrezIke]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

[PrezIke]

The attacking players, KDB especially, looked delighted to play with Jesus.

[freshie]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

In Spain it would be Ho-say but in Portugal it is Joe-say, so I can see why people pronounce Jesus as Jay-zeus

[freshie]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

In Spain it would be Ho-say but in Portugal it is Joe-say, so I can see why people pronounce Jesus as Jay-zeus

Watch on youtube.com

[phips]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

its Jayzeus. which makes that chant terrible because they aren't even pronouncing his name right.

thinking his name is being mispronounced is better than listening to Phil Neville call Sane Sagné all match though. awful.

[phips]

attacking quintet looked amazing. eager to see them play vs a competent defense too. if it works it could change our season.

id also like to see

Aguero
Gabriel KDB Silva Sane
Fern 1

[john@staustell]

I speak fluent Spanish but I firmly believe English commentators should stop pissing about and pronounce things in English. For example the pitiful attempts to pronounce Cazorla.

Technically it isn't HOsay or HAYsus in Spanish because J is not simply pronounced H. We don't have that pronunciation in English, just as we don't have the Spanish Z - it isn't a straight TH.

Pretty sure also that J in Portuguese is a bit like Catalan - more like ZH.

So why bother? Just say them in English

Do we say Paris, or Paree???

[Slim]

I think the worst commentator for names is our own highlights commentator.

[Blue Since 76]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

I say rag cunt. Works in Scotch, Dutch and Portuguese

[Cocacolajojo]

why do the commentators keep saying JAYzeus?? its driving me up a wall

That's how it's pronounced in Portuguese.

Do you say HO-say or JOE-say Mourinho?

It's neither, it's that sch sound that you brits and yanks can't seem to wrap your head around.

[fangsanalsatan]

It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.

It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.

I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.

So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?

[branny]

FUCK ME WEBB SAYS IT WONT A PEN, EVERYBODY JOINING US NOW

I'd rather the useless, incompetent arse holes give the ones that ARE penalties than giving soft ones when we 're three up.

It was by no means soft

Haven't seen it. Was it stonewall and Webb is being a dick?

Was a definite penalty and Webb said so.

He was just adding that it looked like Sterling at first tried to stay on his feet but maybe after the experience the other week against Spurs, decided it's best stay down.

Personally I think Raheem tried to play on but was so far off balance, he simply couldn't.

There was absolutely no doubt about the penalty.

Ah right, got you. Going off Stevefromdonny's post I thought Webb had said it wasn't a penalty. Have just seen it. Shame we don't get the decisions when we need them like V Everton and Spuds. The way the team is set up, if we get the first goal it's a very different ball game which may have been the case at Goodison and the one v Spurs would have put us in front again late on. It's the inconsistency that takes the piss.

[mr_nool]

It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.

It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.

I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.

So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?

Nice linguistic explanation! The only point I would like to add is that discussions like SCH/ZH, etc. are a bit tricky. We all have different references as to how these letter combinations should sound depending on our mother tongue. I know this is an English speaking forum, but I'm pretty sure Coca wrote his post about SCH with the Swedish interpretation in mind (in many Swedish dialects SCH would be more similar to the vision/rouge sound you're describing rather than the German SCH. I.E. unless we start using phonetic script (and decide on which one to use) we won't be speaking the same - ahem - language.

[Cocacolajojo]

It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.

It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.

I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.

So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?

Nice linguistic explanation! The only point I would like to add is that discussions like SCH/ZH, etc. are a bit tricky. We all have different references as to how these letter combinations should sound depending on our mother tongue. I know this is an English speaking forum, but I'm pretty sure Coca wrote his post about SCH with the Swedish interpretation in mind (in many Swedish dialects SCH would be more similar to the vision/rouge sound you're describing rather than the German SCH. I.E. unless we start using phonetic script (and decide on which one to use) we won't be speaking the same - ahem - language.

