What 'allowable words' rules would you like to have?

[Julie T]

I would like there to a rule where an agent noun "***ER" is allowed if the verb has a single syllable, even if it's not specified.
Similar to the rule where the comparative and superlative of a single syllable adjective are allowed even if they're not specified.

I'm often caught out with agent nouns not being in the dictionary, even when they sound quite plausible.
e.g. BASKER and BARGERS I had to disallow myself for in one game on 10th October.
Of course, there would be some anomalies, such as CREATER being allowed as well as CREATOR, but generally, I think it'd be a great rule.

What do you think? Are there any rules that you'd like to see introduced, or, on the other hand, current ones you'd like to do away with?

[Jon Corby]

Of course, there would be some anomalies, such as CREATER being allowed as well as CREATOR, but generally, I think it'd be a great rule.

But 'create' is two syllables...

[Charlie Reams]

I would like there to a rule where an agent noun "***ER" is allowed if the verb has a single syllable, even if it's not specified.
Similar to the rule where the comparative and superlative of a single syllable adjective are allowed even if they're not specified.

I'm often caught out with agent nouns not being in the dictionary, even when they sound quite plausible.
e.g. BASKER and BARGERS I had to disallow myself for in one game on 10th October.
Of course, there would be some anomalies, such as CREATER being allowed as well as CREATOR, but generally, I think it'd be a great rule.

I think that would be madness. The ODE is (nominally) a dictionary of common usage, not a list of every plausible word. For every BASKER and BARGER, you'd have hundreds of words like TONGUER and CLOUDER (two examples from yesterday's game) which just make no sense at all. And why limit it to one-syllable verbs? The one-syllable rule for adjectives reflects the general preference for saying e.g. "more original" rather than "originaler" but there's no such preference for agent nouns. So you'd presumably be in favour of allowing the agent noun from every verb in the dictionary, which was the rule at one stage in the past and it led to some pretty bizarre results.

What do you think? Are there any rules that you'd like to see introduced, or, on the other hand, current ones you'd like to do away with?

The dictionary should make explicit:
1) which adjectives have inflections (see above)
2) which subentries have inflections e.g. NAILERY appears under NAILER but just says "noun", so there's no definition or part-of-speech information to figure out whether NAILERIES is valid or not. Oddly it seems that noun inflections are assumed to be good (so NAILERIES is fine), but adjective inflections are assumed to be bad, so COALY (adj.) appears under COAL but COALIER and COALIEST would not be allowed.
3) obviously, which mass nouns have plurals.

Then they could drop all these weird "it's not there but it's allowed" rules!

Okay, that's my lexonerd gland emptied for the week.

[Julie T]

Of course, there would be some anomalies, such as CREATER being allowed as well as CREATOR, but generally, I think it'd be a great rule.

But 'create' is two syllables...

Aaaaarrrghhh! I'd shut down the computer before I noticed my daft mistake!
Already been read and commented on, unfortunately. We're all human, I suppose.
More easily done when typing than talking.
Still my general point is valid - there would probably be some odd-looking words allowed.

[Julie T]

So you'd presumably be in favour of allowing the agent noun from every verb in the dictionary, which was the rule at one stage in the past and it led to some pretty bizarre results.

Yes, I suppose I would like that rule, despite strange words being allowed sometimes. I don't remember that rule being on Countdown in the past.
Maybe it was before I started watching it, or before I started taking it seriously.
I do remember they used to allow American spellings, which I'm glad they don't now.
No offence to Americans, but I don't see why we should have to learn their spellings as well as our own!

What do you think? Are there any rules that you'd like to see introduced, or, on the other hand, current ones you'd like to do away with?

The dictionary should make explicit:
1) which adjectives have inflections (see above)
2) which subentries have inflections e.g. NAILERY appears under NAILER but just says "noun", so there's no definition or part-of-speech information to figure out whether NAILERIES is valid or not. Oddly it seems that noun inflections are assumed to be good (so NAILERIES is fine), but adjective inflections are assumed to be bad, so COALY (adj.) appears under COAL but COALIER and COALIEST would not be allowed.
3) obviously, which mass nouns have plurals.

Then they could drop all these weird "it's not there but it's allowed" rules!

Okay, that's my lexonerd gland emptied for the week.

I agree, really, although I meant Countdown rules.
Obviously, the lexicographers shouldn't have to consider Countdown when they create their dictionaries, but your points are equally valid from a general clarity point of view.

