CountMax errors

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:29 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:She also allowed "fennels" using the same reasoning, which pretty much opens you up to allowing anything you can eat as a plural.
What would the plural (in the multiple portions sense) of "molasses" be, I wonder?
Yeah. What about 'panini' too?

Paninus.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:22 pm

Paul Howe wrote: More importantly it's a portion of food, and there's a Countdown rule saying these can be pluralised even if listed as a mass noun in the ODE. I'm fairly certain Susie's given it the thumbs up before too.

Yeah, in my shows she offered RAREBITS when I had ARBITERS as I didn't want to risk the mass noun business. In my last show it was there in its singular form so I offered RAREBIT there instead of ARBITER. Not a very interesting story I hasten to add!

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:59 pm

RAREBIT isn't one of those words disallowed because it's only used in combination with another word then? It should be!

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:55 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:RAREBIT isn't one of those words disallowed because it's only used in combination with another word then? It should be!

But it isn't used only in combination with another word.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:44 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:RAREBIT isn't one of those words disallowed because it's only used in combination with another word then? It should be!
But it isn't used only in combination with another word.

Yes it fucking well is!

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:47 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:RAREBIT isn't one of those words disallowed because it's only used in combination with another word then? It should be!
But it isn't used only in combination with another word.
Yes it fucking well is!

Swear all you like - it still isn't.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:48 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:RAREBIT isn't one of those words disallowed because it's only used in combination with another word then? It should be!
But it isn't used only in combination with another word.
Yes it fucking well is!

No.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:03 pm

(I maybe wasn't being entirely serious.)

Edit - But it still is.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:01 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:(I maybe wasn't being entirely serious.)

Edit - But it still is.

You weren't being funny either so I wasn't sure what to make of it.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:25 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:(I maybe wasn't being entirely serious.)

Edit - But it still is.
You weren't being funny either so I wasn't sure what to make of it.

I haven't reached the punchline yet.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:32 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:RAREBITS should be in.

I'm confused. RAREBITS is in and has been since February. Well, OK, it's in the list I try to keep updated on my site, but is invalid in Lexplorer, so I guess that Apterous must be using a different source.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:23 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:RAREBITS should be in.
I'm confused. RAREBITS is in and has been since February. Well, OK, it's in the list I try to keep updated on my site, but is invalid in Lexplorer, so I guess that Apterous must be using a different source.

Lexplorer lags the main site a bit because it's a hassle to update the dictionary it uses.

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:38 am

Kai Laddiman wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:in.
I know.
LOL!

Amazing. Only joking, Kirk rulz

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:58 pm

I don't know much about compiling these lists for CountMax, but I'm surprised that HANDSPAN isn't in, as it has its own dictionary entry.

EDIT: Wow, it's not even on Lexplorer. Which is more accurate to ODE2r, CountMax or Lexplorer?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:01 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:I don't know much about compiling these lists for CountMax, but I'm surprised that HANDSPAN isn't in, as it has its own dictionary entry.

EDIT: Wow, it's not even on Lexplorer. Which is more accurate to ODE2r, CountMax or Lexplorer?

Nor in my dictionary file I made for my game (which got merged with JimDic some years back). Interesting, not sure how or why that would have been missed.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:29 pm

I spoke to Susie on Wednesday night and she said she would overrule the dictionary in cases where verbs are given with the -IZE spelling but not -ISE, since this is inconsistent but OUP are apparently unwilling to fix it. On this basis at least the following should be added:-

AUTOMISE, AUTOMISED, AUTOMISES
COLOURISE
DEOXIDISE
PACKETISE
SIMONISE, SIMONISED, SIMONISES

Also possibly COLORISE, COLORISED, COLORISES, although I'm surprised COLORIZE is valid at all since it looks like US spelling (can someone check?)

Seems like AUTOMISE and AUTOMISED would be the most useful of these (SIMONISE is handy but has an anagram, as do both of its inflections.)