I don't know which one I'm referring to. It's the one further back in the mouth. You know, English speaking people say shit, we Swedes say skit. It's the Sch-sound in Skit that makes Americans go Meyheekoh because they can't prouncounce the X. And it's the sound you make for the J in Jesus in Spanish at least.

[mr_nool]

It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.

It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.

I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.

So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?

Nice linguistic explanation! The only point I would like to add is that discussions like SCH/ZH, etc. are a bit tricky. We all have different references as to how these letter combinations should sound depending on our mother tongue. I know this is an English speaking forum, but I'm pretty sure Coca wrote his post about SCH with the Swedish interpretation in mind (in many Swedish dialects SCH would be more similar to the vision/rouge sound you're describing rather than the German SCH. I.E. unless we start using phonetic script (and decide on which one to use) we won't be speaking the same - ahem - language.

I don't know which one I'm referring to. It's the one further back in the mouth. You know, English speaking people say shit, we Swedes say skit. It's the Sch-sound in Skit that makes Americans go Meyheekoh because they can't prouncounce the X. And it's the sound you make for the J in Jesus in Spanish at least.

But I'm from Northern Sweden and i have a totally different way of pronouncing "skit" (front of my mouth, through my teeth) and a different interpretation of what the sch-sound is. Which is my point.

[Moonchesteri]

I speak fluent Spanish but I firmly believe English commentators should stop pissing about and pronounce things in English. For example the pitiful attempts to pronounce Cazorla.

Technically it isn't HOsay or HAYsus in Spanish because J is not simply pronounced H. We don't have that pronunciation in English, just as we don't have the Spanish Z - it isn't a straight TH.

Pretty sure also that J in Portuguese is a bit like Catalan - more like ZH.

So why bother? Just say them in English

Do we say Paris, or Paree???

THIS!

[Cocacolajojo]

It's not really sch either, it's a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant (ʒ), so more like a zh.

It's also not ZHO-say, but ZHU-ze, if we're being pedantic. The last vowel is short and the s is pronounced as a z.

I also don't think that English speakers have a problem pronouncing the voiced palato-alveolar sibilant per se, as it is used in the English language frequently enough (see: vision, rouge, measure, treasure, genre...). The problem arises from the fact that it is not tied to a single letter in the alphabet and English phonology is so random in general that a pronounciation cannot be applied to a foreign word by rule. In the case of Jesus, there is the added issue of an already established English pronounciation, but otherwise it is pretty straight-forward.

So, yeah... how about that performance yesterday?

Nice linguistic explanation! The only point I would like to add is that discussions like SCH/ZH, etc. are a bit tricky. We all have different references as to how these letter combinations should sound depending on our mother tongue. I know this is an English speaking forum, but I'm pretty sure Coca wrote his post about SCH with the Swedish interpretation in mind (in many Swedish dialects SCH would be more similar to the vision/rouge sound you're describing rather than the German SCH. I.E. unless we start using phonetic script (and decide on which one to use) we won't be speaking the same - ahem - language.

I don't know which one I'm referring to. It's the one further back in the mouth. You know, English speaking people say shit, we Swedes say skit. It's the Sch-sound in Skit that makes Americans go Meyheekoh because they can't prouncounce the X. And it's the sound you make for the J in Jesus in Spanish at least.

But I'm from Northern Sweden and i have a totally different way of pronouncing "skit" (front of my mouth, through my teeth) and a different interpretation of what the sch-sound is. Which is my point.

Ok, now I get it. Sure, you're right.

[Slim]

I have really enjoyed the way City are playing in the last couple of games. It seems we've learnt that cute triangles between your keeper and your centrehalves is just an invitation for teams to run at you. We still did it in the Palace and West Ham games but mixing it in with a more direct passing route means teams are unlikely to take for granted a slow build out from the back and it allowed us some breathing room. Although Stones playing a 1-2 with Willy had me screaming at the TV that this is how mistakes gift goals.