[Gavin Chipper]

[And why limit it to one-syllable verbs? The one-syllable rule for adjectives reflects the general preference for saying e.g. "more original" rather than "originaler" but there's no such preference for agent nouns. So you'd presumably be in favour of allowing the agent noun from every verb in the dictionary, which was the rule at one stage in the past and it led to some pretty bizarre results.

The analogy for agent nouns you have "killer" v "one who kills". But seriously I don't see this as a brilliant rule suggestion. But anyway, without going into any specifics, I think the dictionary should be clear enough so that is immediately obvious whether a word is allowed in all cases. I can't be bothered to go into the specific cases as you've done that Charlie, but I can't imagine it would be that hard to clear up.

[Charlie Reams]

I feel a bit like I'm picking on you now, which isn't my intention, but you sure do have some odd ideas...

Yes, I suppose I would like that rule, despite strange words being allowed sometimes. I don't remember that rule being on Countdown in the past.
Maybe it was before I started watching it, or before I started taking it seriously.

But then you'd have to allow ridiculous words like SALUTER, DISSUADER or IMAGINER which no one would actually use!

I do remember they used to allow American spellings, which I'm glad they don't now.
No offence to Americans, but I don't see why we should have to learn their spellings as well as our own!

But you're okay with having to learn South African/Australian/Indian/Maori spellings? I don't really understand why people have a problem with American spellings (aside from the general British fear of Americana.) No one disputes that Americans speak English so it's just one more case of regional variation. And it's not really like you have to "learn" American spelling, the differences are mostly systematic. If anything I'd find it easier if I didn't have to remember whether to say TUNNELLED or TUNNELED, CAROLLED or CAROLED, and could just rest easy knowing that both were allowable. (You still have to deal with ones like EDITED and RABBITED but at least it would make the decision a bit simpler.)

Obviously, the lexicographers shouldn't have to consider Countdown when they create their dictionaries, but your points are equally valid from a general clarity point of view.

More explicit entries would definitely improve general clarity, especially for non-native speakers who really can't be expected to know how many syllables a word should have (how many people can read the pronunciation guide?) And while generally I agree that the dictionary shouldn't change just for the benefit of some minority pursuit like competitive word games, there is something in the introduction about how the "[mass noun]" tag was added for just such a purpose, so it seems it has occurred to them. If they want to save space they could get rid of those pointless encyclopaedic entries (although I know that's a debate we've had before.)

[Gavin Chipper]

I will add one thing though, in my NODE (presumably the same now), it says that in cases where you could have two separate words, hyphenated or all one word, it will only list the most common. So a word could still be perfectly valid but disallowed because the alternative is more common.

[Charlie Reams]

The analogy for agent nouns you have "killer" v "one who kills".

Sure. I meant that you're as likely to see the agent noun of a 4-syllable verb as the agent noun of a 1-syllable verb, but you'd almost never see the comparative/superlative of a 4-syllable adjective. Compare ORIGINATOR (perfectly plausible) with ORIGINALER or ORIGINALEST (very unnatural).

[Gavin Chipper]

In the NODE, it doesn't have pronunciations of all words (don't know about the current one). I think it should have them all for completeness and maybe specify what counts as a one-syllable adjective. I've mentioned this before, but words like FRAIL are surely, in reality, two syllables, but are always treated like they have one. Isn't FRAIL like GAOL? How many syllables has that got? I'm not saying that FRAILER and FRAILEST shouldn't be allowed but I think they should be listed. It also becomes a bit vaguer because FRAIL sort of becomes one syllable when you stick -ER or -EST on the end.

[David Roe]

A list of "un-" words. Most "un-s" have the exact opposite meaning to the original, with the same inflexions, and so a straight list of words would take up very little room as they wouldn't need defining. So that words such as "unplaited" wouldn't be disallowed costing would-be octochamps their 6th game and causing them to remain bitter for the rest of their lives.

(Actually, unplaited should be there anyway, it's a well-used adjective in horse circles. It's cetainly more of a word than "unplanted", which means a plant that hasn't been planted yet, and appears next to where unplaited should be.)

I'd extend the rule of -er and -est on single syllable adjectives. As far as I can see, it also applies to 2+ syllables where the adjective ends in y. Eg., happy, jolly, cloudy.

[Julie T]

I do remember they used to allow American spellings, which I'm glad they don't now.
No offence to Americans, but I don't see why we should have to learn their spellings as well as our own!

But you're okay with having to learn South African/Australian/Indian/Maori spellings?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Charlie. American spellings of English words needn't be allowed in a British game. American words, such as CARNIES which I use quite often, are allowed, as are words from other countries, as long as they're in ODE2r and follow the other rules.

