c4countdownA group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
|
|
|
|
It is currently Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:19 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:21 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
Andrew Feist wrote: 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. I love native Americans. Edit Naive Americans. 
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:58 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Andrew Feist wrote: 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). Maybe another term would be more appropriate, but it's fundamentally the same as racism in that it discriminates against people based on some factor that they didn't choose.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:12 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
Charlie Reams wrote: Andrew Feist wrote: 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). Maybe another term would be more appropriate, but it's fundamentally the same as racism in that it discriminates against people based on some factor that they didn't choose. Stereotyping is closer.
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:43 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Marc Meakin wrote: Charlie Reams wrote: Andrew Feist wrote: 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). Maybe another term would be more appropriate, but it's fundamentally the same as racism in that it discriminates against people based on some factor that they didn't choose. Stereotyping is closer. Yep, that works.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gavin Chipper
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:45 am |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm Posts: 2589
|
Charlie Reams wrote: Andrew Feist wrote: 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). Maybe another term would be more appropriate, but it's fundamentally the same as racism in that it discriminates against people based on some factor that they didn't choose. And when you start trying to define race it tends to all fall apart anyway. I also wonder if people would make the same "it's not racism; it's country of origin" argument if someone was rude about someone for being from India.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
John Bosley
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:27 pm |
| Enthusiast |
 |
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm Posts: 266
|
|
I have cancelled this posting because .......(it had USAmerican and emaciate in the same sentence)..........
And another unconnected point - a letter in the Guardian points out that not all Amercans are from USA or even speak English.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Simon Le Fort
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:55 am |
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm Posts: 41
|
Jim's comment that EMACIATE works also adjectivally applies also to BICEP, hence that googling from professional trade journals, not blogs or tacky marketing - don't know why any such inaccuracies should clog the debate. To keep the bodybuilding theme, DUMBBELLS are always a pair at least, but a DUMBBELL press is fine. Charlie Reams wrote: The muscle is called the biceps (two heads). In that case, each of the heads could be considered the singular components. The words BICEPS clearly has plurality or at least duality at its core. Another P-final muscle/mussel lay down graciously and singularly even though clearly made up of two shells, with SCALLOP being just fine. Disallowing BICEP is as out of touch with reality, as would be disallowing BUS in favour of OMNIBUS. Charlie Reams wrote: .............anyone who can't deal with singular nouns that end in S is an ignoramu. Ongoing defence of OED infallibity bears all the tunnel vision of a cyclop.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:37 am |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Simon Le Fort wrote: In that case, each of the heads could be considered the singular components. The words BICEPS clearly has plurality or at least duality at its core. The word "duality" also has duality as its core, that doesn't tell you anything about its grammatical function. I'm confused about your point. Before you were saying that BICEP is the name of the muscle, now you're saying that BICEP should be allowed as "one end of the biceps". The latter use might well be grammatical, if it exists at all, but probably far too obscure for a dictionary of only 2000 pages. Simon Le Fort wrote: Disallowing BICEP is as out of touch with reality, as would be disallowing BUS in favour of OMNIBUS. You keep saying that, but you haven't produced any evidence. The ODE is a corpus-based dictionary based on statistical analysis of several orders of magnitude more text than any of us have seen in our entire lives, so I would be cautious about claiming to know better. I trawled through several pages of Google results for BICEP and all of them were from dodgy body-building websites. Simon Le Fort wrote: Ongoing defence of OED infallibity bears all the tunnel vision of a cyclop. You haven't read many of my posts then  The ODE is full of strange inconsistencies and contradictions, and I've criticised it many times before. That doesn't mean they're wrong in this case.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
D Eadie
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:51 am |
| Devotee |
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am Posts: 788 Location: Mars Hotel
|
|
The OED does alter its stance quite a lot.
We used to disallow PINCER on the show because it was only used in combination with pincer movement. Oxford stated that PINCERS was the correct term and the singular was invalid, but nowadays this isn't the case and it's acceptable. That reminds me, where did i leave my castanets?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:15 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
|
I played IMBURSE recently as I assumed that to reimburse someone was to imburse them again.