I looked at last night's lineup and thought Pep was fucking insane. That was as an attacking lineup as I've ever seen City field, including the cavalier attitude King Kev had in regards to defence when we were back in the Championship. But pressing from the front meant WHU were constantly under pressure, which led to some poor passing, some rushed passing, two examples of which led to goals(1st and 3rd). So I'm not sure the argument that WHU were just shit is even valid. It was City's off the ball play that caused the mistakes and when you have that front...umm, 5? Well you should be getting rewards for hard work. City worked hard, deserved the win and we have to hear about how it wasn't as impressive as we all know it was? Fuck that, this was the City we saw at the start of the season, incorporating our new style into the system that suits our players. The rest of the league should be sitting up and taking notice, we are just getting started.

Onto the players.
Big Willy: Tested three times, once from distance which he saved, a ballooned shot from Cresswell but he made himself big and closed the angles and once making a crucial save late on. Didn't have a great deal else to do but his defence looked more comfortable with him between the sticks.
Sagna: Linked up well with Sterling and Sane on the right, wasn't really tested at the back, wonder if WHU actually have a left flank.
Stones: Crucial slide tackle was his only real highlight, did it well. Hopefully he can build on this.
Otamendi: Again not really tested but looks very decent with the ball at his feet.
Kolarov: Worst City player on the pitch, gave away freekicks, inconsistent passing, got pulled inside and WHU best(but limited) attacking came by bypassing where he should have been.
Yaya: Who the fuck is this? 80th minute tracking a midfielder running from deep, forcing him out wide and snuffing at attack. #notmyyaya. Refreshing from him, Randolph guessed the right way and height of his penalty, makes no difference. 14/14.
De Bruyne: Looked a little out of it at times, but his work on the first goal and his pass for the penalty was of the highest quality, he is the footballing equivalent of a blowjob. Even when he's bad, he's still pretty good.
Silva: Holy crap this guy. On any other night he would be MotM by a clear margin, tonight he wasn't in the top 3. Instrumental in most all of our attacks, did notice a couple of times he made the wrong decision or ended up passing it into the first defender. Probably not 100% his best, but still class.
Sterling: Fucking amazing, his pace on the ball and passing are improving on a weekly basis, he got the ever living shit kicked out of him and kept going. Thank god he got subbed when he did, WHU seemed to have it in for him. Selfless play throughout and won a pen. Sadly the next two were better because this was a great performance from him.
Sane: Holy chocolate fuck balls. I love me an attacker who will run at defenders and I truly believe we have one of the best here. Forces defenders to play him time and again and draws mistakes more often than not. His run for the second goal was nothing short of breathtaking. It was the best bit about last night for me. Strength, speed, trickery, agility, other superlatives, I could go on...and I will...presence of mind, technique...okay, that's enough. What a performance, on reflection he was my MotM even though I voted impulsively for...
Jesus: This kid is something special isn't he? His ability and pace are without question, he has two assists now in two starts showing he knows when to make the pass instead of taking a speculative shot. His defensive traits are not to be overlooked either, he closes down the keeper, pressures defenders and comes back into midfield and tackles. £27M in today's market? Unbelievable bargain. I don't really want it to be true, but I think Kun might be moved on in the Summer.

[Dameerto]

I speak fluent Spanish but I firmly believe English commentators should stop pissing about and pronounce things in English. For example the pitiful attempts to pronounce Cazorla.

Technically it isn't HOsay or HAYsus in Spanish because J is not simply pronounced H. We don't have that pronunciation in English, just as we don't have the Spanish Z - it isn't a straight TH.

Pretty sure also that J in Portuguese is a bit like Catalan - more like ZH.

So why bother? Just say them in English

Do we say Paris, or Paree???

I agree completely mate, it's like those tits that insist on saying Brasil.

