CountMax errors

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:38 am

CONFITS

The singular is allowed. I had confit of duck the other week and if someone else had ordered it, I'm sure the waitress would have told the chef she needed 2 confits.

It was yummy btw!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:52 pm

Add BOOAIS, BOOAYS, BOOHAIS.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:11 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:CONFITS

The singular is allowed. I had confit of duck the other week and if someone else had ordered it, I'm sure the waitress would have told the chef she needed 2 confits.

It was yummy btw!

I agree completely.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:13 pm

Add LOOKITS, LOOKITED, LOOKITING as LOOKIT is a verb.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:42 pm

I had OXTAILS disallowed in the duel yesterday:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=204175

I thought it should be allowed under the 'plurals of foods are allowed even if mass nouns' rule.
Amie Bateen, Robert Shadwick, Tom Rowell, Jamie French, Edwin Mead, Christopher Smith and Alan White appeared to be under the same impression, as they offered it too.

OXTAILS was allowed in this episode:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2469&p=51190&hilit= ... 9f2#p51190

The singular was allowed by Susie here, but the plural not mentioned:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=351&hilit=oxtails

It is possible that since it wasn't offered by a contestant, Susie simply didn't think of it, rather than OXTAILS not being allowed.

Just noticed, after I'd already typed the rest of this, that Alison Heard was in DC for the first one, so that could be the difference.

Edwin Mead · Post by **Edwin Mead** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:40 pm

Julie T wrote:I thought it should be allowed under the 'plurals of foods are allowed even if mass nouns' rule.

Doesn't it also mean 'The tail of a cow'?

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:14 pm

Edwin Mead wrote:
Julie T wrote:I thought it should be allowed under the 'plurals of foods are allowed even if mass nouns' rule.
Doesn't it also mean 'The tail of a cow'?

According to ODE2r, OXTAIL as one word is a mass noun meaning the meat from the tail of a cow.

Edwin Mead · Post by **Edwin Mead** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:24 am

Julie T wrote:
Edwin Mead wrote:
Julie T wrote:I thought it should be allowed under the 'plurals of foods are allowed even if mass nouns' rule.
Doesn't it also mean 'The tail of a cow'?
According to ODE2r, OXTAIL as one word is a mass noun meaning the meat from the tail of a cow.

In that case, I'll have two oxtails please.

Edwin Mead · Post by **Edwin Mead** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:59 pm

My older version of the ODE (published 1999) includes a second meaning: 'The tail of a cow' (noun). This probably explains why Alison Heard stated oxtails as acceptable.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:04 pm

Have finally caught up with the backlog here, so all of the above are now available on apterous. I'm pretty sure Susie would allow oxtails.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:07 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Have finally caught up with the backlog here, so all of the above are now available on apterous. I'm pretty sure Susie would allow oxtails.

Thanks, Charlie!

Always difficult to know exactly what Susie would allow with the slightly dubious ones. A bit of guesswork always comes into it.

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:43 pm

I've just had LANKER disallowed (and have checked it's not in the apterous dictionary). A mistake?

LANKEST is allowable.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:02 pm

Matt Bayfield wrote:I've just had LANKER disallowed (and have checked it's not in the apterous dictionary). A mistake?

LANKEST is allowable.

Yep. Both added now.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:40 am

Think PEROBAS should be in as recently Susie has allowed mass noun plurals under the proviso there are different species in bold underneath and for PEROBA there are (White peroba and red peroba are specified).

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:21 pm

Pretty sure this is wrongly allowed- http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?word=kibitzs

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:49 pm

Ben Wilson wrote:Pretty sure this is wrongly allowed- http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?word=kibitzs

Weirdly, BISCUITS is missing.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:36 pm

Should ARCINGS be in as under ARC it states a verb but the second entry is [usu. as noun arcing] form an electric arc. The definition implies a verb but it states usually as a noun. Opinions?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:57 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Should ARCINGS be in as under ARC it states a verb but the second entry is [usu. as noun arcing] form an electric arc. The definition implies a verb but it states usually as a noun. Opinions?

We've allowed plurals from other entries like that, although I can't think of an example right now.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:14 pm

PANFORTE is listed as some kind of cake, so I am guessing you could ask for two PANFORTES when ordering your pudding in a restaurant. PRONATES+F

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:18 pm

I don't have ODE, but am I right in thinking that plurals of fabrics (even if indicated as mass noun) are permissible? If so, then I think VISCOSES should be added to the lexicon.

