Words You Would Have Thought...

Official forum of apterous.org, the website which allows you to play against other people over the Internet.
User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:46 am

BENDED (as in bended knee)
BUNDED (as in bunded tank, a tank within a tank)
Both were played in the same round by Ronan and myself in a game yesterday.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Phil Reynolds » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:18 am

Marc Meakin wrote:BENDED (as in bended knee)
I suspect that's one of those words that in the dictionary but only as part of that specific phrase and is thus disallowed on the same grounds as MISTLE and OXALIC.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2781
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by JimBentley » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:12 pm

Simon Le Fort wrote:EMACIATE.

I can't even see that it's borderline.
EMACIATED is listed only as an adjective, not as an inflection of a verb "emaciate". Bit like UNEXPURGATED or UNDECIDED, that sort of thing (not great examples, I admit, but I can't think of any better ones at the moment).
exciting music http://fahnn.co.uk

Hugh Binnie
Enthusiast
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Hugh Binnie » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:59 pm

Surprised to see SCANT can't have -ER and -EST added.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:26 pm

Hugh Binnie wrote:Surprised to see SCANT can't have -ER and -EST added.
Jimdic error.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:28 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Simon Le Fort wrote:EMACIATE.

I can't even see that it's borderline.
When was the last time you used it in a sentence?
Thanks both for your comments and feedback but if we use the criterion above we'll eliminate a large proportion of the words accepted in the game. Pouters! Outcall! Townee!

I have here the Empire Standard Dictionary (C. Arthur Pearson Ltd., WC2) and it gives:

"Emaciate v.i. to lose flesh; waste away. v.t. to cause to lose flesh; to make lean or meagre; to waste. n. emaciation."

Then I just googled EMACIATE and definitions popped up immediately from various sources, so I paste:

emaciate. A, verb. 1, emaciate. grow weak and thin or waste away physically; "She emaciated during the chemotherapy". Category Tree: ...
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/emaciate


and

Main Entry: ema·ci·ate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ema·ci·at·ed; ema·ci·at·ing
intransitive verb
: to waste away physically
transitive verb
1 : to cause to lose flesh so as to become very thin
2 : to make feeble
— ema·ci·a·tion \-ˌmā-s(h)ē-ˈā-shən\ noun


Sure there are adjectives that happen to end in -ED, like POOPED, and where there isn't a verb, but I don't think that EMACIATED is one of them.

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Phil Reynolds » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:18 am

Simon Le Fort wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:When was the last time you used it in a sentence?
if we use the criterion above we'll eliminate a large proportion of the words accepted in the game.
My original wording, which I should have kept instead of opting for pithiness, was something like "I challenge you to use it in a plausible-sounding sentence". I notice that only one of the sources you cite gives an example, and even that uses emaciated (admittedly as the past tense verb form, rather than the adjective). In real life I've never heard anyone say anything like, "If you don't eat properly, you'll emaciate." It's always "become emaciated".

For the record, my trusty Collins Millennium Edition (which I normally defend over ODE2r) also lists emaciate as a verb, but this is one instance where I think Oxford have got it right. It may well have been in common (or even occasional) usage as a verb at one time, but the job of a dictionary is to reflect changing usage.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:50 pm

Thanks again, Phil.

We can agree to disagree, because there are so many words that are allowed in the game that I never use or even know the meaning of. Emaciate would sit snugly in that group for me.

I guess the difference between us is that I am the victim, all suffering and hard-done-by; it's hard to let go having voiced the complaint (not that I'm stubborn .........)

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Phil Reynolds » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:51 pm

Simon Le Fort wrote:there are so many words that are allowed in the game that I never use
But somebody does - that's why they're in the dictionary. The point about emaciate is not that you or I don't use it, but that nobody uses it.
I guess the difference between us is that I am the victim, all suffering and hard-done-by
We've all been there. :(

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Kirk Bevins » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:30 am

Phil Reynolds wrote: The point about emaciate is not that you or I don't use it, but that nobody uses it.
If I could be bothered to open the 10 boxes of dictionaries I won then I'd love to prove you wrong.