[branny]

I have really enjoyed the way City are playing in the last couple of games. It seems we've learnt that cute triangles between your keeper and your centrehalves is just an invitation for teams to run at you. We still did it in the Palace and West Ham games but mixing it in with a more direct passing route means teams are unlikely to take for granted a slow build out from the back and it allowed us some breathing room. Although Stones playing a 1-2 with Willy had me screaming at the TV that this is how mistakes gift goals.

I looked at last night's lineup and thought Pep was fucking insane. That was as an attacking lineup as I've ever seen City field, including the cavalier attitude King Kev had in regards to defence when we were back in the Championship. But pressing from the front meant WHU were constantly under pressure, which led to some poor passing, some rushed passing, two examples of which led to goals(1st and 3rd). So I'm not sure the argument that WHU were just shit is even valid. It was City's off the ball play that caused the mistakes and when you have that front...umm, 5? Well you should be getting rewards for hard work. City worked hard, deserved the win and we have to hear about how it wasn't as impressive as we all know it was? Fuck that, this was the City we saw at the start of the season, incorporating our new style into the system that suits our players. The rest of the league should be sitting up and taking notice, we are just getting started.

Onto the players.
Big Willy: Tested three times, once from distance which he saved, a ballooned shot from Cresswell but he made himself big and closed the angles and once making a crucial save late on. Didn't have a great deal else to do but his defence looked more comfortable with him between the sticks.
Sagna: Linked up well with Sterling and Sane on the right, wasn't really tested at the back, wonder if WHU actually have a left flank.
Stones: Crucial slide tackle was his only real highlight, did it well. Hopefully he can build on this.
Otamendi: Again not really tested but looks very decent with the ball at his feet.
Kolarov: Worst City player on the pitch, gave away freekicks, inconsistent passing, got pulled inside and WHU best(but limited) attacking came by bypassing where he should have been.
Yaya: Who the fuck is this? 80th minute tracking a midfielder running from deep, forcing him out wide and snuffing at attack. #notmyyaya. Refreshing from him, Randolph guessed the right way and height of his penalty, makes no difference. 14/14.
De Bruyne: Looked a little out of it at times, but his work on the first goal and his pass for the penalty was of the highest quality, he is the footballing equivalent of a blowjob. Even when he's bad, he's still pretty good.
Silva: Holy crap this guy. On any other night he would be MotM by a clear margin, tonight he wasn't in the top 3. Instrumental in most all of our attacks, did notice a couple of times he made the wrong decision or ended up passing it into the first defender. Probably not 100% his best, but still class.
Sterling: Fucking amazing, his pace on the ball and passing are improving on a weekly basis, he got the ever living shit kicked out of him and kept going. Thank god he got subbed when he did, WHU seemed to have it in for him. Selfless play throughout and won a pen. Sadly the next two were better because this was a great performance from him.
Sane: Holy chocolate fuck balls. I love me an attacker who will run at defenders and I truly believe we have one of the best here. Forces defenders to play him time and again and draws mistakes more often than not. His run for the second goal was nothing short of breathtaking. It was the best bit about last night for me. Strength, speed, trickery, agility, other superlatives, I could go on...and I will...presence of mind, technique...okay, that's enough. What a performance, on reflection he was my MotM even though I voted impulsively for...
Jesus: This kid is something special isn't he? His ability and pace are without question, he has two assists now in two starts showing he knows when to make the pass instead of taking a speculative shot. His defensive traits are not to be overlooked either, he closes down the keeper, pressures defenders and comes back into midfield and tackles. £27M in today's market? Unbelievable bargain. I don't really want it to be true, but I think Kun might be moved on in the Summer.

I know where you're coming from with Aguero. It sounds ridiculous but when he's not scoring he's a passenger in this system. Jesus seems to have that Tevez like hunger and will to win. I've not seen that from Aguero for a while. Maybe he's gone stale due to a lack of competition but I hope he ups his game. Hopefully it will be like having two new players instead of one. Another advantage Jesus has is two assists already. It's one part of Aguero's game that needs work on. Far too greedy far too often. Is he a Pep type player? I guess we'll find out soon enough.