# we was robbed (football)



## VLC1979

Hi everybody,

I've seen the expression "we was robbed" in a football vocabulary list. It's used to mean the defeat in a match was unfair because of the referee's decissions.

But I actually don't understand why you say "was" instead of "were". Is it maybe just a set expression that doesn't follow the general grammar rules?

Thank you!!

Paco


----------



## CatStar

Hey there, 
You guessed right in that it's just an expression, so that's why the grammar isn't perfect!

But it appears to be of boxing origins not football, even though now it can be used for a whole host of different situations. Anyway here's a quote for you:

"We wuz robbed!" was first shouted by Joe Jacobs, manager of Max Schmelling, when at the end of a fight Max seemed to have handily won, the decision instead went to Jack Sharkey.

And here's the rest of the article if you want to have a look:
link

Cat


----------



## Masood

Ha ha. Yes, this is a fixed expression, although grammatically incorrect. I believe it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the way that footballers speak, in that, generally speaking, they are not academically well-educated and so make grammatical mistakes in their speech.


----------



## Ivy29

CatStar said:


> Hey there,
> You guessed right in that it's just an expression, so that's why the grammar isn't perfect!
> 
> But it appears to be of boxing origins not football, even though now it can be used for a whole host of different situations. Anyway here's a quote for you:
> 
> "We wuz robbed!" was first shouted by Joe Jacobs, manager of Max Schmelling, when at the end of a fight Max seemed to have handily won, the decision instead went to Jack Sharkey.
> 
> And here's the rest of the article if you want to have a look:
> link
> 
> OR *could it be that WE is considered as a GROUP that includes all the fans. Because if you use WE WERE = it includes the speaker and somebody else.*
> 
> It is a formula very much used by the ARCHBISHOPS when they signed down a communication they state :
> *NOS *arzobispo de Medellín.
> 
> Ivy29


----------



## oriental

I agree whith Ivy29.
_He was robbed_ is gramatically perfect.
But, *he* wasn't the only one robbed by that decission.*WE* were.
The "he" is not enough.
So "we was robbed" makes sense.
Saludos.


----------



## VLC1979

OK, I think I got it.

It's a set phrase, and maybe it's due to see "we" as a singular group.

Thanks everybody!


----------



## paulol

As Masood has said, the "was" in that expression is grammatically incorrect *on purpose*, because:
_it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the way that footballers [and a lot of football fans] speak, in that, generally speaking, they are not academically well-educated and so make grammatical mistakes in their speech_ (<Masood already explained it perfectly_ )_


----------



## natasha2000

I really do appologize, but I have to ask something:

If natives say that it's just a plain expression that is NOT grammatically correct, and its incorrectness comes from a low education level of footbal supporters, why then looking for further logic and comparing it with other languages? And even more, comparing THIS expression with phrases of an archibishop? It has nothing to do with it.

It is well known that one of the most usual mistakes that native English speakers make  is failing to join a person with its corresponding verb form. So, apart of hearing we was you can also hear she don't, etc. So it is clear that it is just a BAD grammar, and nothing more.

On the other hand, not only in Spanish high personalities use WE to name themselves. Many kings in history we saying "We, the King of .... " . Besides, I don't think that achibishop od Medellin says : _*NOS*_, arzobispo de Medellin, *he *decidido..., But rather : *Nos*, arzobispo de Medellín, *hemos* decidido... etc..

Esto es simplemente, rizar el rizo.
Chau!
N.


----------



## Masood

oriental said:


> I agree whith Ivy29.
> _He was robbed_ is gramatically perfect.
> But, *he* wasn't the only one robbed by that decission.*WE* were.
> The "he" is not enough.
> So "we was robbed" makes sense.
> Saludos.


Hmm...I think I would question this logic. I may be wrong, but I've never heard of 'we was robbed' being grammatically correct. Has any other native English-speaker? In fact, you even use "We were." in the build-up to your conclusion. Correct me if I've misunderstood you.
Cheers.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> I really do appologize, but I have to ask something:
> 
> If natives say that it's just a plain expression that is NOT grammatically correct, and its incorrectness comes from a low education level of footbal supporters, why then looking for further logic and comparing it with other languages? And even more, comparing THIS expression with phrases of an archibishop? It has nothing to do with it.
> 
> It is well known that one of the most usual mistakes that native English speakers make is failing to join a person with its corresponding verb form. So, apart of hearing we was you can also hear she don't, etc. So it is clear that it is just a BAD grammar, and nothing more.
> 
> On the other hand, not only in Spanish high personalities use WE to name themselves. Many kings in history we saying "We, the King of .... " . Besides, I don't think that achibishop od Medellin says : _*NOS*_, arzobispo de Medellin, *he *decidido..., But rather : *Nos*, arzobispo de Medellín, *hemos* decidido... etc..
> 
> Esto es simplemente, rizar el rizo.
> Chau!
> N.


