Comparatives and Superlatives of Adjectives Under ‘Derivatives’ Removed! *UPDATE: NOW FIXED*

[Philip A]

It has come to my attention that comparative and superlative forms of adjectives (ending in -y, especially) listed under derivatives in Oxford Dictionaries Premium have been removed!

Just a few examples; MOPIER and MOPIEST, OAKIER and OAKIEST, OATIER and OATIEST, FUMIER and FUMIEST - search for these and you’ll find they’re all gone.

I don’t know why they’ve all been removed. Is it because they are not used enough in current English, compared to the headwords themselves?

If a headword is an adjective with more than one syllable, the comparative and superlative forms must be listed to be allowed in Countdown, and yet the said words are all reasonable. Going by the rules, they will have to be removed from the Apterous lexicon too, but I think it does raise a question: is it now time to relax the rule to accept -IER and -IEST forms of -Y and -EY headwords by default, regardless of them being in the dictionary? Unspecified -EDER and -EDEST words are probably better off excluded for now, but it’s so easy to use -IER and -IEST when comparing two things, they appear to be so meritable.

[Gavin Chipper]

I always thought -IER and -IEST should be allowed by default but I think it might be more of a dictionary thing than a Countdown thing. The single syllable adjective rule comes from the dictionary notes I think (or used to anyway) so they ought to extend the notes.

[Graeme Cole]

the said words are all reasonable

So are most agent nouns in some context, but many of those aren't specified (e.g. invoicer, tightener, deployer, ...) and we're used to that.

Perhaps adjectives that don't have their own entry, and are instead only mentioned as derivatives of a noun, are rare enough that the comparatives and superlatives are even rarer so don't make the cut?

Edit to add: you want to be careful about changing the rules to allow things we assume are reasonable. Ask yourself, would such a change have any basis in whether the words are in common usage, or is it just to make the game easier? Many moons ago, Countdown had a blanket "agent nouns are allowed" rule, but then one day that meant they had to allow DOMINATER.

[Gavin Chipper]

The blanket rule that allowed "dominater" would have been badly thought out though. It should be DOMINATOR, and not because it's a special case. ATE -> ATOR is the standard method.

[Rhys Benjamin]

the said words are all reasonable

So are most agent nouns in some context, but many of those aren't specified (e.g. invoicer, tightener, deployer, ...) and we're used to that.

Perhaps adjectives that don't have their own entry, and are instead only mentioned as derivatives of a noun, are rare enough that the comparatives and superlatives are even rarer so don't make the cut?

Edit to add: you want to be careful about changing the rules to allow things we assume are reasonable. Ask yourself, would such a change have any basis in whether the words are in common usage, or is it just to make the game easier? Many moons ago, Countdown had a blanket "agent nouns are allowed" rule, but then one day that meant they had to allow DOMINATER.

Was it a blanket rule, or was it just the whims of the lexicographer on duty that day? DROSSIER was allowed by Damian Eadie; Susie Dent disallowed LAMENTOR and ABORTER in the same series, but Mark Nyman offered TORRIDEST only a few months prior.

Of course, there's also the changing practices of lexicographers within themselves as Susie Dent both allowed and disallowed NOUGATS within five years of each other.

There's loads of examples of inconsistent lexicography around the issues of comparatives and superlatives, as well as mass noun plurals (GUNFIRES, Catherine-Clarke-slash-Mark-Nyman-slash-Freda-Thornton? Seriously??). JOINDERS by Richard Samson is particularly egregious, coming just a few weeks after NOUGATS was disallowed.

Basically, it's all a mess and we can't really look to the past (pre-2003) days for one lexicographer and one consistent set of rules.

[Graeme Cole]

The blanket rule that allowed "dominater" would have been badly thought out though. It should be DOMINATOR, and not because it's a special case. ATE -> ATOR is the standard method.

Even if you apply that method, over-general rules such as these have more holes than a cheese grator.

[Rhys Benjamin]

The blanket rule that allowed "dominater" would have been badly thought out though. It should be DOMINATOR, and not because it's a special case. ATE -> ATOR is the standard method.

Even if you apply that method, over-general rules such as these have more holes than a cheese grator.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an American about the various spellings and he responded with the "overly British" sentence of:

"Fuque, I left my chequebook at the cheque-in corridour at the aeropourt!"

[Gavin Chipper]

And did you ask what his mom had made him for lonch, or perhaps was he not very hongry?

[Gavin Chipper]

The blanket rule that allowed "dominater" would have been badly thought out though. It should be DOMINATOR, and not because it's a special case. ATE -> ATOR is the standard method.

Even if you apply that method, over-general rules such as these have more holes than a cheese grator.

Nice example. But presumably it would only apply when another word isn't already specified (we don't allow "goodest"). But yeah, I tend to agree anyway. These things need to be thought through properly.

[Fiona T]

Well that's a fun development for anyone filming soon

[David Williams]

It's not so much about whether the word is reasonable. If OAKIER and OAKIEST are not specified that isn't because the comparative and superlative are unreasonable, it's because they think that correct and common usage is MORE and MOST OAKY. Which is nonsense.

In the olden days there was the situation that, say, HARDIEST and TARDIEST were specified, but LARDIEST wasn't. The reason was that HARDY and TARDY had their own entries, but LARDY was a derivative of LARD. The dictionary at the time gave no information at all about derivatives. By saying nothing the inference was that MOST LARDY was correct usage. Are we going back to that?