If they want to save space they could get rid of those pointless encyclopaedic entries

Some of us quite like having a longish definition, as we use dictionaries to find out things other than whether a word is allowed in Countdown!
I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Also, a longish definition can sometimes help me do crosswords, since I allow myself to consult a dictionary, but I'd consider consulting an encyclopaedia to be cheating.

[Damian E]

I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Yeah, i like it too. Wonder who's idea that was?

[Debbi Flack]

I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Yeah, i like it too. Wonder who's idea that was?

Now let me think! Would that be yours, Damian??

[Charlie Reams]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Charlie. American spellings of English words needn't be allowed in a British game. American words, such as CARNIES which I use quite often, are allowed, as are words from other countries, as long as they're in ODE2r and follow the other rules.

A better question would be, "Why do we allow every single word in the dictionary (and some that aren't), with the sole exception of American spellings." The answer, as everyone knows, is unstated dislike of all things American, and especially a fear that American English will displace British English as the default language. Which seems a pretty weak motivation for a rule to me.

Some of us quite like having a longish definition, as we use dictionaries to find out things other than whether a word is allowed in Countdown!

I meant encyclopaedic in the literal sense. Almost every page has some biographical or geographical entry which seems superfluous to me.

[Gavin Chipper]

I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Yeah, i like it too. Wonder who's idea that was?

I have nothing against it per se, but I don't think I'm the first person to say that it breaks the flow too much by putting it before the numbers game. I think your reason was that people would fast forward it, leave the room or whatever, but that's up to them. Those that want to watch it will and those that don't won't. You shouldn't be trying to force people to watch something they don't want to!

[Gavin Chipper]

A list of "un-" words. Most "un-s" have the exact opposite meaning to the original, with the same inflexions, and so a straight list of words would take up very little room as they wouldn't need defining. So that words such as "unplaited" wouldn't be disallowed costing would-be octochamps their 6th game and causing them to remain bitter for the rest of their lives.

(Actually, unplaited should be there anyway, it's a well-used adjective in horse circles. It's cetainly more of a word than "unplanted", which means a plant that hasn't been planted yet, and appears next to where unplaited should be.)

I'd extend the rule of -er and -est on single syllable adjectives. As far as I can see, it also applies to 2+ syllables where the adjective ends in y. Eg., happy, jolly, cloudy.

I agree about adjectives ending in Y - certainly two-syllable ones. But would leaving out the definitions of UN words mean they are more likely to put UNPLAITED into the dictionary?

[Paul Howe]

I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Yeah, i like it too. Wonder who's idea that was?

I have nothing against it per se, but I don't think I'm the first person to say that it breaks the flow too much by putting it before the numbers game. I think your reason was that people would fast forward it, leave the room or whatever, but that's up to them. Those that want to watch it will and those that don't won't. You shouldn't be trying to force people to watch something they don't want to!

I'd much rather watch Susie talk about whatever she wants to than sit through another boring numbers game, I'm sure I can't be alone in that.

[Gavin Chipper]

I have nothing against it per se, but I don't think I'm the first person to say that it breaks the flow too much by putting it before the numbers game. I think your reason was that people would fast forward it, leave the room or whatever, but that's up to them. Those that want to watch it will and those that don't won't. You shouldn't be trying to force people to watch something they don't want to!

I'd much rather watch Susie talk about whatever she wants to than sit through another boring numbers game, I'm sure I can't be alone in that.

Unless you actually don't watch the numbers games (which would surprise me), then you're going to sit through another "boring" numbers game anyway, whichever side of Susie's thing it is. The numbers game is part of the game, Susie's thing is not, so the ordering seems a no-brainer to me.

[Paul Howe]

Unless you actually don't watch the numbers games (which would surprise me), then you're going to sit through another "boring" numbers game anyway, whichever side of Susie's thing it is. The numbers game is part of the game, Susie's thing is not, so the ordering seems a no-brainer to me.

If I'm watching a recording I usually skip past them unless someone good is on and I'm playing against them. I just don't find them interesting any more and I'm guessing (admittedly based on the 2 person sample of my grandparents) there are many others who share my feelings. Susie's thing may not be part of the game, but it is part of the show, if they were just making a game they could ditch Des and Carol (erm ) get a computer to run everything and the programme could be done and dusted in 15 mins.

[Gavin Chipper]

Unless you actually don't watch the numbers games (which would surprise me), then you're going to sit through another "boring" numbers game anyway, whichever side of Susie's thing it is. The numbers game is part of the game, Susie's thing is not, so the ordering seems a no-brainer to me.