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Phil Reynolds » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:50 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote: The point about emaciate is not that you or I don't use it, but that nobody uses it.
If I could be bothered to open the 10 boxes of dictionaries I won then I'd love to prove you wrong.
How? :? A record of past use doesn't necessarily "prove" whether or not the word is in widespread current use. Remember, this debate was kicked off not by any disagreement over whether or not emaciate exists as a verb, but by Simon's assertion that it's common enough to be in ODE2r:
Simon Le Fort wrote:EMACIATE

I can't even see that it's borderline.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:53 am

I'm starting to feel like these debates are fairly pointless because none of us have read enough books with enough retention to really have an idea of whether words are in common usage. How often have you seen some word for the "first" time only to notice it again in something you must have read many times before? I doubt any of us would know more than half the words in ODE2r without having studied it in detail, and that's one of the smaller dictionaries. Some words are blatant errors (INDOORSES) but other than that, it is what it is, and learning what's in and what's out is (sorry Julian) part of the game.

Not that it isn't interesting to debate these things, but there's no point disagreeing too strongly without any real data.

Andrew Feist
Enthusiast
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:43 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Andrew Feist » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:45 am

I didn't know you don't play marbles over there.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:42 pm

UNSIGHT

And Dictionary Corner then gave GUNSIGHT.

They always rub salt into the wounds.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3595
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:38 pm

Fecking POORLIEST. I could have sworn it was in. Then there's the anagram PISTOLERO. Stewpid book.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:10 pm

Unlucky,Ian, POORLIEST surely sounds more usable than many of the words Dictionary Corner offers up.

I think that's what makes this thread interesting for me. Not just having my gems disallowed, but then being shown silly words that are allowed.

Harping back to my UNSIGHTS, ok, may be borderline, but today DC suggested UNEQUALS.
Sucks.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:55 pm

I now know it's not a conspiracy against me.

Both my opponent and I had LOVENEST disallowed.

David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by David Roe » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:43 pm

I've never quite understood the oft-quoted rule that single syllable adjectives can have -ier and -iest but two or more can't. From my experience, not from any allegedly definitive rule book, two-syllable adjectives that end in -y (like happy, jolly, busy, gloomy) could all be -ier and -iest as well. Certainly if someone described themselves as "poorlier than ever" it wouldn't grate as an odd construct.

Where does the rule come from?

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:01 pm

David Roe wrote:Where does the rule come from?
Page xvii of the introduction to the dictionary, under "Adjectives":

The following forms for comparative and superlative are regarded as regular and are not shown in the dictionary:
* Words of one syllable adding -er and -est (e.g. great).

[snip]

Other forms are given in the dictionary, notably for:
* Two-syllable adjectives which form the comparative and superlative with -er and -est (e.g. happy).

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:31 pm

Here's another everyday word to steer clear of that both my opponent and I had disallowed:

POTTABLE.

Neither gardening nor snooker sense ...

To rub even more salt into the wounds, DC gave TABLETOP.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:51 pm

SUREFIRE

wasn't!

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:11 am

Yesterday for my opponent: BICEP.

Quite amazing!

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:56 am

Simon Le Fort wrote:Yesterday for my opponent: BICEP.

Quite amazing!
The muscle is called the biceps (two heads). It's a common mistake and some dictionaries do list BICEP, usually with a usage note in a discouraging tone. Personally I think anyone who can't deal with singular nouns that end in S is an ignoramu.

Matt Bayfield
Devotee
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Seated at a computer

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Matt Bayfield » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:09 pm

At the risk of making myself look a fool, as I can't review the game right now to confirm all the letters were in the selection (because apterous, but not c4c, is blocked on this computer), I was surprised to have BIGHEADS disallowed.

Anyone know whether it's hyphenated, two words, not listed at all, or only listed as the adjective big(-)headed?

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Kirk Bevins » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:25 pm

Matt Bayfield wrote:At the risk of making myself look a fool, as I can't review the game right now to confirm all the letters were in the selection (because apterous, but not c4c, is blocked on this computer), I was surprised to have BIGHEADS disallowed.

Anyone know whether it's hyphenated, two words, not listed at all, or only listed as the adjective big(-)headed?
It's listed as big-head and big-headed and big-headedness. So to answer your question, yes I do know.

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:59 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Simon Le Fort wrote:Yesterday for my opponent: BICEP.

Quite amazing!
The muscle is called the biceps (two heads). It's a common mistake and some dictionaries do list BICEP, usually with a usage note in a discouraging tone. Personally I think anyone who can't deal with singular nouns that end in S is an ignoramu.
I just googled BICEP and got quite an eyeful, as well as:

Bicep exercise, bicep workout, bicep muscle and training guides to help you build bigger bicep muscles!