 

Let me pinpoint some facts so the issue at hand be clear:
1- The *Royal we* and its counterpart el NOS mayestático en español, que cambia el YO singular for el NOS Plural.
2- OXFORD DCITIONARY FOR ADVAN¿CED LEARNER'S PAGE 1117.
The *ROYAL WE*, USE OF we *TO MEAN* 'I' .
3- *Pluralis majestatis* ("majestic plural") is the plural pronoun where it is used to refer to one person alone. This is also known as the "*royal "we"*" or the "*Victorian "we"*" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, Popes, and university rectors. The idea behind the pluralis majestatis is that a monarch or other high official *always speaks for his or her people*.-
4- I was trying to explain the reason WHY  'was' is used instead of WERE. Many of my grammar books states that 'we' can be referred as PEOPLE, ALL OF US, and knowing that a group NOUN can be used with a singular/plural verb . This was my opinion
The *Royal we* exist in English and in Spanish ( Pronombre mayestático).
I you don't recall how I posted my opinion, let me remind you it = *Could it be .......*

Ivy29


----------



## gotitadeleche

Ivy29,

In this case it is not the use of the royal we. This is a common way of speaking used by people of less education. Natasha explained it well. If the quote originated with Joe Jacobs, as CatStar claims, I really doubt a boxer would be using the royal we, but it would be very normal to hear him using incorrect English, such as "we was".



> "We wuz robbed!" was first shouted by Joe Jacobs, manager of Max Schmelling, when at the end of a fight Max seemed to have handily won, the decision instead went to Jack Sharkey."






> Ivy29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pinpoint some facts so the issue at hand be clear:
> 1- The *Royal we* and its counterpart el NOS mayestático en español, que cambia el YO singular for el NOS Plural.
> 2- OXFORD DCITIONARY FOR ADVAN¿CED LEARNER'S PAGE 1117.
> The *ROYAL WE*, USE OF we *TO MEAN* 'I' .
> 3- [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']*Pluralis majestatis*[/FONT][FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] ("majestic plural") is the plural pronoun where it is used to refer to one person alone. This is also known as the "*royal "we"*" or the "*Victorian "we"*" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, Popes, and university rectors. The idea behind the pluralis majestatis is that a monarch or other high official *always speaks for his or her people*.-[/FONT]
> [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']4- I was trying to explain the reason WHY we was used with WAS instead of WERE. Many of my grammar books states that 'we' can be referred as PEOPLE, ALL OF US, and knowing that a group NOUN can be used with a singular/plural verb I was given my opinion.[/FONT]
Click to expand...


----------



## Soy Yo

Para rematar al caballo muerto...

We was robbed.
We wuz robbed.
We were robbed.

Todos quieren decir lo mismo. "We was/wuz robbed!" es incorrecto del punto de vista gramatical pero hasta una persona educada puede decirlo para causar el efecto deseado. Puede que quiera identificarse con los jugadores (que supuestamente hablan así) o puede que esté tratando de hacer hincapié en la injustica 'brutal' de la pérdida.

En la misma situación puedes oír "We were robbed!" que por casualidad es correcto.

(De una manera semejante, a veces una persona bien educada dice "ain't" para dar cierto efecto o énfasis.)


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> Let me pinpoint some facts so the issue at hand be clear:
> 1- The *Royal we* and its counterpart el NOS mayestático en español, que cambia el YO singular for el NOS Plural.
> 2- OXFORD DCITIONARY FOR ADVAN¿CED LEARNER'S PAGE 1117.
> The *ROYAL WE*, USE OF we *TO MEAN* 'I' .
> 3- *Pluralis majestatis* ("majestic plural") is the plural pronoun where it is used to refer to one person alone. This is also known as the "*royal "we"*" or the "*Victorian "we"*" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, Popes, and university rectors. The idea behind the pluralis majestatis is that a monarch or other high official *always speaks for his or her people*.-
> 4- I was trying to explain the reason WHY 'was' is used instead of WERE. Many of my grammar books states that 'we' can be referred as PEOPLE, ALL OF US, and knowing that a group NOUN can be used with a singular/plural verb . This was my opinion
> The *Royal we* exist in English and in Spanish ( Pronombre mayestático).
> I you don't recall how I posted my opinion, let me remind you it = *Could it be .......*
> 
> Ivy29


 
I am a little bit confused... Did I say something else? 