If I'm watching a recording I usually skip past them unless someone good is on and I'm playing against them. I just don't find them interesting any more and I'm guessing (admittedly based on the 2 person sample of my grandparents) there are many others who share my feelings. Susie's thing may not be part of the game, but it is part of the show, if they were just making a game they could ditch Des and Carol (erm ) get a computer to run everything and the programme could be done and dusted in 15 mins.

But you don't have the DC guest's talk before the numbers in part one. It would just be bizarre. And while there may be those that don't like the numbers (mostly because they aren't very good I would guess rather than finding them boring), I expect there are very few that would simply fast forward them: fewer than would fast forward Susie's bit if it went at the end. And maybe that's what Damian is trying to avoid, but he should let the viewers decide for themselves.

[Julian Fell]

I agree with the suggestions Charlie made in the last paragraph of his first post. Bear in mind that a dictionary for general use will never be able to be 100% certain on every single possible "is it or isn't it allowed" issue in a word game; that's just not a realistic expectation. But I agree that the ODE series could be a bit clearer.

Charlie, you've made the claim that the [mass noun] tag was added for Countdown purposes before, but as I said then, the tag was in the NODE from the beginning, well before anyone proposed using it on Countdown. However, from the ODE2 onwards the dictionaries did mention Countdown in their introductions, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that Countdown needs have had SOME bearing on how the ODE2 and ODE2r were compiled.

Am not sure about Charlie's American spellings argument either - you say what about all the variant spellings from other languages which you have to learn - well, there are a couple of South African ones listed, but other than that, American ones are the only variant SPELLINGS (as opposed to variant TERMS) in the dictionary. As Julie says, you've got to distinguish the two.

I don't think Damian and co. disallowed American spellings because they feared the Yanks' taking over the language, I think it was more along the lines of, if a kid wrote an American spelling in a school essay, it'd be marked wrong, so Countdown should set an example. Plus they're never used in the British media etc. I always used to miss American spellings when they came up during the time they were allowed, so I was glad when they went Don't have any problem with them beyond that one though.

You can't start allowing agent nouns from any verb even when they're not specified - that's what led to Clive Spate being given 18 points in a Final for DOMINATER, and we don't want to see that. Although, Charlie - you do know that SALUTER, DISSUADER and IMAGINER are all ok in the ODE2r don't you? If you were joking, it was well concealed (too well for me, anyway ).

Finally, I love encyclopaedic entries - keep them in please. And David, are you saying that you should be allowed to put UN- on the front of any adjective? Sounds a bit daft to me...

[Damian E]

Unless you actually don't watch the numbers games (which would surprise me), then you're going to sit through another "boring" numbers game anyway, whichever side of Susie's thing it is. The numbers game is part of the game, Susie's thing is not, so the ordering seems a no-brainer to me.

Indeed. I love no-brainers.

Shall we move it to a slot just before the conundrum, Gev? Please advise.

[Gavin Chipper]

I agree with the suggestions Charlie made in the last paragraph of his first post. Bear in mind that a dictionary for general use will never be able to be 100% certain on every single possible "is it or isn't it allowed" issue in a word game; that's just not a realistic expectation. But I agree that the ODE series could be a bit clearer.

I don't see it as unrealistic at all. If they acknowledge Countdown and go some way towards helping the game, it would be easy to go the whole way. Really easy. I don't see why it wouldn't be. It's good advertising for a dictionary. Countdown could quite easily change dictionaries and another brand might say that they will lay it all out in black and white, so Oxford dictionaries should up their game!

Am not sure about Charlie's American spellings argument either - you say what about all the variant spellings from other languages which you have to learn - well, there are a couple of South African ones listed, but other than that, American ones are the only variant SPELLINGS (as opposed to variant TERMS) in the dictionary. As Julie says, you've got to distinguish the two.

It's just occurred to me that the the dictionary (the NODE anyway) doesn't actually specify if a word is a variant spelling or term unless it's also got its own entry. If the spelling is reasonably close to the standard British spelling (within three entries or whatever) then it's up to us to guess whether it's a different term or spelling - such as SPRINGBUCK the South African variant, which is annoyingly 10 letters. Another failing.

[Gavin Chipper]

Unless you actually don't watch the numbers games (which would surprise me), then you're going to sit through another "boring" numbers game anyway, whichever side of Susie's thing it is. The numbers game is part of the game, Susie's thing is not, so the ordering seems a no-brainer to me.

Indeed. I love no-brainers.

Shall we move it to a slot just before the conundrum, Gev? Please advise.

Genius.

[Jason Larsen]

Although I don't have any input for any of you about this, I do have a suggestion.

Not all contestants who appear on Countdown know what mass nouns are. Could a member of the Countdown staff compose a guide to mass nouns, maybe?