If it's a common "mistake" yet some (enlightened and descriptive) dictionaries do include it, as well as the advertising blurbs, it's time for OED to be less prescriptive.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7991
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jon Corby » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:05 pm

Simon Le Fort wrote:If it's a common "mistake" yet some (enlightened and descriptive) dictionaries do include it, as well as the advertising blurbs, it's time for OED to be less prescriptive.
I agree, the OED really should be taking its lead from muscle-bound steroid junkies in vests, and particularly the tacky marketing aimed at them. Is abdominator in the dictionary yet?

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:02 pm

Oh, no. We're going to end up with SPECIE, SERIE, TROUSER, SCISSOR, MEASLE, PHYSIC, MUMP, and MOLASS.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:20 pm

IMBURSE?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3595
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:08 pm

Jon Corby wrote: Is abdominator in the dictionary yet?
Isn't that a punishment device from a crappy Christopher Lambert film?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:12 pm

Simon Le Fort wrote: If it's a common "mistake" yet some (enlightened and descriptive) dictionaries do include it, as well as the advertising blurbs, it's time for OED to be less prescriptive.
That depends how common it is, which we don't know. The descriptive/prescriptive thing usually only applies to published sources like newspapers; you need some inertia in the language or spelling would never stabilise and reading would become difficult. Even corpus-based dictionaries (like the ODE) don't usually care much what some guy posts to his blog that gets indexed on Google, although as we've discussed before the latter can be an indicator.

Bob De Caux
Enthusiast
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Bob De Caux » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:16 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Isn't that a punishment device from a crappy Christopher Lambert film?
I think that's the Intestinator (from Fortress)! Seem to remember enjoying it at the time, but no doubt it would be utterly appalling if I saw it again.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3595
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:19 pm

Bob De Caux wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Isn't that a punishment device from a crappy Christopher Lambert film?
I think that's the Intestinator (from Fortress)! Seem to remember enjoying it at the time, but no doubt it would be utterly appalling if I saw it again.
Ah yes. A very good film as a sixteen-year-old I seem to remember, so complete guff no doubt...
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Matt Bayfield
Devotee
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Seated at a computer

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Matt Bayfield » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:40 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:It's listed as big-head and big-headed and big-headedness. So to answer your question, yes I do know.
Cheers Kirk. I don't have an ODE to hand, but I'm often curious to know these things...

On the subject of BICEP creeping into dictionaries, I wonder how long it'll be before daft constructs like BURGLARIZE and CONVERSATE make the ODE. Although personally I think conversate is too short to survive in modern language. I give it 20 years before US sitcoms include dialogue like "I was just conversationalizing with your mom..."

Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Peter Mabey » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:46 pm

FLUTER was disallowed today, but James Galway insists that he's not a FLAUTIST, as he doesn't play a "flaut", after the renowned Phil the Fluter. :)

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:01 pm

Matt Bayfield wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:It's listed as big-head and big-headed and big-headedness. So to answer your question, yes I do know.
Cheers Kirk. I don't have an ODE to hand, but I'm often curious to know these things...

On the subject of BICEP creeping into dictionaries, I wonder how long it'll be before daft constructs like BURGLARIZE and CONVERSATE make the ODE. Although personally I think conversate is too short to survive in modern language. I give it 20 years before US sitcoms include dialogue like "I was just conversationalizing with your mom..."
BURGLARIZE has been in for years. Never heard of CONVERSATE though.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10138
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:02 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Matt Bayfield wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:It's listed as big-head and big-headed and big-headedness. So to answer your question, yes I do know.
Cheers Kirk. I don't have an ODE to hand, but I'm often curious to know these things...

On the subject of BICEP creeping into dictionaries, I wonder how long it'll be before daft constructs like BURGLARIZE and CONVERSATE make the ODE. Although personally I think conversate is too short to survive in modern language. I give it 20 years before US sitcoms include dialogue like "I was just conversationalizing with your mom..."
BURGLARIZE has been in for years. Never heard of CONVERSATE though.
Whenever I hear someone saying BURGLARIZE, I think "seriously?"

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3595
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:52 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Matt Bayfield wrote:Cheers Kirk. I don't have an ODE to hand, but I'm often curious to know these things...

