CountMax errors

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:20 am

Ian Volante wrote:SWEETNESSES should be in - sweetness is clearly a noun, not a mass noun.

Not according to ODE it's not.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:SWEETNESSES should be in - sweetness is clearly a noun, not a mass noun.
Not according to ODE it's not.

Hmm, different editions? I've got the SODE, and it just marks it n, OE.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:08 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:SWEETNESSES should be in - sweetness is clearly a noun, not a mass noun.
Not according to ODE it's not.
Hmm, different editions? I've got the SODE, and it just marks it n, OE.

SODE is a completely different dictionary.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:36 pm

While playing Kirky yesterday I had SWELLEST rejected but the master reckons it should be in.

Peter Mabey · Post by **Peter Mabey** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:48 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Not according to ODE it's not.
Hmm, different editions? I've got the SODE, and it just marks it n, OE.
SODE is a completely different dictionary.

The edition of SODE I have doesn't list mass nouns at all, also lists every word with a capital letter, so isn't much help for checking validity.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Not according to ODE it's not.
Hmm, different editions? I've got the SODE, and it just marks it n, OE.
SODE is a completely different dictionary.

Just checked my NODE instead, and you are indeed correct

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:36 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:SWEETNESSES should be in - sweetness is clearly a noun, not a mass noun.
Not according to ODE it's not.
Hmm, different editions? I've got the SODE, and it just marks it n, OE.

I've had the PLODE but it broke so it's now the EXPLODE.[/Meakin]

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:55 pm

Delete RAVIOLIS as RAVIOLI is listed as [plural noun].

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:49 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Delete RAVIOLIS as RAVIOLI is listed as [plural noun].

The sometimes-silly "food ordering rule" says it's good, surely?

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:57 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Delete RAVIOLIS as RAVIOLI is listed as [plural noun].
The sometimes-silly "food ordering rule" says it's good, surely?

I think so. Kirk's just narked he lost that round to a complete muppet.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:41 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Delete RAVIOLIS as RAVIOLI is listed as [plural noun].
The sometimes-silly "food ordering rule" says it's good, surely?

Not if it's plural already, i'd have thought.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:53 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Delete RAVIOLIS as RAVIOLI is listed as [plural noun].
The sometimes-silly "food ordering rule" says it's good, surely?
Not if it's plural already, i'd have thought.

I thought the whole gist of that rule is "what you'd order" rather than getting bogged down in the particulars. You'd ask for "a/one ravioli" surely, and therefore "two raviolis"?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:01 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I thought the whole gist of that rule is "what you'd order" rather than getting bogged down in the particulars. You'd ask for "a/one ravioli" surely, and therefore "two raviolis"?

Only if you're an ignorant pleb who hasn't benefited from being educated in an ivory bubble.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:20 pm

Jon Corby wrote: I thought the whole gist of that rule is "what you'd order" rather than getting bogged down in the particulars. You'd ask for "a/one ravioli" surely, and therefore "two raviolis"?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed because the rule relates to mass nouns, not plural nouns. One person might order chips but you wouldn't allow "two chipses". Nevertheless I will consult with the powers that be.

Peter Mabey · Post by **Peter Mabey** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:40 pm

If you were a frugal pedant, you might ask for a raviolo

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:19 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon Corby wrote: I thought the whole gist of that rule is "what you'd order" rather than getting bogged down in the particulars. You'd ask for "a/one ravioli" surely, and therefore "two raviolis"?
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed because the rule relates to mass nouns, not plural nouns. One person might order chips but you wouldn't allow "two chipses". Nevertheless I will consult with the powers that be.

The powers that be disallow CLOVERS. I don't care what they think. (Although yeah it is a bit of a non-starter if it's not even a mass noun)

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:20 pm

PROOFREAD is in, but that's it. No PROOFREADS* or PROOFREADING*.

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:31 pm

EXQUISITENESSES is missing from the lexicon. Should it be added?

