c4countdown

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I played IMBURSE recently as I assumed that to reimburse someone was to imburse them again.

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.

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.

Tard.

Turn of the Mack.

Turn to sender.

D Eadie wrote:where did i leave my castanets?

Is it in your trouser pocket with your scissor?

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.

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.

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.

To celebrate, I'm going to pick up some weights and do some work on my bicepses.

Tricep ?

Marc Meakin wrote:Tricep ?

Same deal.

Matt Morrison wrote:To celebrate, I'm going to pick up some weights and do some work on my bicepses.

Seriously. Correct?

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)

Some dictionaries do admit bicepses, as does CSW (the Scrabble wordlist), but not ODE.

Surely bicipites?

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.

Surprised that zouave isn't valid and ZOUAVES is.

Hugh Binnie wrote:Surprised that zouave isn't valid and ZOUAVES is.

Plural noun, innit, like TROUSERS or CULOTTES.

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.

ёж. My favourite Russian word
Almost took the gloss off my spectacular russian letters attack record.

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.

GUILDED

Eoin Monaghan wrote:GUILDED

GILDED

Eoin Monaghan wrote:GUILDED

GUIDED

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:GUILDED

GUIDED

GUILED

"Reenact".

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.

"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.

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 wrote:Musicality?

Yep, that's a mistake in the extended jimdic. Has now been added.

Matt Morrison wrote:BOARISH

Are you thinking of BOORISH?

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:BOARISH

Are you thinking of BOORISH?

That's rather piggist of you.

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:BOARISH

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.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Shaun Hegarty wrote:Musicality?

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.

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=205338 round 8 - monger
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=205323 round 1 - scaline

(I don't know how to make the URLs look pretty)

Jennifer Bett wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=205338 round 8 - monger
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=205323 round 1 - scaline

(I don't know how to make the URLs look pretty)

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.

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.)

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)

Jennifer Bett wrote:(I don't know how to make the URLs look pretty)

There is a simple guide here.

Kirk Bevins wrote:pierogi is listed as a plural noun. It says (also perogi, pirogi, or pierogies)

Ah, excellent. Thanks.

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.

Given that pretty much every recipe involving grated lemon rind insists that the lemons be UNWAXED, you'd think the word would be in the fucking dictionary.

*dogleg/doglegs - Term often used as a single word in golf, describing road bends etc.

Adam Gillard wrote:*dogleg/doglegs - Term often used as a single word in golf, describing road bends etc.

It's in but hyphenated.

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?

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.