On the subject of BICEP creeping into dictionaries, I wonder how long it'll be before daft constructs like BURGLARIZE and CONVERSATE make the ODE. Although personally I think conversate is too short to survive in modern language. I give it 20 years before US sitcoms include dialogue like "I was just conversationalizing with your mom..."
BURGLARIZE has been in for years. Never heard of CONVERSATE though.
Whenever I hear someone saying BURGLARIZE, I think "seriously?"
I'm determined to subvert its definition to much the same as BUGGER.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10138
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:03 am

Ian Volante wrote:I'm determined to subvert its definition to much the same as BUGGER.
Can you turn BURGLERY (as in BURGLE-RY) into BUGGERY as well?

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:28 am

Much as I hate the American bastardisation of our language, and ghastly as 'burglarize' sounds to our ears, I'd like to point out that our word 'burgle' is a back-formation from 'burglar' (just as 'edit' is one from 'editor') whereas the Americans chose to treat 'burglar' in the regular manner of suffixing '-ize' to form the verb, in the same way as we turned 'vandal' into 'vandalise'. ;)

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:49 am

Alec Rivers wrote:Much as I hate the American bastardisation of our language
If you hate bastardisation then there can't be much of English that you do like.

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:56 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:Much as I hate the American bastardisation of our language
If you hate bastardisation then there can't be much of English that you do like.
By which you're implying that the vast majority of English is of American origin???

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:58 am

Alec Rivers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:Much as I hate the American bastardisation of our language
If you hate bastardisation then there can't be much of English that you do like.
By which you're implying that the vast majority of English is of American origin???
:? Nope.

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:41 am

Well, I'm still not sure what you mean (so this might not be relevant) but I'm only against changes imposed by ignorant and less cultured peoples (as per my subjective judgement and values) so, for the most part, I love our language.

User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Lesley Hines » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:55 am

Alec Rivers wrote:Well, I'm still not sure what you mean (so this might not be relevant) but I'm only against changes imposed by ignorant and less cultured peoples (as per my subjective judgement and values) so, for the most part, I love our language.
No way! Slang's one of the most dynamic parts of our language - Cockney rhyming slang was started so the boys in blue couldn't understand the conversations between the criminal underworld, and there are loads of words introduced to our language that I truly love. Curry has to be my favourite (natch ;) ), but restaurant (spotting a theme...), schadenfreude, latte, chav - what a great word! a whole concept summed up in four letters, bikini, anorak (another concept), vandal, ah man the list's too long :lol: Plus all the classical influences that allow the creation of new words like television, thus retaining our roots and keep language moving. We'd be in proper Barney if they weren't there.

Interestingly, in Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' he came to the conclusion via some interesting analyses (and this is a monster paraphrase) that American English is the natural evolution of where British English would be if we hadn't had so many external influences to our language. I also love the way that the proper, amygdala-hitting swear words tend to be Anglo-Saxon. Old habits do indeed die hard.
Lowering the averages since 2009

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 am

Alec Rivers wrote:Well, I'm still not sure what you mean (so this might not be relevant) but I'm only against changes imposed by ignorant and less cultured peoples (as per my subjective judgement and values) so, for the most part, I love our language.
Oh, so you're just a racist. That makes everything clearer.

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:11 am

Some of the most memorable words I was really confident about but had disallowed were "bocal" (I'd like to know what the OED people think the thing you stick an English horn reed onto is called), "rehair" (a violin bow, for instance), "foeman" (or maybe it was "foemen"), and "emeute" (I should just never declare a word I hear in a Gilbert and Sullivan song ever again).

It's funny, because when musical terms come up in games I almost always miss them despite using them all the time. Then when I do find one, it turns out not to be acceptable. :lol:

User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Lesley Hines » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:54 pm

Couple that have cropped up recently:
pooter (a little gadget used to collect insects - very useful in field work)
harpsicle (anagram of spherical - very, very unlucky Baz - lap harps)
Hey ho.
Lowering the averages since 2009