EXQUISITENESS is valid, and I thought that all the long -NESS words also had -NESSES allowable. (Due to some quirk of ODE which was discovered during the Spindlex project.)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:46 pm

Matt Bayfield wrote: EXQUISITENESS is valid, and I thought that all the long -NESS words also had -NESSES allowable. (Due to some quirk of ODE which was discovered during the Spindlex project.)

Not all of them, but about 99%. This may be one of the exceptions although I can't see why it would be. Can someone check?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:57 pm

EXQUISITENESS is just specified as a noun so the plural is fine.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:55 pm

Add EQUALISATIONS = EQUALIZATIONS.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:27 pm

EROSIONS should be removed, its listed as a mass noun. The mass noun rule is not stated to take effect on physical processes that are listed as mass noun, so even though it seem quite plausible to allow it, it shouldnt be in under the countdown rules.

And yeah, you probably saw my angry comment about it on apterous.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:08 am

The word 'wecast' came up in a game today. Searched loads of places online and could only find stuff on 'webcast'. Chris checked the ODE2 and says it's not in. Anyone know if it's hidden elsewhere in the dictionary or is it just a typo?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:44 pm

JackHurst wrote:EROSIONS should be removed, its listed as a mass noun. The mass noun rule is not stated to take effect on physical processes that are listed as mass noun, so even though it seem quite plausible to allow it, it shouldnt be in under the countdown rules.

And yeah, you probably saw my angry comment about it on apterous.

Yeah, you probably saw my piss-take response to it. End result: EROSIONS is valid and you're a tard.

Thomas Cappleman · Post by **Thomas Cappleman** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:00 pm

GENOCIDES needs to be added (as discussed in another thread, it's specifically listed in the contestant guidelines as a mass noun that can be pluralised)

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:25 pm

FETTUCINI isn't in the dictionary and I don't know if it ever has been (FETTUCCINE is in). This has also been noted here. Can someone enlighten me?

Edit: Also noted by Martin Gardner on page 5 of this thread: "FETTUCINI isn't in anymore of course, but then it's somewhat unlike that those letters will come up. But still..."

Hugh Binnie · Post by **Hugh Binnie** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:33 am

Is pouncers valid? Seems odd that it would be in when pouncer^ isn't.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:47 pm

How is ANTIDISEST......with an S on the end, in? It's a mass noun.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:55 pm

JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:58 am

COMPLEATS is a word (part of the verb COMPLEAT, which is an archaic spelling of COMPLETE). I assume it's an error because COMPLEAT(ED/ING/NESS/NESSES) are all in.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:20 am

Adam Gillard wrote:COMPLEATS is a word (part of the verb COMPLEAT, which is an archaic spelling of COMPLETE). I assume it's an error because COMPLEAT(ED/ING/NESS/NESSES) are all in.

You can be the one that compleats the dictionary.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:17 am

Adam Gillard wrote:COMPLEATS is a word (part of the verb COMPLEAT, which is an archaic spelling of COMPLETE). I assume it's an error because COMPLEAT(ED/ING/NESS/NESSES) are all in.

Think COMPLEATS was removed as Charlie really wanted ECTOPLASM as a conundrum

.

Joseph Krol · Post by **Joseph Krol** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:03 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Adam Gillard wrote:COMPLEATS is a word (part of the verb COMPLEAT, which is an archaic spelling of COMPLETE). I assume it's an error because COMPLEAT(ED/ING/NESS/NESSES) are all in.
Think COMPLEATS was removed as Charlie really wanted ECTOPLASM as a conundrum .

COMPLEATS could be the scramble.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:20 pm

Joseph Krol wrote: COMPLEATS could be the scramble.

Yes, but if you learn it it's pretty boring. This was Damian's old thing - you're not doing an anagram, just memorising an anagram of a word. Nothing wrong with it in my eyes but it's more fun unscrambling.

Matthew Tassier · Post by **Matthew Tassier** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:56 am

I think INTERSUBJECTIVITIES should be added as intersubjectivity is in as a noun.

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:45 am

Sulfur and its derivatives.

