c4countdown

*diablo/diablos

You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...

Adam Gillard wrote:*diablo/diablos

You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...

Diabolo?

*diablo/diablos

You know the devil...

Charlie Reams wrote:

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.

Not even 'digram'?

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Not even 'digram'?

Nope.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Not even 'digram'?

Nope.

Diabolical! You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...

Fairnesses.

In French versus Matt B:

NOYERAI.

Simon Le Fort wrote:In French versus Matt B:

NOYERAI.

NOIERAI

Bloody irregular verbs!!!

NOYERAI is the correct spelling of will drown, as confirmed by a simple google. I'll paste a little bit:

noyerai
will drown verbe

All the --YER verbs keep their Y in past and future forms, just the present and the noun forms modify. Making the rule up myself, I think it's like that. (Essuyait; payerez; tutoyerai etc)

Apterous just doesn't like the word NOYERAI.

Simon Le Fort wrote:NOYERAI is the correct spelling of will drown, as confirmed by a simple google. I'll paste a little bit:

noyerai
will drown verbe

All the --YER verbs keep their Y in past and future forms, just the present and the noun forms modify. Making the rule up myself, I think it's like that. (Essuyait; payerez; tutoyerai etc)

Apterous just doesn't like the word NOYERAI.

Sorry, not according to my dictionary. Payer is the only one that can be PAYERAI or PAIERAI. Admittedly my dictionary is pretty old. But an online translator also comes up with NOIERAI.
http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_s ... lator.html

Maybe Jeff Clayton could clarify for us - his French is a lot more up-to-date than mine!

I believe it's NOIERAI.

"Nettoyer" is another -oyer verb that follows the same rule in the future tense.

Jeff

Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking

Err...

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking

Err...

That's at least some relief that the word exists, but quite frightening how bad my spelling is!

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking

Err...

That's at least some relief that the word exists, but quite frightening how bad my spelling is!

You're not the first to have made that kind of mistake...

Has mauves recently been removed? I've played it a few times before and it's been fine but played it in this game yesterday only to have it disallowed (although bizarrely I still got a Page of Page for my efforts). I'm guessing it's been taken out because you can't have different shades of MAUVE because mauve is a specific shade of purple. Bizarrely AZURES was acceptable in the same round and on the same basis should this be removed

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Has mauves recently been removed? I've played it a few times before and it's been fine

Really? If you look down the list in word search it's been played loads of times and doesn't seem to have ever been valid. I can remember playing MAUVES months and months (possibly years) ago and having it disallowed.

Edit: Although from searching the forums it seems it has been allowed on the show, so hmm...

MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.

Liam Tiernan wrote:MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.

On a similar note, *SHALLOWER isn't in. SHALLOWED, SHALLOWING, SHALLOWLY and SHALLOWNESS all are. So it doesn't make much sense to me.

NB: Of course Liam could have declared the obvious 7 EELWORM to win that round, so I don't see why he's complaining.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Liam Tiernan wrote:MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.

On a similar note, *SHALLOWER isn't in. SHALLOWED, SHALLOWING, SHALLOWLY and SHALLOWNESS all are. So it doesn't make much sense to me.

NB: Of course Liam could have declared the obvious 7 EELWORM to win that round, so I don't see why he's complaining.

Well SHALLOWER (and MELLOWER for that matter) are comparative forms of two-syllable words, which mostly aren't allowed. The other forms of SHALLOW aren't particularly relevant.

Ian Volante wrote: Well SHALLOWER (and MELLOWER for that matter) are comparative forms of two-syllable words, which mostly aren't allowed. The other forms of SHALLOW aren't particularly relevant.

This.

At some point I might invest some time in making a list of the longer adjectives which do have inflections.

After having DC give SEXTETTES many times, I was pretty surprised to discover that *nonettes was invalid.

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:After having DC give SEXTETTES many times, I was pretty surprised to discover that *nonettes was invalid.

Variations with numbers are often weird. For some reason QUARTETTE, SEXTETTE and SEPTETTE are accepted, but there's no DUETTE, QUINTETTE, OCTETTE or NONETTE. Incidentally the usual spelling is SEXTET, and NONET is indeed valid.

Yeah – this was in unlimited and I was feeling confident, never having bothered to check it and assuming it was like the fencing guards, which are also numbers and valid.

Charlie Reams wrote:Variations with numbers are often weird. For some reason QUARTETTE, SEXTETTE and SEPTETTE are accepted, but there's no DUETTE, QUINTETTE, OCTETTE or NONETTE. Incidentally the usual spelling is SEXTET, and NONET is indeed valid.

This is true. In the audience for The Series 61 final I was sat next to Innis who had NONUPLET^ written down which I thought was a brilliant beater. Turns out its invalid

Swatter.

SUD!

Ian Volante wrote:SUD!

One just doesn't wash.


*Marc Meakin is on holiday.

Unclotted. Humph.

FANBASE. Also, you can have UPTIME but not DOWNTIME.

ferrites. Especially when DC chides me for not playing FERRATES.

Andrew Feist wrote:ferrites. Especially when DC chides me for not playing FERRATES.

Whereas NODE records FERRATE as a ferric salt, it does not have FERRITE as a ferrous one , so it's only there as a mass noun (in two senses)

On the flip side, I'm surprised that WYSIWYG is in.

Graeme Cole wrote:FANBASE.

I got that a couple of years ago, but it looks as though it's built up quite a fanbase since then.