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:12 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I spoke to Susie on Wednesday night and she said she would overrule the dictionary in cases where verbs are given with the -IZE spelling but not -ISE, since this is inconsistent but OUP are apparently unwilling to fix it. On this basis at least the following should be added:-

AUTOMISE, AUTOMISED, AUTOMISES
COLOURISE
DEOXIDISE
PACKETISE
SIMONISE, SIMONISED, SIMONISES

Also possibly COLORISE, COLORISED, COLORISES, although I'm surprised COLORIZE is valid at all since it looks like US spelling (can someone check?)

Seems like AUTOMISE and AUTOMISED would be the most useful of these (SIMONISE is handy but has an anagram, as do both of its inflections.)

Cool, I was going to address some of the omissions tonight anyway. So in addition to the above lot, I've got VITTLES, GOTHIC, SOLITUDES, HANDSPAN, HANDSPANS and SIRLOINS to add. Still uncertain on MEOW and its inflections. Anyone got any more to add or remove?

Peter Mabey · Post by **Peter Mabey** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:55 pm

I think that there are a good many UN- words valid in Scrabble but not Countdown, though I've not done a survey.
Yesterday UNMAILED turned out to be unacceptable.

(and UNPOSTED & UNSENT are too)

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:09 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I spoke to Susie on Wednesday night and she said she would overrule the dictionary in cases where verbs are given with the -IZE spelling but not -ISE, since this is inconsistent but OUP are apparently unwilling to fix it.

A can of worms, surely. I didn't know the OUP was supposed to be consistent. I thought it reflected common usage, and common usage can be inconsistent. I only have a NODE myself, which is full of inconsistencies, and I don't suppose they have all been eradicated. If the criterion is consistency, then a whole load of plural mass nouns, derivatives, synonyms, comparatives and superlatives and the rest are open to debate. Find something similar and claim consistency.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:42 pm

David Williams wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:I spoke to Susie on Wednesday night and she said she would overrule the dictionary in cases where verbs are given with the -IZE spelling but not -ISE, since this is inconsistent but OUP are apparently unwilling to fix it.
A can of worms, surely. I didn't know the OUP was supposed to be consistent. I thought it reflected common usage, and common usage can be inconsistent. I only have a NODE myself, which is full of inconsistencies, and I don't suppose they have all been eradicated. If the criterion is consistency, then a whole load of plural mass nouns, derivatives, synonyms, comparatives and superlatives and the rest are open to debate. Find something similar and claim consistency.

It certainly is a can of worms. Not everyone has access to this information anyway and could lose a round despite knowing that dictionary entry perfectly well.

And as you say David, English usage isn't consistent. It seems that Susie is working under the assumption that these are accidental omissions but I've never seen a big rulebook in the sky that says that anything that ends in IZE can also end in ISE and it doesn't seem immediately obvious to me that this should be the case.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:18 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Also possibly COLORISE, COLORISED, COLORISES, although I'm surprised COLORIZE is valid at all since it looks like US spelling (can someone check?)

Oddly it's given as colorize (Brit. also colourize) > verb [with obj.] add colour to (a black-and-white film).

Edit: Here is an updated file.

Added: AUTOMISE, AUTOMISED, AUTOMISES, COLOURISE, DEOXIDISE, GOTHIC, HANDSPAN, HANDSPANS, LITREAGES, PACKETISE, SIMONISE, SIMONISED, SIMONISES, SIRLOINS, SOLITUDES, VITTLES.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:06 pm

DOLERITE is a rock, yet DOLERITES is not allowed on apterous.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 am

Kai Laddiman wrote:DOLERITE is a rock, yet DOLERITES is not allowed on apterous.

Susie has repeatedly ruled against rock plurals (DIORITES, DOLOMITES) so I think that's the standard now.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:56 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:DOLERITE is a rock, yet DOLERITES is not allowed on apterous.
Susie has repeatedly ruled against rock plurals (DIORITES, DOLOMITES) so I think that's the standard now.