[Charlie Reams]

Charlie, you've made the claim that the [mass noun] tag was added for Countdown purposes before, but as I said then, the tag was in the NODE from the beginning, well before anyone proposed using it on Countdown.

Humm, okay. Wasn't intending to propagate a myth, I must've forgotten you pointing that out. But "word games" are mentioned in the introduction so I still think that that usage must've occurred to them.

Am not sure about Charlie's American spellings argument either - you say what about all the variant spellings from other languages which you have to learn - well, there are a couple of South African ones listed, but other than that, American ones are the only variant SPELLINGS (as opposed to variant TERMS) in the dictionary. As Julie says, you've got to distinguish the two.

Well, it's still arbitrary. It might be that only a small number of other words are actually affected but conceptually it's a weak argument.

I don't think Damian and co. disallowed American spellings because they feared the Yanks' taking over the language, I think it was more along the lines of, if a kid wrote an American spelling in a school essay, it'd be marked wrong, so Countdown should set an example. Plus they're never used in the British media etc.

Fair point. I'm sure Damian & co disallowed them because they were bored of the complaints, so I was just referring to the motivation of the complainers.

you do know that SALUTER, DISSUADER and IMAGINER are all ok in the ODE2r don't you? If you were joking, it was well concealed (too well for me, anyway ).

I was hoping that anyone knowledgeable enough to spot the joke would also be smart enough to realise it was a joke!

[Julie T]

Not all contestants who appear on Countdown know what mass nouns are. Could a member of the Countdown staff compose a guide to mass nouns, maybe?

Excellent point, Jason, IMHO.
I actually emailed via the channel 4 countdown webpage to suggest that they include a guide to valid Countdown words in a similar vein to the way that 'The Times' does for their 'Polygon' puzzle:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... t=0&page=1

Didn't receive a reply, though.

[Julie T]

I especially like the new "origins of words" bit that Susie does before round 10.

Yeah, i like it too. Wonder who's idea that was?

Thanks, Damian!

I have nothing against it per se, but I don't think I'm the first person to say that it breaks the flow too much by putting it before the numbers game.

I agree, Gavin, that it could be better placed. I do enjoy it, so it seems a bit nit-picking, but after round 10, just before the second TTT, would be better IMHO.
Then we could relax more and enjoy it better, like the guest spot before the first TTT, rather than psyching ourselves up for the numbers round.
We're never completely happy, are we Damian?

[Julie T]

you do know that SALUTER, DISSUADER and IMAGINER are all ok in the ODE2r don't you? If you were joking, it was well concealed (too well for me, anyway ).

I was hoping that anyone knowledgeable enough to spot the joke would also be smart enough to realise it was a joke!

You sneaky b*gger, Charlie!

[Jason Larsen]

Thank you, Julie!

Now, I have a question.

How clearly did you introduce yourself to Channel 4 when you composed that e-mail?

[Julie T]

Thank you, Julie!

Now, I have a question.

How clearly did you introduce yourself to Channel 4 when you composed that e-mail?

This is what I put on the Channel 4 website feedback form 2 months ago:

"Hi,
I have 2 suggestions for the Countdown page on the Channel 4 website.
Firstly, please could there be a list of the rules, especially explaining the allowable words? Even amongst ardent fans, there is
some difference of opinion with e.g. when plurals of mass nouns are allowed. An example of specified rules of another word game
are the Polygon rules on The Times newspaper website:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... t=0&page=1.
There could always be a disclaimer saying something like that Dictionary Corner's decision is final, if it is thought that there
might be any dispute.
Secondly, as Countdown is on most weekdays, it's absence is sorely missed by its fans. Could any gaps in transmission or repeats
please be flagged on the website at least a month or maybe more in advance?
Thank you for considering my suggestions.
Regards,
Julie Taylor"

[Jason Larsen]

Julie, it's funny because any member of the Countdown staff may not reply to you if you do send them any messages. This is because they are busy.

Yet, we have three members of the Countdown crew who post here. I guess we should consider this the official Countdown forum.

[Julie T]

Julie, it's funny because any member of the Countdown staff may not reply to you if you do send them any messages. This is because they are busy.

IIRC it says on the feedback info that they don't reply to all emails due to high volume, as most feedback facilities do. I thought it worth a try, though.

[Jason Larsen]

Good for you, Julie.

[Damian E]

Julie, it's funny because any member of the Countdown staff may not reply to you if you do send them any messages. This is because they are busy.

Yet, we have three members of the Countdown crew who post here. I guess we should consider this the official Countdown forum.