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Jon Corby
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:21 pm |
| Chairman |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am Posts: 4641
|
Marc Meakin wrote: I played IMBURSE recently as I assumed that to reimburse someone was to imburse them again. Seems reasonable, after all you're just plenishing them again with something they already had.
_________________ Officially the second most postingest c4c forummer.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matt Morrison
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:24 pm |
| Postmaster General |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm Posts: 3135 Location: Exeter
|
Jon Corby wrote: Marc Meakin wrote: I played IMBURSE recently as I assumed that to reimburse someone was to imburse them again. Seems reasonable, after all you're just plenishing them again with something they already had. Not to peat what has already been said, but that seems an easonable enough argument to me.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
|
Tard.
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:33 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
|
Turn to sender.
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ian Volante
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:48 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm Posts: 1644 Location: Edinburgh
|
D Eadie wrote: where did i leave my castanets? Is it in your trouser pocket with your scissor?
_________________ meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kirk Bevins
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:29 pm |
| God |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm Posts: 4277 Location: York, UK
|
Ian Volante wrote: D Eadie wrote: where did i leave my castanets? Is it in your trouser pocket with your scissor? I thought it was in his drawer with his tweezer - broken of course.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:07 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
D Eadie wrote: The OED does alter its stance quite a lot.
We used to disallow PINCER on the show because it was only used in combination with pincer movement. Oxford stated that PINCERS was the correct term and the singular was invalid, but nowadays this isn't the case and it's acceptable. That reminds me, where did i leave my castanets? That's true, but also somewhat different since BICEPS isn't a plural noun, it's a normal noun which happens to end in an S. They have changed their mind on lots of other things, but IMO if you allow BICEP then you should allow SEPERATE and BUISNESS as well, since those are much more common errors.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JimBentley
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:34 pm |
| Legend |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm Posts: 1075 Location: Redcar, UK
|
Simon Le Fort wrote: Jim's comment that EMACIATE works also adjectivally applies also to BICEP, hence that googling from professional trade journals, not blogs or tacky marketing - don't know why any such inaccuracies should clog the debate. No, I said that the dictionary only lists EMACIATED as an adjective. It doesn't list "emaciate" at all. Also, all this talk about "bicep" somehow being allowable is misunderstanding the anatomy of the thing. The muscle is called the BICEPS (or biceps brachii, as I assume we're talking about the one in the upper arm, rather than the biceps femoris, which is in the thigh) but it has this name because - as Charlie said - it has two heads for its proximal attachments to the scapula. It has a single distal attachment (to the radius), but then splits into two parts (the main muscular parts of which are called bellies) and each of these has a head that attaches to a different point on the scapula. These are parts of the biceps muscle; each of them is not individually a "bicep". Hope that helps! Now let's stop this crazy talk.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matt Morrison
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:44 pm |
| Postmaster General |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm Posts: 3135 Location: Exeter
|
|
To celebrate, I'm going to pick up some weights and do some work on my bicepses.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Marc Meakin
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:59 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm Posts: 1845
|
|
Tricep ?