Strange, cos in the contestant guidelines I'm sure it says 'rocks or minerals are pluralisable' or something like that.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:59 am

Kai Laddiman wrote: Strange, cos in the contestant guidelines I'm sure it says 'rocks or minerals are pluralisable' or something like that.

You're right, they are mentioned in the introduction to the ODE (pages xi - xii) as nouns which may be pluralisable, and the guidelines you get for the show are based on that. However as far as I know Susie has always ruled against them. I was quite surprised to find GRANITES in Jimdic, I really doubt Susie would allow it.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:06 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote: Strange, cos in the contestant guidelines I'm sure it says 'rocks or minerals are pluralisable' or something like that.
You're right, they are mentioned in the introduction to the ODE (pages xi - xii) as nouns which may be pluralisable, and the guidelines you get for the show are based on that. However as far as I know Susie has always ruled against them. I was quite surprised to find GRANITES in Jimdic, I really doubt Susie would allow it.

I think I ended up including it because it was specified in the introduction as one that would be allowed, but the whole allowable/not allowable mass noun thing is such a pain in the arse that I probably just gave up at some point, so there's still loads of inconsistencies, especially with the foodstuffs.

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:26 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote: Strange, cos in the contestant guidelines I'm sure it says 'rocks or minerals are pluralisable' or something like that.
You're right, they are mentioned in the introduction to the ODE (pages xi - xii) as nouns which may be pluralisable, and the guidelines you get for the show are based on that. However as far as I know Susie has always ruled against them. I was quite surprised to find GRANITES in Jimdic, I really doubt Susie would allow it.

GRANITES is one that I was thinking sounds wrong, whereas I would guess that Susie would allow rocks or minerals that might be thought of as individual things (e.g. OPALS). But I can't think of any types of rock that could be thought of as individual things in the same way.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:13 pm

Brian Moore wrote:GRANITES is one that I was thinking sounds wrong, whereas I would guess that Susie would allow rocks or minerals that might be thought of as individual things (e.g. OPALS). But I can't think of any types of rock that could be thought of as individual things in the same way.

MARBLES?

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:27 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:GRANITES is one that I was thinking sounds wrong, whereas I would guess that Susie would allow rocks or minerals that might be thought of as individual things (e.g. OPALS). But I can't think of any types of rock that could be thought of as individual things in the same way.
MARBLES?

You've been mind reading, Mr. Reynolds.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:29 pm

Brian Moore wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote: Strange, cos in the contestant guidelines I'm sure it says 'rocks or minerals are pluralisable' or something like that.
You're right, they are mentioned in the introduction to the ODE (pages xi - xii) as nouns which may be pluralisable, and the guidelines you get for the show are based on that. However as far as I know Susie has always ruled against them. I was quite surprised to find GRANITES in Jimdic, I really doubt Susie would allow it.
GRANITES is one that I was thinking sounds wrong, whereas I would guess that Susie would allow rocks or minerals that might be thought of as individual things (e.g. OPALS). But I can't think of any types of rock that could be thought of as individual things in the same way.

I'm sure different varieties of rock types should allow this, such as gneisses, basalts (hmm), limestones. Just a can of bloody worms...

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:56 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Just a can of bloody worms...

I'd agree. This can of worms is a pain in the arse.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:43 pm

COMPLEATS should be listed as an anagram of ECTOPLASM as COMPLEAT is listed as both an adjective and a verb.

Stuart Arnot · Post by **Stuart Arnot** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:29 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:She also allowed "fennels" using the same reasoning, which pretty much opens you up to allowing anything you can eat as a plural.
What would the plural (in the multiple portions sense) of "molasses" be, I wonder?
Yeah. What about 'panini' too?