From Wikipedia:
However, the IUPAC adopted the spelling sulfur in 1990, as did the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee in 1992.[26] The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England and Wales recommended its use in 2000,[27] and it now appears in GCSE exams.[28] The Oxford Dictionaries note that "In chemistry... the -f- spelling is now the standard form in all related words in the field in both British and US contexts"[29]

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:30 am

I may be mistaken, but I vaguely remember someone with an ODE3 (I think it may have been Hugh) telling me that BOSS is now also listed as an adjective (meaning "good", in Northern English colloquial usage) in ODE3.

In which case, I reckon BOSSER and BOSSEST (both currently listed as invalid) should be permissible.

(I nearly declared BOSSEST in a game at Co:Lon, which is why I was discussing this particular word in apterous chat.)

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:04 pm

Matt Bayfield wrote:I may be mistaken, but I vaguely remember someone with an ODE3 (I think it may have been Hugh) telling me that BOSS is now also listed as an adjective (meaning "good", in Northern English colloquial usage) in ODE3.

In which case, I reckon BOSSER and BOSSEST (both currently listed as invalid) should be permissible.

(I nearly declared BOSSEST in a game at Co:Lon, which is why I was discussing this particular word in apterous chat.)

BOSS is listed as an adjective (North American slang, as in "she's a real boss chick") in all editions of the ODE, so I guess BOSSER and BOSSEST should have been added long ago!

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:13 am

Mike Brown wrote:
Matt Bayfield wrote:I may be mistaken, but I vaguely remember someone with an ODE3 (I think it may have been Hugh) telling me that BOSS is now also listed as an adjective (meaning "good", in Northern English colloquial usage) in ODE3.

In which case, I reckon BOSSER and BOSSEST (both currently listed as invalid) should be permissible.

(I nearly declared BOSSEST in a game at Co:Lon, which is why I was discussing this particular word in apterous chat.)
BOSS is listed as an adjective (North American slang, as in "she's a real boss chick") in all editions of the ODE, so I guess BOSSER and BOSSEST should have been added long ago!

Not northern English though, not when I was growing up anyway!

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:20 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mike Brown wrote:
Matt Bayfield wrote:I may be mistaken, but I vaguely remember someone with an ODE3 (I think it may have been Hugh) telling me that BOSS is now also listed as an adjective (meaning "good", in Northern English colloquial usage) in ODE3.

In which case, I reckon BOSSER and BOSSEST (both currently listed as invalid) should be permissible.

(I nearly declared BOSSEST in a game at Co:Lon, which is why I was discussing this particular word in apterous chat.)
BOSS is listed as an adjective (North American slang, as in "she's a real boss chick") in all editions of the ODE, so I guess BOSSER and BOSSEST should have been added long ago!
Not northern English though, not when I was growing up anyway!

Not round these parts either, but I've heard it from Liverpool folk.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:42 pm

PROOFREADER, PROOFREADERS, PROOFREADING and PROOFREADS should be added; PODAGRAL*, PODAGRIC* and PODAGROUS* should be removed. I'll keep you posted if I notice anything else from reading the dictionary (don't worry Ed, I'm not actually up to the letter 'P' yet).

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:13 pm

JackHurst wrote:JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.

I just had JUSTEST disallowed.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
JackHurst wrote:JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.
I just had JUSTEST disallowed.

Such an injustest.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:54 pm

Given that SENORITA has gone, should SENHORITA also be removed?

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:00 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Given that SENORITA has gone, should SENHORITA also be removed?

It's already been discussed in the recap thread, SENORA/SENORITA have gone because those Spanish words have now been capitalised, but SENHORA and SENHORITA which are Portugese haven't, and so are still valid.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:27 am

REINSTAL(S) should be in.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Sun May 08, 2011 10:05 pm

FUCKABLE should also be in.

Matthew Tassier · Post by **Matthew Tassier** » Sat May 14, 2011 11:01 pm

QIBLA, QIBLAH, KIBLA, KIBLAH are all in, as are QIBLAHS and KIBLAS. So I believe QIBLAS and KIBLAHS need adding. Think this may have been discussed before, but in ODE3 there is no suggestion that they are not pluralisable.