Jason, there are only 5 of us full-time, but the other 2 are certified insane.

[Jason Larsen]

I like Kate and Lara!

[Kirk Bevins]

I like Kate and Lara!

But hate Damian?

[Jason Larsen]

No, I like Damian too!

[David Roe]

My idea with "un-" wasn't that all adjectives can use it, just that a list should be included in the dictionary. Many old dictionaries had such a list, with a note saying they meant the opposite of the root, but modern ones tend not too. The point of leaving out the superfluous definitions was to save space.

I agree with several others about Susie's spot - it's very good, but would be better after round 10, and provide some symmetry with the celebrity spot after round 5. (Always assuming we aren't going to ditch the celebrity in the new year, anyway.)

[Julie T]

What do you think of my ideas for the official Channel 4 Countdown webpage, then, Damian?

This is what I put on the Channel 4 website feedback form 2 months ago:

"Hi,
I have 2 suggestions for the Countdown page on the Channel 4 website.
Firstly, please could there be a list of the rules, especially explaining the allowable words? Even amongst ardent fans, there is
some difference of opinion with e.g. when plurals of mass nouns are allowed. An example of specified rules of another word game
are the Polygon rules on The Times newspaper website:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... t=0&page=1.
There could always be a disclaimer saying something like that Dictionary Corner's decision is final, if it is thought that there
might be any dispute.
Secondly, as Countdown is on most weekdays, it's absence is sorely missed by its fans. Could any gaps in transmission or repeats
please be flagged on the website at least a month or maybe more in advance?
Thank you for considering my suggestions.
Regards,
Julie Taylor"

[Damian E]

Julie,

I think in principal your ideas are very good. However, when it comes to specific adjudications on words, it a tricky situation. We know the ODE isnt as user-friendly for Countdown as we would like, but its still a cracking dictionary. The problem is, who writes the definitive list of words? Its a mammoth task and not something we could undertake at this end, and at the same time, OUP don't make dictionaries specifically for people to use on Countdown.

I'll talk to Susie about it and see if there is anything that could happen.

D

[Jason Larsen]

Damian, please make sure to tell Susie that I came up with the idea!

[Martin Gardner]

I was actually gonna start a new thread about this until I found that one already existed.

However I think I'm going to end up repeating what other people have said! Basically no, a paper dictionary isn't ideal for any anagram game like we've got here, there's always going to be room for adjudication and personal opinion, there's absolutely no way round it. And as Damian says, if they did compile a Scrabble-style word list, it would take an enormous amount of time to do it and who would do it? It has to be a good idea, but impractical. I know in Scrabble in French they used to use the Petit Larousse which is ok but it write all the words in capital letters, so you don't know which ones are the abbreviations and the proper nouns, so TV and TGV were technically allowed. Nowadays a committee of Scrabble players, who essentially professional Scrabble players compile the official dictionary based on a number of paper dictionaries, but refusing problematic words like TV. It's a real dictionary apart from uniquely, it only gives definitions for difficult words so JOUER no definition, HOPLITE there is one. But this dictionary isn't actually used in competition, they use the text file which is generated by the same team, which is good because some words accidentally got deleted from the dictionary by accident, but have been added back to the text file (TSIGANE and TZIGANE will be familiar to you).

Another point I was going to make was about definitions? Is it really important to know them? I certainly prefer to know them but a lot of them I'm never going to use anyway? What's the point of knowing a word that you're never going to use. People who do learn the definitions tend to learn the definitions parrot-style rather than actually knowing what they mean. Like RAMKIES that came up in an online game which is a "musical instrument" - well a piano and a flute are both musical instruments, but they're very different. Or maybe if you take a complicated philosophical word, just reading a 20 word definition will not let you know what it means. I think GENOCIDE would be an example of this, say if you're quite young and you've only just come accross the word. So in summary, I like doing crosswords so I like to know the definitions, but I can't see the point of knowing the definition of a word that you can never use!

[Julie T]

Julie,

I think in principal your ideas are very good. However, when it comes to specific adjudications on words, it a tricky situation. We know the ODE isnt as user-friendly for Countdown as we would like, but its still a cracking dictionary.

D

Thanks Damian for looking at my ideas and being so positive. ODE certainly is a great dictionary.

The problem is, who writes the definitive list of words? Its a mammoth task and not something we could undertake at this end, and at the same time, OUP don't make dictionaries specifically for people to use on Countdown.

D

I agree, Damian, but my point was:

Firstly, please could there be a list of the rules, especially explaining the allowable words?

i.e. on the Channel4 website, a breakdown of the 'rules' such as stating that a valid word has to be in the ODE2r, lower case, not American spellings, no mass nouns plurals unless they're countable, etc. etc.,...
The sort of thing that we only sort of glean by watching the programme over a long time. Not a list of all valid words.