Simon Myers · Post by **Simon Myers** » Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:05 am

JackHurst wrote:PANFORTE is listed as some kind of cake, so I am guessing you could ask for two PANFORTES when ordering your pudding in a restaurant. PRONATES+F

From what I can tell with my Google-fu, the plural of PANFORTE in Italian is PANFORTI, but I think its use in English is too uncommon (likewise the singular of another Italian dessert, CANNOLI [sing. CANNOLO]) for inclusion in the ODE2r. So this one is a little more complicated than, say, LEMONADE. I'll let those more experienced with these judgements make that decision though.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:51 am

FEOFFEES

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:22 pm

COPERNICIUM?

Hugh Binnie · Post by **Hugh Binnie** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:06 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:FEOFFEES

There wasn't an O in that round. (Or are you saying it should go?)

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:09 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:FEOFFEES

http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?word=FEOFFEES

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:14 pm

Hugh Binnie wrote:
Karen Pearson wrote:FEOFFEES
There wasn't an O in that round. (Or are you saying it should go?)

Oh bugger! Misread the Q as an O!!! Must get new glasses!!!

Edwin Mead · Post by **Edwin Mead** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:51 pm

GELATOS?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:46 pm

Edwin Mead wrote:GELATOS?

Might be GELATI?

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon May 10, 2010 10:08 pm

Just had a game with SDEIGNED listed as a winner. I suspect this is a mistake!

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r3390270

EDIT: This isn't a Countmax problem, just an Apterous one I've discovered...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon May 10, 2010 10:57 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Just had a game with SDEIGNED listed as a winner. I suspect this is a mistake!

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r3390270

EDIT: This isn't a Countmax problem, just an Apterous one I've discovered...

I think it's valid for CSW just not ODE2r.

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Mon May 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Yup - from the Collins Ultimate Scrabble Word List:

SDEIGN, vb, old form of disdain

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue May 11, 2010 7:50 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Just had a game with SDEIGNED listed as a winner. I suspect this is a mistake!

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 0#r3390270

EDIT: This isn't a Countmax problem, just an Apterous one I've discovered...
I think it's valid for CSW just not ODE2r.

Fair enough, I should have dug further. I also forgot I'd been playing CSW...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri May 14, 2010 5:36 pm

Add DECORUMS as it's listed as its own entry.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:11 pm

Thanks to Samir for pointing out that RAMBURAS is in Countmax and apterous but google doesn't recognise it, nor can I find it in ODE2r. Not sure where this has come from (apart from a foreign/French dictionary?).

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:17 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Thanks to Samir for pointing out that RAMBURAS is in Countmax and apterous but google doesn't recognise it, nor can I find it in ODE2r. Not sure where this has come from (apart from a foreign/French dictionary?).

Hmm, it's in my personal dictionary too, which tends to suggest it really could be in there *somewhere* as mine was made from scratch from the ODE2r text. Will try and investigate...

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:05 pm

MEOWING

From yesterday's Duel. I notice I wasn't the only person to declare this. I may have an out-of-date version of the dictionary but mine states:
Meow - noun & verb - variant spelling of miaow.

Is this no longer valid?

P.S. As other people also declared it, I don't think I was seeing phantom letters this time!

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:MEOWING

From yesterday's Duel. I notice I wasn't the only person to declare this. I may have an out-of-date version of the dictionary but mine states:
Meow - noun & verb - variant spelling of miaow.

Is this no longer valid?

P.S. As other people also declared it, I don't think I was seeing phantom letters this time!

I think it might have something to do with Round 2 of this episode: http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3532

Susie declared that MEOWING was illegal, and was only allowed as MIAOWING. I think the same thing happened with POUNCER, or should I saw pouncer.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:47 pm

Thanks James. I knew someone would have a better memory than me.

Interestingly, it doesn't say 'US' under the actual entry for MEOW, only under the entry for MIAOW. Could definitely be clearer.

I think I'll probably remember not to declare this again (or at least not for another 6 months)!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:55 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:
Interestingly, it doesn't say 'US' under the actual entry for MEOW, only under the entry for MIAOW. Could definitely be clearer.

We've discussed this discrepancy (if you like) before....Susie had allowed MEOWING back in the past (since US spellings) and now disallows it. I don't like these cross reference things that say "noun...another term for milk glass" and then you look at milk glass and it says "[mass noun]". Annoying.

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:34 pm

QUANTUS is listed as valid on apterous and CountMax, but I can't find it in the ODE and definitions of the word on the Internet seem to be non-existent.