Royal WE exists not only in Spanish and English, but in all languages that had or have monarchies. But I have never heard it was used with the singular verb form.

On the other hand, this what we are discussing here is a clear example of anything but royal form.

Ivy, relax, man...


----------



## natasha2000

> 4- I was trying to explain the reason WHY 'was' is used instead of WERE. Many of my grammar books states that 'we' can be referred as PEOPLE, ALL OF US, and knowing that a group NOUN can be used with a singular/plural verb . This was my opinion


 
Even if WE is referred to PEOPLE, WE, it is used with plural verb, because in English you say people ARE and not PEOPLE is as it is in Spanish (la gente es).


----------



## oriental

Masood said:


> Hmm...I think I would question this logic. I may be wrong, but I've never heard of 'we was robbed' being grammatically correct. Has any other native English-speaker? In fact, you even use "We were." in the build-up to your conclusion. Correct me if I've misunderstood you.
> Cheers.


 
Hello Masood.
As you may note, I'm not a native English-speaker, so my writing may be misunderstood, as I think was the case.
I never said *WE* *WAS ROBBED *IS GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT.
I did say "_He was robbed_ is gramatically perfect.
By “strange” decisions, he was robbed and WE (HE-ME-THE FANS) were also robbed.
“We wuz (was) robbed” stresses the point that the actor (“he”) and we (me and the rest of the fans) were robbed, express, practically, the right idea with a wrong grammary form.
Kind regards.
 
PD: Comencè a  redactar esta respuesta temprano en la tarde (aquì) y no habìa visto la conflagraciòn desatada en este hilo.
 
Agradezco no me consideren beligerante.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


natasha2000 said:


> It is well known that one of the most usual mistakes that native English speakers make  is failing to join a person with its corresponding verb form. So, apart of hearing we was you can also hear she don't, etc. So it is clear that it is just a BAD grammar, and nothing more.


Quite some English dialects don't distinguish between (standard) plural and singular forms of the verb 'to be'. In some of those dialects, one form is used throughout (this is called paradigmatic leveling). It's considered to be bad grammar, but only if one compares it with the 'standard' variant.
From the point of view of the dialect speakers, the grammar is perfect...
I don't see a reason for a footbal player to speak the 'standard' variant, for the same reason I don't expect an academic or a so-called educated person to kick a ball for 50 meters right in the feet of a team mate.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## natasha2000

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Quite some English dialects don't distinguish between (standard) plural and singular forms of the verb 'to be'. In some of those dialects, one form is used throughout (this is called paradigmatic leveling). It's considered to be bad grammar, but only if one compares it with the 'standard' variant.
> From the point of view of the dialect speakers, the grammar is perfect...
> I don't see a reason for a footbal player to speak the 'standard' variant, for the same reason I don't expect an academic or a so-called educated person to kick a ball for 50 meters right in the feet of a team mate.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 
I don't see the point of your post.

We was = dialectal, non standard language = bad grammar, uneducated people = the majority of football supporters

Furthermore, some natives here said that even an educated person can use this kind of speech if he wants to make the point - if he wants to speak like footbal supporters. Just as if someone if he wants to imitate, or speak like a hip-hop singer would use that special way of speaking, even though it is not grammatically correct.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Even if WE is referred to PEOPLE, WE, it is used with plural verb, because in English you say people ARE and not PEOPLE is as it is in Spanish (la gente es).


 
But a group of FANS could be with singular or plural verbs.

Ivy29


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> But a group of FANS could be with singular or plural verbs.
> 
> Ivy29


 
Yes, if you say a group of fans. But if you say only FANS, then it is plural.

A group of fans was shouting. 
A group of fans were shouting. (Here the verb relates to fans and not to group. It's the same with the Police were or The police was. Nevertheless, I am not a 100% sure, please some native to confirm or to correct me).
Fans were shouting. 
Fans was shouting. 
We was robbed.


----------



## Sallyb36

Natasha is right, we was robbed is gramatically incorrect, but used by people in a sporting context (usually sporting anyway), for the reasons stated by Masood


----------



## elpoderoso

''we was robbed'' is not grammatically correct, it is either used by ''less educated'' people or it is used by ''better educated'' people in an ironic way. It has no roots in ''pluralis majestatis'', that is just an attempt to justify it in a more ''intellectual way'' after the fact.
p.s In response to frank, i don't know if i would expect an academic to have great footballing skills, but i would hope that someone who earns a multi-million pound salary would have a basic grasp of the english language.