[Gavin Chipper]

Since it's derivatives specifically, it's obviously nothing to do with usage, but some weird reversion to a more primative state of the dictionary.

[Rhys Benjamin]

And did you ask what his mom had made him for lonch, or perhaps was he not very hongry?

Here we go, found that sentence in full at last:

(To the tune of 1001 Nights)

Fuque I left my cheque back at the cheque-in
Inside the aeroport
The courridour of Brito-Xian Aeroways
I board the aeroplane

And I will buy a light, through aeromail tonight!

[dan spinks]

Well that's a fun development for anyone filming soon

this has already cropped up in at least one episode in the can but yet to be aired

[Fiona T]

Well that's a fun development for anyone filming soon

this has already cropped up in at least one episode in the can but yet to be aired

Any discussion about it?

[dan spinks]

Well that's a fun development for anyone filming soon

this has already cropped up in at least one episode in the can but yet to be aired

Any discussion about it?

I'll comment on it properly after it airs in a few weeks

[Dame Eadie]

OUP have said these words and others haven't been 'removed' as such - there's a software bug that is preventing them from showing.
They're still in the database and they're working on the technical side to fix things. We had to disallow PEATIEST recently and after raising a query, the glitch was discovered.

[Philip A]

OUP have said these words and others haven't been 'removed' as such - there's a software bug that is preventing them from showing.
They're still in the database and they're working on the technical side to fix things. We had to disallow PEATIEST recently and after raising a query, the glitch was discovered.

Thanks for clarifying, the bug is interesting. Just for clarity, while they’re working on fixing it, should these hidden -IER/-IEST inflections of -y adjectives under any derivatives heading remain valid and on Apterous for now? Full list here https://www.apterous.org/ticket_view.php?ticket=6641 Also interested to know whether giving PEATIEST invalid was reversed and the word was then accepted.

[Dame Eadie]

Thanks for clarifying, the bug is interesting. Just for clarity, while they’re working on fixing it, should these hidden -IER/-IEST inflections of -y adjectives under any derivatives heading remain valid and on Apterous for now? Full list here https://www.apterous.org/ticket_view.php?ticket=6641

Not sure any more clarity is needed. I've already outlined the situation and hopefully made it clear it's a website technical issue. No more action is needed.

[Fiona T]

website is shite tho - how wedded are c4/countdown to OUP?

[Dame Eadie]

website is shite tho - how wedded are c4/countdown to OUP?

Not.

[David Williams]

Is it definitely only an issue for comparatives and superlatives of derivatives, or one affecting derivatives generally? There used to be several aspects of derivatives needing some dictionary corner common sense input because there was no information in the dictionary.

I remember coming across "Derivative NAILERY (noun)" once. Is that a mass noun? Didn't say. Is it a place they make nails, or the craft of making them, or both (like POTTERY)? Didn't say. There's also alternative spellings. Might you have to disallow ANODISER, which didn't used to be actually specified as an alternative spelling of ANODIZER?

[Philip A]

Is it definitely only an issue for comparatives and superlatives of derivatives, or one affecting derivatives generally? There used to be several aspects of derivatives needing some dictionary corner common sense input because there was no information in the dictionary.

I remember coming across "Derivative NAILERY (noun)" once. Is that a mass noun? Didn't say. Is it a place they make nails, or the craft of making them, or both (like POTTERY)? Didn't say. There's also alternative spellings. Might you have to disallow ANODISER, which didn't used to be actually specified as an alternative spelling of ANODIZER?

I think this specific bug as described is only affecting the -IER/-IEST inflections under derivates, instead of all derivatives in general. I agree that lack of definitions and lack of countability clarification under the derivatives section is annoying, but re NAILERY, Googling describes it as a nail factory and therefore suggests it is countable (nails are made in naileries). POTTERY can also be the craft (uncountable) or a factory (countable). Alternative spellings are not affected and ANODISER, which is listed, is fine; any -IZE(R) Oxford spelling can take the -ISE(R) spelling even if unspecified (but not vice versa).

[Fiona T]

FWIW the API is still returning the inflections - checked a few and they seem to all be there. Also checked blurry and gammy at Ray's suggestion and they do not return inflections, so appears to match what was on the website and is in apto.

Code: Select all

{
    "id": "flamy",
    "metadata": {
        "operation": "retrieve",
        "provider": "Oxford University Press",
        "schema": "RetrieveEntry"
    },
    "results": [
        {
            "id": "flamy",
            "language": "en-gb",
            "lexicalEntries": [
                {
                    "derivativeOf": [
                        {
                            "id": "flame",
                            "text": "flame"
                        }
                    ],
                    "entries": [
                        {
                            "inflections": [
                                {
                                    "inflectedForm": "flamier"
                                },
                                {
                                    "inflectedForm": "flamiest"
                                }
                            ],
                            "senses": [
                                {
                                    "id": "m_en_gbus0368730.060"
                                }
                            ],
                            "variantForms": [
                                {
                                    "text": "flamey"
                                }
                            ]
                        }
                    ],
                    "language": "en-gb",
                    "lexicalCategory": {
                        "id": "adjective",
                        "text": "Adjective"
                    },
                    "text": "flamy"
                }
            ],
            "type": "headword",
            "word": "flamy"
        }
    ],
    "word": "flamy"
}

[Gavin Chipper]

Good work.

[Philip A]

Important news: the bug has now been fixed and the -IER/-IEST words are now back in Oxford Dictionaries Premium.