Dan McColm · Post by **Dan McColm** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:26 am

PIECRUST^ and PIECRUSTS^ need removing - ODE lists these as two separate words.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:31 am

Dan McColm wrote:PIECRUST^ and PIECRUSTS^ need removing - ODE lists these as two separate words.

Well spotted, Dan. I love the fact (in a slightly annoyed way) that the following entry of PIECRUST TABLE still specifies it as a single word.

Mark James · Post by **Mark James** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:58 am

TOUGHED still isn't allowed on apterous. The only reason I declared it was because of James Hall's reappearance on Countdown toady.

James Hall · Post by **James Hall** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:24 am

Mark James wrote:TOUGHED still isn't allowed on apterous. The only reason I declared it was because of James Hall's reappearance on Countdown toady.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Matt Bayfield · Post by **Matt Bayfield** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:06 pm

This only really affects Unlimited variants on apterous, but now that I've got an ODE3 and can look at the entry, I think KINNIKINNICKS should be allowed, as the second definition of KINNIKINNICK clearly states "count noun".

In any case, the plurals of the two alternative spellings (i.e. KINNIKINNIKS and KINNIKINNICS) are already both allowed, so the omission of KINNIKINNICKS looks like it might just have been an oversight?

Also affecting Unlimited games, I think COUSCOUSES should be allowed, as ODE3 clearly states that COUSCOUS is a dish (and therefore it's quite feasible you could order two in a restaurant, etc).

Matthew Tassier · Post by **Matthew Tassier** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:55 pm

Also on the subject of unlimited words, I can't find SISSIS anywhere in the ODE3 so it should be removed unless it is hidden away somewhere odd in the dictionary.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:47 pm

Matthew Tassier wrote:Also on the subject of unlimited words, I can't find SISSIS anywhere in the ODE3 so it should be removed unless it is hidden away somewhere odd in the dictionary.

Don't think so, looks like a typo to me. (Although you never know!)

Graeme Cole · Post by **Graeme Cole** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:49 pm

NAILERY and NAILERIES aren't in ODE3, nor is PAGANISE/PAGANIZE and its inflections.

Also, apterous gives PROPELLOR as valid but not PROPELLORS.

Edit: ONBOARD should also be allowed.

Liam Tiernan · Post by **Liam Tiernan** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:14 am

DECANIS. If the plural of DECANI (adjective: of or pertaining to the epistle or liturgical south side of a church (opposed to cantoris)), is allowed then shouldn't the plural of CANTORIS (cantorises, or cantorides if you follow the rules for Latin plurals) also be allowed?. Or vice versa.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:44 am

Liam Tiernan wrote:DECANIS. If the plural of DECANI (adjective: of or pertaining to the epistle or liturgical south side of a church (opposed to cantoris)), is allowed then shouldn't the plural of CANTORIS (cantorises, or cantorides if you follow the rules for Latin plurals)

ITYM Greek. Also doesn't DECANI have a noun sense?

Liam Tiernan · Post by **Liam Tiernan** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:11 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:DECANIS. If the plural of DECANI (adjective: of or pertaining to the epistle or liturgical south side of a church (opposed to cantoris)), is allowed then shouldn't the plural of CANTORIS (cantorises, or cantorides if you follow the rules for Latin plurals)
ITYM Greek. Also doesn't DECANI have a noun sense?

Latin -IS to -IDES , as APSIS/APSIDES. I don't have access to an ODE, but Dictionary.com lists CANTORIS only as an adjective, and DECANI as adjective or adverb.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:25 am

Liam Tiernan wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:DECANIS. If the plural of DECANI (adjective: of or pertaining to the epistle or liturgical south side of a church (opposed to cantoris)), is allowed then shouldn't the plural of CANTORIS (cantorises, or cantorides if you follow the rules for Latin plurals)
ITYM Greek. Also doesn't DECANI have a noun sense?
Latin -IS to -IDES , as APSIS/APSIDES.

Nope, don't think so. APSIS is also from Greek (maybe via Latin, I'm not sure). Latin doesn't form its own plurals that way.

I don't have access to an ODE, but Dictionary.com lists CANTORIS only as an adjective, and DECANI as adjective or adverb.

I wouldn't worry too much about what dictionary.com says.