----------



## Sallyb36

elpoderoso said:


> ''we was robbed'' is not grammatically correct, it is either used by ''less educated'' people or it is used by ''better educated'' people in an ironic way. It has no roots in ''pluralis majestatis'', that is just an attempt to justify it in a more ''intellectual way'' after the fact.
> p.s In response to frank, i don't know if i would expect an academic to have great footballing skills*, but i would hope that someone who earns a multi-million pound salary would have a basic grasp of the english language*.



Elpoderoso, you are too hopeful by far!


----------



## elpoderoso

muchas gracias


----------



## Sallyb36

de nada


----------



## martzp

O.K. for all my friends of Europe or South America, you could still be debating about the royal origin of that expression, but the right answer belongs to my friend of Texas.
For all of you who don't know about it, lots of very smart or talented people who had a real outstanding performance (box, baseball, basketball, etc.), came from a very humble origin. Usually these people from the countryside or very poor neighborhoods.

It's typical from uneducated people (at least from rural areas of the USA) to talk they you already mentioned:
"We was robbed", even though It's grammatically incorrect, it's of common use in those areas and among those people.

Regards




gotitadeleche said:


> Ivy29,
> 
> In this case it is not the use of the royal we. This is a common way of speaking used by people of less education. Natasha explained it well. If the quote originated with Joe Jacobs, as CatStar claims, I really doubt a boxer would be using the royal we, but it would be very normal to hear him using incorrect English, such as "we was".


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


natasha2000 said:


> I don't see the point of your post.
> We was = dialectal, non standard language = bad grammar, uneducated people = the majority of football supporters



I'll try again.
From a grammatical point of view, 'we was' is bad standard English, but good dialect. For a speaker of a dialect, 'we was' is perfect, because that's how the grammar of of his/her variant works.
My point: 'bad grammar' is very relative.



> Furthermore, some natives here said that even an educated person can use this kind of speech if he wants to make the point - if he wants to speak like footbal supporters. Just as if someone if he wants to imitate, or speak like a hip-hop singer would use that special way of speaking, even though it is not grammatically correct.



Yes, and?


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


elpoderoso said:


> p.s In response to frank, i don't know if i would expect an academic to have great footballing skills, but i would hope that someone who earns a multi-million pound salary would have a basic grasp of the english language.



Certainly not of '*the* English language'. The definite article is doesn't make a lot of sence in this context, from a linguistic point of view.

You mean, a basic grasp of one particular variant of English? By coincidence the one you favour and by coincidence the one that is considered to be standard?
Why would he speak the same way as you? So you can stop conisdering him to be 'uneducated'?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## elpoderoso

Obviously ther is a standard of english, otherwise there would be nothing to compare these variants against. if we stretch your point further we could say that english doesn't exist as such, and is only a ''variant'' of anglo-saxon.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


elpoderoso said:


> Obviously ther is a standard of english, otherwise there would be nothing to compare these variants against. if we stretch your point further we could say that english doesn't exist as such, and is only a ''variant'' of anglo-saxon.



No, I don't agree with your conslusions at all. I must have expressed myself in a very unclear way. The variants shouldn't be compared against each other, or against a standard tongue to decide what is good or bad.
But, I must say that I don't understand what you mean by "[English] is only a variant of Anglo-Saxon". 

Please allow me to start with something else, I'll come to the point later. How many native speakers of English are there? A few 100 million?
Now, if interpret some posts here, I can only conclude that there are not more than a handful of speakers of 'English', since a lot of people seem to equate '_English_' with '_good standard English_'.

My second impression after reading the posts in this thread: 
- 'good grammar' only seems to apply to 'standard English'
- ergo, all the speakers of 'English' whose language deviates from that standard, speak 'bad English', apparantly meaning '_bad standard English_'. 

That's what I read in many posts (between the lines). Very weird, since they [*edit*: in our case the football player and the imitators] are not even speaking 'standard English', [*edit*: but another variant of English].
But I may be wrong in my assessment of some of the posts.

To stretch my point: 
Take the Geordie phrase "I *telt* you to give                us a one, but you've *forgetten*. If you *divvent *give us                it *noo*, I'm gannin yearm."
Somebody who says this speaks good Geordie and not 'bad standard English', for the simple reason that this person (at the moment of uttering this phrase) doesn't even attempt to speak 'standard English', because he's speaking something else. As every other _language_, or dialect if you want,  Geordie has grammatical rules, and those rules differ from the grammatical rules of standard English. But those rules cannot be compared with standard English _to decide what is good and bad English_.
[I'm not saying here that a Geordie is not able to speak standard English.]