I'll talk to Susie about it and see if there is anything that could happen.

D

Fantastic, Damian! What more could I ask!

[David Roe]

Definitions are important on Countdown. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it's not a word, just a collection of semi-random letters. It's interesting to know what the word means, even if you've forgotten it 30 seconds later.

[Martin Gardner]

Definitions are important on Countdown. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it's not a word, just a collection of semi-random letters. It's interesting to know what the word means, even if you've forgotten it 30 seconds later.

Exactly, look up the meaning of QUIPU and I think you'll soon forget it again. While learning words without meanings is artificial, so is just learning the meanings for Countdown. I don't want to know the meaning of words if 1) I'm just memorising the words in the right order rather than actually understanding in a deeper sense. I guess this is the difference between knowing the meaning and knowing the definition and 2) If I'll most likely never use it in real life.

Furthermore I'd allow American spellings as they allow everything but - American words, Canadian words and Canadian spellings, etc.

Lastly I was thinking about what Damian said about Standard English regarding FUN(N)EST - we don't play in Standard English we play in English. Standard English is a somewhat theoretical dialect of it, what people "should" speak, you'd have to start disallowing words that were actually in the dictionary, like GONNA and WANNA.

[Julie T]

Definitions are important on Countdown. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it's not a word, just a collection of semi-random letters. It's interesting to know what the word means, even if you've forgotten it 30 seconds later.

I agree. Although if they come up often in Countdown, words and their meanings do stick in the memory, even if you don't come across them very often IRL, e.g. TANGELO and PRONATED.

[Charlie Reams]

The only Countdown esoterica that I've ever used in conversation is IRENIC. The majority of them are obscure for a reason.

[John Douglas]

I think at one time the pluralisation of mass nouns was allowed and then the rule was changed (I seem to remember Susie announcing it). I would personally always allow them because you can always count different categories or classes of mass nouns. (Take lemonade as an example : Both Tesco's and Asda sell their own brands of lemonade and "their lemonades are cheaper than White's".)

I was also taught (and at one time taught) that adjectives can always form their comparative and superlative by adding -er and -est if they have one or two syllables (adj.s ending in -y changing to -ier, -iest) so long as the stress is on the first syllable of two-syllable words and also provided that the adjective is not derived from a past participle, e.g. gifted. Above two syllables, then it has to be specified. (And, incidentally, referring to an earlier post, I am sure frail is one syllable.)

Just my opinion.

[Julian Fell]

you can always count different categories or classes of mass nouns.

Er, no you can't

[Charlie Reams]

Julian, at last a lexonerd debate on which we can agree! No one thinks you can have different kinds of MANKINDS or GUNFIRES, do they?

[Martin Gardner]

the -ai- in frail is a dipthong, and I believe than dipthongs are considered as one syllable (this came up in a French grammar seminar), so frailer and frailest would be fine under this ruling. I suppose the dictionary doesn't actually the number of syllables either, so again it's down to the arbiter's decision just as it is with mass nouns. Also, what does the dictionary specifically say about mass nouns? Does it say that mass nouns came sometimes have plurals?

[Mike Brown]

Julie,

I think in principal your ideas are very good. However, when it comes to specific adjudications on words, it a tricky situation. We know the ODE isnt as user-friendly for Countdown as we would like, but its still a cracking dictionary. The problem is, who writes the definitive list of words? Its a mammoth task and not something we could undertake at this end, and at the same time, OUP don't make dictionaries specifically for people to use on Countdown.

I'll talk to Susie about it and see if there is anything that could happen.

D

It'll be interesting to see if anything develops on this front, I must admit. The OUP did of course publish the Official (sic) Countdown Dictionary a few years ago, of course, although I think it fell by the wayside due to (a) the number of errors it contained and (b) the fact that having two sources of arbitration (i.e the dictionary AND the word list) presents its own problems when you're trying to run a slick TV production. However, I still think a word list has merits (as partly proved by the unofficial lists used by the recap writer and Apterous) and if nothing else I'd love to see a definitive list of mass noun plurals that are allowed (or not), perhaps then extended to cover other obvious anomalies and omissions (in Countdown terms) in the ODE. As for anyone at Countdown HQ having the time, well, we probably have the skills, interest and dedication at C4C to undertake some of the work, if it would help and was deemed acceptable. In fact, I was discussing the idea of an official Countdown word list with Joyce Cansfield (Series 1 champion) at CONOT and she seemed to think it was a good idea and perhaps one that someone outside of OUP could get involved with (although they would naturally have to be involved too from a copyright perspective). I'll get back in my box now.

