c4countdown

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.

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.

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).

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

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

Jimdic error.

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.

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.

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 .........)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

UNSIGHT

And Dictionary Corner then gave GUNSIGHT.

They always rub salt into the wounds.

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

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.

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

Both my opponent and I had LOVENEST disallowed.

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?

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).

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.

SUREFIRE

wasn't!

Yesterday for my opponent: BICEP.

Quite amazing!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

IMBURSE?

Jon Corby wrote: Is abdominator in the dictionary yet?

Isn't that a punishment device from a crappy Christopher Lambert film?

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.

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.

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...

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..."

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Like gays?

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 @

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

Surely, that should be worse things.

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.

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.

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.

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.