Now, the same can be said of 'we was robbed', except that it is not Geordie, not standard English, but another variant.

***
There are many variants of English. Those variants are called 'dialects' and dialects aren't restricted to regions. So yes, I use the word 'English' as a bundle of varieties, and not as a synonym for 'good standard English'. If so, then world wide there are only a few hundred/thousand speakers of  English.

There are a few variants (dialects) which are considered to be standard. Let's keep it simple and say a standard British variety, a standard American variety, etc. etc. In all those standard varieties, it's 'I was' and 'we were'. So yes, there are obviously standard varieties which have their value. And those varieties are taught in schools.
Apart from that, there are loads of variants which are not considered to be *standard* English, all with their own grammatical rules, which aren't better or 'badder' than standard English in se. In quite some dialects, the verbal forms are rearranged.

The standard variety can be useful, well, _necessary_ in many occasions, and I am certainly not pleading against it. 
I doubt, though, that an interview with a footbal player, no matter how many millions he makes, should be considered to be an occasion in which it is _necessary_ to speak standard English.

[I also doubt if that millionaire, whose (overpaid) job it is to kick against a ball,  would care a lot when one or another prescriber of grammatical rules shakes his/her finger and says 'bad bad boy, bad bad English'. And why should he?]

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## loladamore

At the end of the day it's a game of two halves. We was robbed and I feel as sick as a parrot.
And as the marvellous David Coleman once said: "If the ball had crossed the line, it would have been a goal..."


----------



## elpoderoso

I am well aware that geordie is a dialect,( i have _lived _in england  for most of my life) and i wasn't saying that people who speak different dialects are somehow uneducated and ''bad''(i also don't remember saying or even suggesting ''bad boy''). 
Another point' i don't know if you noticed but i put ''less educated'' in quotation marks in my first post, but maybe doing so means something different in your variant of english.
Your views are obviously very noble about there not being a perfect ''standard'' and that the range of dialects are equally valid, but then your arguement doesn't leave any room for people to use a language badly, as their usage would be considered ''a variant'' rather than bad grammar.
You also complain about people in this forum using ''standard english'', in case you hadn't noticed, it's the point of this forum. Spanish speakers want to learn english and vice versa. I seriously doubt a spanish speaker would look at this forum and say '' ah,at last my opportunity to learn lowland scots has arrived'' 
This forum is used for the standards of the two languages to help learners, who when they are more confident can learn more about the variants. 
This is my last post on the matter.
Saludos


----------



## paulol

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Certainly not of '*the* English language'. The definite article is doesn't make a lot of sence in this context, from a linguistic point of view.
> 
> You mean, a basic grasp of one particular variant of English? By coincidence the one you favour and by coincidence the one that is considered to be standard?
> Why would he speak the same way as you? So you can stop conisdering him to be 'uneducated'?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


Frank, I think you have missed the point entirely and are "rizando the rizo al máximo".
In the context of a list of British football vocabulary terms (i.e. what the original poster's question was about) this expression means exactly what the other forum users have said above.
That's it, the ref has already blown up.
At the end of the day, it's a team game, and with all due respect, let's just take one post at a time.


----------



## Masood

Hi
No offence, but could we please knock this thread on the head?

I think the originator has had his/her question answered satisfactorily and I feel that recent additions to this thread have gone off-topic (i.e. no longer English-*SPANISH *vocabulary).

I suggest a new thread could be started (perhaps entitled 'we was robbed') in the English-only forum if anyone wishes to further discuss the nuances of English grammar.

Cheers.


----------



## Frank06

Hi all,


Masood said:


> No offence, but could we please knock this thread on the head? I think the originator has had his/her question answered satisfactorily and I feel that recent additions to this thread have gone off-topic (i.e. no longer English-*SPANISH *vocabulary).
> I suggest a new thread could be started (perhaps entitled 'we was robbed') in the English-only forum if anyone wishes to further discuss the nuances of English grammar.



My apologies if I stepped on some toes. I didn't intend to tackle anybody  or to kick against anybody's shins. The original question indeed got answered. My posts, much too long and much too many, were a reaction against the ... against something that popped up in the course of the discussion.
I still stand behind every single word, but they got posted in the wrong place, my apologies.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## scotchex

This thread is long since over, but just for info ....as a US-native, every time I've heard somebody say "We wuz robbed" they do it in a sort of fake 1920's Brooklyn accent and always in an ironic way. 

Imagine the old trainer "Mick" from the Rocky movies. That's exactly how people say, "We wuz robbed." Hard-nosed, working class New York accent.


----------