I can't believe FATTENER isn't a word. Pfftttttt

Graeme Cole wrote:FANBASE. Also, you can have UPTIME but not DOWNTIME.

Good news and bad news wrt the 3rd edition — DOWNTIME is in [mass noun] but fan base is two words.

LENITION is in but not FORTITION^.

Yes that is strange Miriam. One that just came to my attention was FRO*. I suppose it's only ever used in the set phrase "to and fro" / "to-ing and fro-ing", so that would be why it isn't in. Or, as Mark James suggested, is it an abbreviation of "towards and from", hence the disallowedness. Thoughts?

...Ought Not Be Valid As Conundrums.

Had two conundrums recently that have confused me.

FLESHPOTS - without the S it is not valid, but I can still not find a definition of the word which isn't a plural definition of a singular fleshpot.
HOOKAHS - to me, clearly a plural, and also in this case HOOKAH without the S is valid on apterous.

Not saying anything's wrong, just need them explained to sate my curiosity and understanding.

Nasty numbers 15 rders include plurals as conundrums. Some of these have been included in recent duels inc fleshpots

Matt Morrison wrote:FLESHPOTS - without the S it is not valid, but I can still not find a definition of the word which isn't a plural definition of a singular fleshpot.

I see what you mean, it's difficult to know how to handle the plural-but-no-singular cases (BEESTINGS is another example). I tended to allow them where I wasn't sure.

HOOKAHS - to me, clearly a plural, and also in this case HOOKAH without the S is valid on apterous.

Yep, just a mistake. Will remove.

I would have beaten my Junior Unlimited personal best just now if I'd declared PEEWEE or even WEEP instead of BEWEEP^. >>;

beheadings

Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings

Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...

Charlie Reams wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings

Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...

From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.
a1225 Ancr. R. 184 Nolde me tellen him alre monne dusi{ygh}est, {th}et forsoke..ane nelde prikunge, uor ane bihefdunge. 1541 R. COPLAND Guydon's Quest. Cyrurg., Whan he had a deade body by beheadyng or other wyse. 1585 THYNNE in Animadv. Introd. 75 The duke of Buckinghams beheadding. 1586-7 Churchw. Acc. St. Margaret's, Westm., (Nichols 1797) 21 Paid for ringing at the beheading of the Queen of Scotts. 1615 HIERON Wks. I. 664 That story, which reports his beheading at Rome. 1732 T. LEDIARD Sethos II. VII. 54 The easiest and shortest of all deaths, beheading. 1863 THACKERAY in Cornh. Mag. Jan., Battles and victories, treasons, kings, and beheadings.

Peter Mabey wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings

Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...

From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.

I forget the exact wording of the intro, but I believe that specific actions are pluralisable.

Certainly in ODE2r, BEHEADING is not specified in its entirety but you asked about ODE3 so I can't help.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.

I forget the exact wording of the intro, but I believe that specific actions are pluralisable.

OED3 != ODE3

I have a book at home called Countdown - The Ultimate Challenge (Wylie & Eadie, 2005). Apart from Whiteley being spelt wrong on the front cover, there is something else that bothers me. In the introduction on page 8, it is claimed that the selection AAIIRHKTS yields a 9-letter word, TARAHIKIS (fish). However, it's not in the apterous lexicon - was it in the dictionary in 2005 and subsequently removed or is it just another mistake?

Edit: I've just found TARAKIHI(S) in Lexplorer so it must have been a mistake.

Absolutely really surprised by GICLEE not being in when other French-sounding art words like GOUACHE are fine. I can only suppose it's because Giclee has an accent in it, is that right? For some reason I thought if a word was valid in English then you could play it without using the accent, but guess I'm massively wrong as no one else has even attempted GICLEE.

Matt Morrison wrote:Absolutely really surprised by GICLEE not being in when other French-sounding art words like GOUACHE are fine. I can only suppose it's because Giclee has an accent in it, is that right? For some reason I thought if a word was valid in English then you could play it without using the accent, but guess I'm massively wrong as no one else has even attempted GICLEE.

Don't think the accent comes into it, must just be insufficiently common. (I've never heard of it, for what that's worth.)

ZINES too.

MINOTAURS

I was well chuffed when I saw it too...

James Hall wrote:MINOTAURS

I was well chuffed when I saw it too...

The Minotaur is a particular fictional character, like Theseus or Robert Baxter.

Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores

Or the legendary Esquilax, a horse with the head of a rabbit and... the body of a rabbit!

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.

It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.

Charlie Reams wrote:

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.

It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.

I think there's certainly a case for saying it has become generalised as a half-man/half-bull creature, but obviously not so much that the ODE cares to recognise it. I was surprised too when I first found it wasn't in, but I did learn MINATOUS and TINAMOUS and improved my spotting of NATURISM as a result

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.

It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.

I think there's certainly a case for saying it has become generalised as a half-man/half-bull creature, but obviously not so much that the ODE cares to recognise it. I was surprised too when I first found it wasn't in, but I did learn MINATOUS and TINAMOUS and improved my spotting of NATURISM as a result

Yep, sure. I'm not saying James was wrong to be surprised. Incidentally it just occurred to me that people tend to assume that the Minotaur was just one from a race of minotaurs, whereas poor old Polyphemus has the reverse problem, he always gets called "the Cyclops" even though there were plenty of other cyclopses (or cyclopes if you prefer).