I saw a television advertisement for 'paninis' the other day. Idiots. I think that the campaign for the maintenance of non-standard pluralisations can write it off as a lost cause. I wish I could have done more, but never having ordered a panino... ...actually I think I've only referred to panini in conversations regarding the idiocy of cafe owners. And now advertising agencies.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:39 am

STIFADO has cropped up with an additional s but neither Susie nor Countmax seemed to permit the plural even though the plural is specified in the Shorter Oxford.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri May 01, 2009 5:48 pm

Stuart Arnot wrote:
I saw a television advertisement for 'paninis' the other day. Idiots. I think that the campaign for the maintenance of non-standard pluralisations can write it off as a lost cause. I wish I could have done more, but never having ordered a panino... ...actually I think I've only referred to panini in conversations regarding the idiocy of cafe owners. And now advertising agencies.

I think we've had this discussion before - I regularly ask for a ham and cheese panino, just to spite the cafe staff. Aren't I nice.

Andrew Hulme · Post by **Andrew Hulme** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:48 pm

I guess there's at least a small chance I'm talking rubbish here... but apterous doesn't allow ASSONATED despite ASSONATE being listed as a verb in the ODE.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:28 pm

Andrew Hulme wrote:I guess there's at least a small chance I'm talking rubbish here... but apterous doesn't allow ASSONATED despite ASSONATE being listed as a verb in the ODE.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 989#p42989

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:32 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Andrew Hulme wrote:I guess there's at least a small chance I'm talking rubbish here... but apterous doesn't allow ASSONATED despite ASSONATE being listed as a verb in the ODE.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 989#p42989

Umm, it's a 9, Ian! Probably should be in along with ASSONATES. I'll put it in the next update unless there's some obscure reason it's not allowable.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:56 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Andrew Hulme wrote:I guess there's at least a small chance I'm talking rubbish here... but apterous doesn't allow ASSONATED despite ASSONATE being listed as a verb in the ODE.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 989#p42989
Umm, it's a 9, Ian! Probably should be in along with ASSONATES. I'll put it in the next update unless there's some obscure reason it's not allowable.

*counts on fingers*

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:24 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Andrew Hulme wrote:I guess there's at least a small chance I'm talking rubbish here... but apterous doesn't allow ASSONATED despite ASSONATE being listed as a verb in the ODE.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 989#p42989
Umm, it's a 9, Ian! Probably should be in along with ASSONATES. I'll put it in the next update unless there's some obscure reason it's not allowable.

Good spot. It is indeed listed as just a verb so add ASSONATES and ASSONATED (and ASSONATING to hyper, but who cares about that?).

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:39 pm

Following Jimmy's discovery that TOADYISM had been missed, Sid suggested scanning a lot more words for similar omissions. Took a while to go through these all but it was worth it because we uncovered quite a few mistakes, and at least the following should be added:- ALARMISMS, CENTRISMS, CHARISMS (probably? It's another term for CHARISMA, which has a count noun sense), CLADISMS, CULTISMS, DANDYISMS, ENDEMISMS, FADDISMS, FOGEYISMS, FOGYISMS, HELOTISMS, LACONISMS, LOYALISMS, PAPISMS, PHALLISMS, PROSAISMS, ROWDYISMS, ROYALISMS, SNOBBISMS, TANTRISMS, THUGGISMS, TOADYISMS, TOTEMISMS, ULTRAISMS, URBANISMS, VEGANISMS, VERISMS.

On a similar theme, these should also be added: APTNESSES, BADNESSES, BIGNESSES, COYNESSES, DULNESSES, FATNESSES, FEYNESSES, FLYNESSES, HIPNESSES, HOTNESSES, ICINESSES, LOWNESSES, NEWNESSES, NOWNESSES, ODDNESSES, OLDNESSES, PATNESSES, REDNESSES, RUMNESSES, SADNESSES, SHYNESSES, SLYNESSES, WANNESSES, WETNESSES, WRYNESSES.

