Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Spoilers
Stephen R
Series 76 Champion
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Stephen R »

2nd numbers: (25+6) x (9x4-5) -3
Martin Hurst
Series 75 Champion
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:50 am

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Martin Hurst »

Loving the Joe Lycett dance to the end credits - Susie even tried to join in today (briefly!)
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Johnny Canuck »

1st numbers alternative: 7 * (9 + 4) * 10 + 9 * 1
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Stewart Gordon
Enthusiast
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Stewart Gordon »

I have trouble believing Susie managed to make this fundamental error: "Yes, same in the plural. It's a mass noun, in other words." Somebody of her standing certainly shouldn't be confusing the two concepts.
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by JimBentley »

Stewart Gordon wrote:I have trouble believing Susie managed to make this fundamental error: "Yes, same in the plural. It's a mass noun, in other words." Somebody of her standing certainly shouldn't be confusing the two concepts.
What was the word? I'm not saying that your nitpicking is wrong, but I can think of plenty of cases where Susie would be right, at least in the obvious sense of common usage.
Stewart Gordon
Enthusiast
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Stewart Gordon »

Joe asked if TINSELS would be valid. So TINSEL is the word that Susie was claiming is singular, plural and a mass noun all at the same time. (Which might actually be true of some words, but they would be distinct subcategories of noun to which the word belongs, not ways of saying the same thing.)
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by JimBentley »

Stewart Gordon wrote:Joe asked if TINSELS would be valid. So TINSEL is the word that Susie was claiming is singular, plural and a mass noun all at the same time. (Which might actually be true of some words, but they would be distinct subcategories of noun to which the word belongs, not ways of saying the same thing.)
From the way you originally couched it, that's not the same thing at all. She was taking a shortcut really, wasn't she? Rather than explain the minutae of the mass noun rule and how it may or may not be applied to the word, she was saying that TINSEL in the plural is the same word as TINSEL in the singular. Which is entirely correct in context, as a display consisting of many strands of tinsel would still be referred to as "tinsel", just as a single piece would be.
Stewart Gordon
Enthusiast
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Stewart Gordon »

You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense. Speaking nonsense in the name of saving time is a false economy.

I'm pretty sure her usual "shortcut" explanation is "you can't pluralise it"....
Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Peter Mabey »

(7x(3+3)+50)x9=838
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Peter Mabey wrote:(7x(3+3)+50)x9=838
That's 828, and today is 22 November.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Peter Mabey »

Sorry - saw Tuesday on this thread, so jumped in assuming today - and then posted without checking to get in quickly :( :oops:
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I'll make a new thread. I haven't done a bulk load in a while.
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by JimBentley »

Stewart Gordon wrote:You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense.
Of course not. You would speak of a strand of tinsel, or five strands of tinsel. And when you had assembled those strands of tinsel, you would refer to the assemblage as "a display of tinsel". I still don't know how else Susie could have handled this one.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 25th October 2016

Post by Gavin Chipper »

JimBentley wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense.
Of course not. You would speak of a strand of tinsel, or five strands of tinsel. And when you had assembled those strands of tinsel, you would refer to the assemblage as "a display of tinsel". I still don't know how else Susie could have handled this one.
I've just looked up the definition and it says that it's a mass noun, but doesn't mention the plural being the same. So Susie would just say that it's a mass noun. It's possible that she just "mis-spoke" with the plural being the same bit, and moved swiftly onto it being a mass noun afterwards.
Post Reply