_________________ Rubber dinghy rapids.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:28 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Marc Meakin wrote: Tricep ? Same deal.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matt Morrison
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:35 pm |
| Postmaster General |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm Posts: 3135 Location: Exeter
|
Matt Morrison wrote: To celebrate, I'm going to pick up some weights and do some work on my bicepses. Seriously. Correct?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JimBentley
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:45 pm |
| Legend |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm Posts: 1075 Location: Redcar, UK
|
Matt Morrison wrote: Matt Morrison wrote: To celebrate, I'm going to pick up some weights and do some work on my bicepses. Seriously. Correct? biceps [noun] (pl. same)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:00 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
|
Some dictionaries do admit bicepses, as does CSW (the Scrabble wordlist), but not ODE.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hugh Binnie
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:24 am |
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm Posts: 178
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gavin Chipper
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:48 pm |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm Posts: 2589
|
Kirk Bevins wrote: Ian Volante wrote: D Eadie wrote: where did i leave my castanets? Is it in your trouser pocket with your scissor? I thought it was in his drawer with his tweezer - broken of course. Luckily he didn't catch AID.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hugh Binnie
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:56 pm |
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm Posts: 178
|
|
Surprised that zouave isn't valid and ZOUAVES is.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JimBentley
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:40 pm |
| Legend |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm Posts: 1075 Location: Redcar, UK
|
Hugh Binnie wrote: Surprised that zouave isn't valid and ZOUAVES is. Plural noun, innit, like TROUSERS or CULOTTES.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
David Roe
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:15 pm |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm Posts: 360
|
|
Just to cause confusion with the standard notation, I found out yesterday you can't have bogof, because it's actually BOGOF (abbreviation) in the dictionary. In other words, it's currently an acronym BOGOF in the dictionary so it's written bogof in Countdown, but when it becomes bogof (noun) in the dictionary, it'll be legal in Countdown and will become BOGOF.
I think.
Last edited by David Roe on Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matthew Tassier
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:37 pm |
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:37 am Posts: 63
|
ёж. My favourite Russian word Almost took the gloss off my spectacular russian letters attack record.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ryan Taylor
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:33 pm |
| Devotee |
 |
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm Posts: 991 Location: Coniston, East Yorkshire
|
|
I had VIRALS disallowed. I thought VIRAL would be in the dictionary in the sense of a video or image that is passed around on the internet (like that Rick Astley one). Devastated.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Eoin Monaghan
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:01 pm |
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm Posts: 886 Location: Norn Iron
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:12 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Eoin Monaghan wrote: GUILDED GILDED
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gavin Chipper
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:00 pm |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm Posts: 2589
|
Eoin Monaghan wrote: GUILDED GUIDED
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ian Volante
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:09 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm Posts: 1644 Location: Edinburgh
|
Gavin Chipper wrote: Eoin Monaghan wrote: GUILDED GUIDED GUILED
_________________ meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Miriam Nussbaum
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:38 am |
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am Posts: 44
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:09 am |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Miriam Nussbaum wrote: "Reenact". All of the re-e... words are hyphenated, although I wouldn't be surprised to see that change in the new edition.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Adam Gillard
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:23 am |
| Acolyte |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm Posts: 107 Location: London
|
|
"vocoid"
It's a phonetic term pertaining to voice. I have seen it quite a few times in written form, and I checked it up in an online dictionary. However, I don't have an up-to-date copy of the OED (and I don't know if it can be viewed online); does anyone know if this word is in there? If it isn't, I really don't see why not.
_________________ SIGNATURE + P = SUPERGIANT
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:49 am |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Adam Gillard wrote: "vocoid"
It's a phonetic term pertaining to voice. I have seen it quite a few times in written form, and I checked it up in an online dictionary. However, I don't have an up-to-date copy of the OED (and I don't know if it can be viewed online); does anyone know if this word is in there? If it isn't, I really don't see why not. Because the ODE doesn't claim to be a list of all the words anyone has ever written down.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Shaun Hegarty
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:56 pm |
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:15 pm Posts: 51
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:07 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Shaun Hegarty wrote: Yep, that's a mistake in the extended jimdic. Has now been added.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Jon Corby
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:54 pm |
| Chairman |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am Posts: 4641
|
Matt Morrison wrote: Are you thinking of BOORISH?
_________________ Officially the second most postingest c4c forummer.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Ian Volante
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:58 pm |
| Kiloposter |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm Posts: 1644 Location: Edinburgh
|
Jon Corby wrote: Matt Morrison wrote: Are you thinking of BOORISH? That's rather piggist of you.