Most of these are useless (and weird) but a few of them like HELOTISMS could have come up on Apterous occasionally. It's possible that other subentry inflections have been missed but it's hard to find those without reading the entire dictionary.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:31 pm

Brilliant, cheers for all these - all now added into the super-sexy new updated file.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:46 pm

COUCHINGS is also missing, which is probably part of a wider class of errors that will be quite hard to track: words with entries like "COUCH [verb] (usu. as noun COUCHING)".

Simon Myers · Post by **Simon Myers** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:09 pm

JimBentley wrote:Brilliant, cheers for all these - all now added into the super-sexy new updated file.

Slight error in there that made my solver cry - VERISMS has a full stop after it.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:21 pm

Simon Myers wrote:
JimBentley wrote:Brilliant, cheers for all these - all now added into the super-sexy new updated file.
Slight error in there that made my solver cry - VERISMS has a full stop after it.

Oh crap, sorry, I'm a bit off the ball today. Fixed now.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:06 pm

FONTANEL maybe?

I've been convinced enough to have it disallowed 3 times on apterous, but I've been wrong about such things before.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:07 pm

Paul Howe wrote:FONTANEL maybe?

I've been convinced enough to have it disallowed 3 times on apterous, but I've been wrong about such things before.

UK spelling is FONTANELLE (one of those times was against me, I went for it too).

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:00 pm

Still missing MILAGES, MILEAGES, GUSTOS, RIGHTER and RIGHTEST.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:24 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Still missing MILAGES, MILEAGES, GUSTOS, RIGHTER and RIGHTEST.

Not now!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:42 pm

I <3 Jim

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:07 am

I'll have 2 OKRAS please?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:27 am

FAKEST should be in.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:30 am

I seem to remember this being discussed in the mists of yore, but shouldn't MAINER and MAINEST be in?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:18 am

Charlie Reams wrote:I seem to remember this being discussed in the mists of yore, but shouldn't MAINER and MAINEST be in?

Stop trying to fill it with shit like this

especially when there's perfectly good anagrams of each.
You're making me angry.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:24 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:I seem to remember this being discussed in the mists of yore, but shouldn't MAINER and MAINEST be in?
Stop trying to fill it with shit like this especially when there's perfectly good anagrams of each.
You're making me angry.

Can't seem to get either of them

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:27 am

David O'Donnell wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:I seem to remember this being discussed in the mists of yore, but shouldn't MAINER and MAINEST be in?
Stop trying to fill it with shit like this especially when there's perfectly good anagrams of each.
You're making me angry.
Can't seem to get either of them

:facepalm:

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:29 am

I also want LEMONIEST to be in even if you can get a valid 9 from it

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:31 am

Marc Meakin wrote:I also want LEMONIEST to be in even if you can get a valid 9 from it

LOL! This thread has been successfully hijacked but beware the wrath of the most awesome person on this forum!

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:37 am

David O'Donnell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:I also want LEMONIEST to be in even if you can get a valid 9 from it
LOL! This thread has been successfully hijacked but beware the wrath of the most awesome person on this forum!

Nah, I've got no problem with LEMONIEST. Definitely should be in. I use it daily, unlike mainer/mainest.

Reminds me of a bloke I used to play Countdown with here at work (who used to cheat) and he always used to try stupid -IER/-IEST words (like GOLDIEST and stuff). I remember him getting in a huff when I had HOTELIER once, thinking it meant "more hotel-y". What a twat.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:51 am

Jon Corby wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:I also want LEMONIEST to be in even if you can get a valid 9 from it
LOL! This thread has been successfully hijacked but beware the wrath of the most awesome person on this forum!
Nah, I've got no problem with LEMONIEST. Definitely should be in. I use it daily, unlike mainer/mainest.

Reminds me of a bloke I used to play Countdown with here at work (who used to cheat) and he always used to try stupid -IER/-IEST words (like GOLDIEST and stuff). I remember him getting in a huff when I had HOTELIER once, thinking it meant "more hotel-y". What a twat.

Had something similar happen to me when played I DOSSIER at scrabble and my opponent challeged it twice