[Mike Brown]

I think at one time the pluralisation of mass nouns was allowed and then the rule was changed (I seem to remember Susie announcing it). I would personally always allow them because you can always count different categories or classes of mass nouns.

Hi John. I think the original ruling was that mass noun plurals were not allowed unless specified (which meant that you could have brandies, but not lagers), but this was then changed to allow particular types of mass noun plural (such as portions of foods and drinks, or materials), with a general guide being given at the start of the dictionary. This amendment to the rules, although very welcome in many respects has led to an even less predictable state of affairs, where it is left to the lexicographer in charge to adjudicate, although this situation has been improved in part by having Susie in the chair for 98% of the time (statistic approximate!). The general trend now seems to be moving towards allowing more and more of what I would term sensible pluralization, but it's so easy to be subjective that unless we have a definitive list or an amendment to the dictionary, this problem will never go away!

I was also taught (and at one time taught) that adjectives can always form their comparative and superlative by adding -er and -est if they have one or two syllables (adj.s ending in -y changing to -ier, -iest) so long as the stress is on the first syllable of two-syllable words and also provided that the adjective is not derived from a past participle, e.g. gifted. Above two syllables, then it has to be specified. (And, incidentally, referring to an earlier post, I am sure frail is one syllable.)

And another of my pet subjects! There is actually some good stuff on this in the appendix of the ODE, which in some ways partly contradicts the information given at the start, and certainly the current rules of Countdown. As I think Charlie said in an earlier post, the best solution would be for the dictionary to specify all valid comparatives and superlatives for all adjectives, irrespective of their syllable count.

[Gavin Chipper]

Hi John...

What happened to your box?

[Gavin Chipper]

(And, incidentally, referring to an earlier post, I am sure frail is one syllable.)

the -ai- in frail is a dipthong, and I believe than dipthongs are considered as one syllable (this came up in a French grammar seminar), so frailer and frailest would be fine under this ruling. I suppose the dictionary doesn't actually the number of syllables either, so again it's down to the arbiter's decision just as it is with mass nouns. Also, what does the dictionary specifically say about mass nouns? Does it say that mass nouns came sometimes have plurals?

If anything it would be a triphthong. But I still think it fails because the NODE definition says it has to be one syllable to be a diphthong or a triphthong, and I would dispute that it has only one! The A in GATE is a diphthong and GATE is certainly one syllable, but there is certainly something extra in FRAIL. I would call that something extra a syllable. I suppose it comes down to your definitions, but if syllable means what I think it does, FRAIL has two of those.

Also, if there was a word FRAYUL that happened to be pronounced exactly the same as FRAIL, I think most would agree that it had two syllables. But number of syllables is entirely down to pronunciation, not spelling, so whichever way you went you couldn't say they had different numbers of syllables.

I got SOUREST on Apterous the other day. SOUR rhymes with SHOWER which has two syllables! Again, you can't claim that one of them has one and the other two.

Of course I'm not saying that FRAILEST and SOUREST shouldn't be allowed but it's just another example of where the dictionary should be more explicit.

[Charlie Reams]

The A in GATE is a diphthong and GATE is certainly one syllable, but there is certainly something extra in FRAIL. I would call that something extra a syllable. I suppose it comes down to your definitions, but if syllable means what I think it does, FRAIL has two of those.

Unless you speak a totally different kind of English to me, the A in GATE is not a diphthong. But that native speakers even need this debate suggests that the ODE needs to be clearer.

[Gavin Chipper]

The A in GATE is a diphthong and GATE is certainly one syllable, but there is certainly something extra in FRAIL. I would call that something extra a syllable. I suppose it comes down to your definitions, but if syllable means what I think it does, FRAIL has two of those.

Unless you speak a totally different kind of English to me, the A in GATE is not a diphthong. But that native speakers even need this debate suggests that the ODE needs to be clearer.

Really? I must speak a totally different kind of English to you. The A in GATE (in my language) is not a single "pure" sound like the A in CAT.

[Paul Howe]

The only Countdown esoterica that I've ever used in conversation is IRENIC. The majority of them are obscure for a reason.

SUPINATE/PRONATE are standard piano vocab. I don't know what the ODE says, but I take them to mean a clockwise/anticlockwise rotation of the hand around the axis of the forearm, so it annoys me when Susie defines them as putting the palm face up/down (sad I know). Perhaps one of those cases where the dictionary definition fails to capture the essence of what's going on.