_________________ meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matt Morrison
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:14 pm |
| Postmaster General |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm Posts: 3135 Location: Exeter
|
Jon Corby wrote: Matt Morrison wrote: Are you thinking of BOORISH? Oh, no doubt. Whenever I've said it I've always meant 'boarish' though, rude like a pig. I must never have needed to write it down before. The Americans have got themselves some BOARISH action, and it's only been declared by a slightly smaller number of people than have declared BOORISH so glad I'm not totally mad.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Shaun Hegarty
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:48 pm |
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:15 pm Posts: 51
|
Charlie Reams wrote: Shaun Hegarty wrote: Yep, that's a mistake in the extended jimdic. Has now been added. Yay, cheers. Shame it's not retroactive, it'd be a high score then. 
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Jennifer Bett
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:50 pm |
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:11 pm Posts: 10
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Matt Morrison
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:02 pm |
| Postmaster General |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm Posts: 3135 Location: Exeter
|
Jennifer Bett wrote: scaline is SCALENE, and I guess monger only goes on the end of words such as fishmonger and ironmonger, and isn't ever used to mean 'trader' in itself.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hugh Binnie
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:06 pm |
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm Posts: 178
|
Surprised to see no pirogis (or maybe even pirogies) given that the alternative spelling pierogi can be pluralized. (And I'm not the only one.)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kirk Bevins
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:20 pm |
| God |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm Posts: 4277 Location: York, UK
|
Hugh Binnie wrote: Surprised to see no pirogis (or maybe even pirogies) given that the alternative spelling pierogi can be pluralized. (And I'm not the only one.) pierogi is listed as a plural noun. It says (also perogi, pirogi, or pierogies)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hugh Binnie
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:54 pm |
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm Posts: 178
|
Kirk Bevins wrote: pierogi is listed as a plural noun. It says (also perogi, pirogi, or pierogies) Ah, excellent. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gavin Chipper
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:24 pm |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm Posts: 2589
|
Alec Rivers wrote: Jennifer Bett wrote: (I don't know how to make the URLs look pretty) There is a simple guide here. Or find someone's post where they've done it, click quote and you'll see what they typed.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Shaun Hegarty
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:50 am |
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:15 pm Posts: 51
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Adam Gillard
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:27 pm |
| Acolyte |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm Posts: 107 Location: London
|
|
*dogleg/doglegs - Term often used as a single word in golf, describing road bends etc.
_________________ SIGNATURE + P = SUPERGIANT
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kirk Bevins
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:13 am |
| God |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm Posts: 4277 Location: York, UK
|
Adam Gillard wrote: *dogleg/doglegs - Term often used as a single word in golf, describing road bends etc. It's in but hyphenated.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Liam Tiernan
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:54 pm |
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm Posts: 446 Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
|
|
I've seen a similar thread before (HEPTANES/ethanes etc.), but is there any good reason why BOVINE, FELINE & EQUINE are listed as nouns as well as adjectives,(allowing BOVINES, FELINES, EQUINES as valid words) while similar words like CAPRINE, PORCINE, VULPINE etc. are not ? CANINES (teeth) and LUPINES (flowers), are understandable exceptions, but these three just seem totally arbritrary to me. Is there some rule that i'm missing?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Charlie Reams
|
Post subject: Re: Words You Would Have Thought... Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:07 pm |
| Site Admin |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm Posts: 7457 Location: Cambridge
|
Liam Tiernan wrote: I've seen a similar thread before (HEPTANES/ethanes etc.), but is there any good reason why BOVINE, FELINE & EQUINE are listed as nouns as well as adjectives,(allowing BOVINES, FELINES, EQUINES as valid words) while similar words like CAPRINE, PORCINE, VULPINE etc. are not ? CANINES (teeth) and LUPINES (flowers), are understandable exceptions, but these three just seem totally arbritrary to me. Is there some rule that i'm missing? Probably not. Statistical lexicography is often inconsistent when you slice it in a different direction, for example TRIGRAM, TETRAGRAM, PENTAGRAM but not bigram. It just depends on coincidences of usage frequency.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|