Peter Mabey · Post by **Peter Mabey** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:20 pm

Chris Davies wrote:QUANTUS is listed as valid on apterous and CountMax, but I can't find it in the ODE and definitions of the word on the Internet seem to be non-existent.

Not in NODE either, of course - except in etymology of QUANTUM

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:30 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:MEOWING

From yesterday's Duel. I notice I wasn't the only person to declare this. I may have an out-of-date version of the dictionary but mine states:
Meow - noun & verb - variant spelling of miaow.

Is this no longer valid?

P.S. As other people also declared it, I don't think I was seeing phantom letters this time!

I declared it too.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:36 pm

Add AETHERS.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:40 pm

MATELOTE is a food mass noun so I believe MATELOTES should be in.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:53 pm

Ian Volante wrote:COPERNICIUM?

Some of the very obscure elements are invalid, so this is probably just statistical lexicography in action (sorry for digging up the old post, I was lexploring some of the elements this weekend. Sad, I know.)

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:55 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:CONFITS

The singular is allowed. I had confit of duck the other week and if someone else had ordered it, I'm sure the waitress would have told the chef she needed 2 confits.

It was yummy btw!

SPOILER ALERT!

Fitting for today.

Edit: Cheers Dinos.

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:57 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:MATELOTE is a food mass noun so I believe MATELOTES should be in.

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=2 ... 5#r4024245

From this game I assume.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:18 pm

Eoin Monaghan wrote:
Karen Pearson wrote:CONFITS

The singular is allowed. I had confit of duck the other week and if someone else had ordered it, I'm sure the waitress would have told the chef she needed 2 confits.

It was yummy btw!
Fitting for today.

Confitting?

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:51 pm

Paul Howe wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:COPERNICIUM?
Some of the very obscure elements are invalid, so this is probably just statistical lexicography in action (sorry for digging up the old post, I was lexploring some of the elements this weekend. Sad, I know.)

Fair enough. I was partly under the impression that if a new element for example was named, it would quickly be placed in the dictionary. But given that dictionaries appear to be updated annually, that's a bit of a silly idea.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:47 am

GUILLEMET

This came up in a game today and neither Dinos nor I had come across it before.

I've looked in the great book and can't find it anywhere.

Any clues?

According to Wikipedia it means those brackets that are rather like arrows.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:34 am

Karen Pearson wrote:GUILLEMET

This came up in a game today and neither Dinos nor I had come across it before.

I've looked in the great book and can't find it anywhere.

Any clues?

According to Wikipedia it means those brackets that are rather like arrows.

I have this strange idea that the main spelling might be guillemot (or at least that's how I learned it). And yes, it's the <<quote marks>>.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:36 am

Andrew Feist wrote:
Karen Pearson wrote:GUILLEMET

This came up in a game today and neither Dinos nor I had come across it before.

I've looked in the great book and can't find it anywhere.

Any clues?

According to Wikipedia it means those brackets that are rather like arrows.
I have this strange idea that the main spelling might be guillemot (or at least that's how I learned it). And yes, it's the <<quote marks>>.

That's a seabird innit?

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:37 am

It's actually the name of the show Dmitry was planning to start a thread about, but now he can't.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:49 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Andrew Feist wrote: I have this strange idea that the main spelling might be guillemot (or at least that's how I learned it). And yes, it's the <<quote marks>>.
That's a seabird innit?

It is. An auk.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:54 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:GUILLEMET

This came up in a game today and neither Dinos nor I had come across it before.

I've looked in the great book and can't find it anywhere.

Any clues?

According to Wikipedia it means those brackets that are rather like arrows.

It's right above GUILLEMOT, no idea how you missed it. Maybe you are using the wrong edition.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:57 pm

Yeah, I just checked, its in Joshes Version of the current edition, but not in my version of the previous edition. Must have been added when they updated.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:13 pm

Thanks Jack. I wasn't sure if mine was the latest edition (not counting the really new one).

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:48 am

LIMONENES should be in I think, as dictionary.com says "a liquid terpene, C 40 H 16 , occurring in two optically different forms" which implies there are two LIMONENES.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:53 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:LIMONENES should be in I think, as dictionary.com says "a liquid terpene, C 40 H 16 , occurring in two optically different forms" which implies there are two LIMONENES.

In the OED, its listed as a mass noun, and there is nothing in the entry to suggest there are different types. So going on the basis that Susie would have no reason to allow it when she looked it up on the show, it shouldn't be in.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:30 pm

SWEETNESSES should be in - sweetness is clearly a noun, not a mass noun.