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:59 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:... less cultured peoples ...
Lesley Hines wrote:... [a perfectly reasonable argument] ...
Charlie Reams wrote:Oh, so you're just a racist.
lol. It seems I was being too subtle. I thought this whole conversation stemmed from my statement about Americanisms, so that's what I was alluding to. The only people I regard less cultured than us Brits are the Yanks. My resistance to them is not so much based on individual words, but on the arrogant way they think the world revolves around them, and their apparent assumption that the rest of the world wants their influence and wants to be like them, as though they have the ideal way of life. With regard to their language, I wish they would rename it 'American'.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:23 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:... less cultured peoples ...
Lesley Hines wrote:... [a perfectly reasonable argument] ...
Charlie Reams wrote:Oh, so you're just a racist.
lol. It seems I was being too subtle. I thought this whole conversation stemmed from my statement about Americanisms, so that's what I was alluding to. The only people I regard less cultured than us Brits are the Yanks. My resistance to them is not so much based on individual words, but on the arrogant way they think the world revolves around them, and their apparent assumption that the rest of the world wants their influence and wants to be like them, as though they have the ideal way of life. With regard to their language, I wish they would rename it 'American'.
Could be a new varient.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10138
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:55 pm

What annoys me is not so much Americans making up their own words/expressions, but annoying people over here using these expressions simply because they've heard them on some Amercian programme. Some of the expressions are alright, but some are just annoying.

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Alec Rivers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:05 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:What annoys me is not so much Americans making up their own words/expressions, but annoying people over here using these expressions simply because they've heard them on some Amercian programme. Some of the expressions are alright, but some are just annoying.
Yeah, dude, cos, like, all those awesome, like, cuss words totally make you, like, sound so cool, man.

Christ, that was painful to write.

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Michael Wallace » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:26 pm

You guys need to find better things to be annoyed about.

Jimmy Gough
Devotee
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jimmy Gough » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:29 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:You guys need to find better things to be annoyed about.
Like gays?

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Michael Wallace » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:35 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:You guys need to find better things to be annoyed about.
Like gays?
Exactly. Jimmy knows where it's @

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:47 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:You guys need to find better things to be annoyed about.
Surely, that should be worse things.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by John Bosley » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:43 am

JimBentley wrote:
Simon Le Fort wrote:EMACIATE.

I can't even see that it's borderline.
EMACIATED is listed only as an adjective, not as an inflection of a verb "emaciate". Bit like UNEXPURGATED or UNDECIDED, that sort of thing (not great examples, I admit, but I can't think of any better ones at the moment).


In Chambers, 'emaciate' is not only a verb it is an adjective, along with emaciated. So presumably you can have an emaciate look. I like it.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9468
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:17 pm

Alec Rivers wrote: lol. It seems I was being too subtle. I thought this whole conversation stemmed from my statement about Americanisms, so that's what I was alluding to. The only people I regard less cultured than us Brits are the Yanks. My resistance to them is not so much based on individual words, but on the arrogant way they think the world revolves around them, and their apparent assumption that the rest of the world wants their influence and wants to be like them, as though they have the ideal way of life. With regard to their language, I wish they would rename it 'American'.
Not all Americans are like you describe. Generalisation, especially negative, about people's personalities based on their country of origin is called... racism! So you were being racist, not subtle. Hope this is clear now.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:59 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote: lol. It seems I was being too subtle. I thought this whole conversation stemmed from my statement about Americanisms, so that's what I was alluding to. The only people I regard less cultured than us Brits are the Yanks. My resistance to them is not so much based on individual words, but on the arrogant way they think the world revolves around them, and their apparent assumption that the rest of the world wants their influence and wants to be like them, as though they have the ideal way of life. With regard to their language, I wish they would rename it 'American'.
Not all Americans are like you describe. Generalisation, especially negative, about people's personalities based on their country of origin is called... racism! So you were being racist, not subtle. Hope this is clear now.
Thats a bit harsh. :o
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Andrew Feist
Enthusiast
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:43 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Andrew Feist » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:09 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote: lol. It seems I was being too subtle. I thought this whole conversation stemmed from my statement about Americanisms, so that's what I was alluding to. The only people I regard less cultured than us Brits are the Yanks. My resistance to them is not so much based on individual words, but on the arrogant way they think the world revolves around them, and their apparent assumption that the rest of the world wants their influence and wants to be like them, as though they have the ideal way of life. With regard to their language, I wish they would rename it 'American'.
Not all Americans are like you describe. Generalisation, especially negative, about people's personalities based on their country of origin is called... racism! So you were being racist, not subtle. Hope this is clear now.
I would have thought that racism would have been based on generalizations about ... race, not country of origin. There's not a good alternate word that I'm thinking of, though (the original meaning of chauvinism, maybe, or perhaps we can make "nationalism" work for this).

And we only think you want to be like us because we know we're the bestest country around.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests