CountMax errors

Frank Rodolf · Post by **Frank Rodolf** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:03 pm

Gary Male wrote:After seeing it disallowed in quite a few games recently on Apterous, MOHAIRS yay or nay? It's listed as a fabric, so logically should be allowed the plural? Plus the entry strongly suggests that their are different types of mohair.

It's actually listed as a mass noun - the fabric part of the definition is only a subsense, introduced by the black square. So imho it's a nay.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:06 pm

Frank Rodolf wrote:
Gary Male wrote:After seeing it disallowed in quite a few games recently on Apterous, MOHAIRS yay or nay? It's listed as a fabric, so logically should be allowed the plural? Plus the entry strongly suggests that their are different types of mohair.
It's actually listed as a mass noun - the fabric part of the definition is only a subsense, introduced by the black square. So imho it's a nay.

That doesn't make any sense. If you can pluralise it in any sense then MOHAIRS is valid.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:59 pm

GATEAUS appears to be missing from CountMax, even though it's listed in the ODE2r as an alternative plural spelling for GATEAU.
DC offered it in one the first of Anita Freeland's heats.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:23 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:GATEAUS appears to be missing from CountMax, even though it's listed in the ODE2r as an alternative plural spelling for GATEAU.
DC offered it in one the first of Anita Freeland's heats.

GATEAUS appears in my version of Countmax. Hmmm

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:30 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Howard Somerset wrote:GATEAUS appears to be missing from CountMax, even though it's listed in the ODE2r as an alternative plural spelling for GATEAU.
DC offered it in one the first of Anita Freeland's heats.
GATEAUS appears in my version of Countmax. Hmmm

Thanks Kirk. I'm a little bit out of date. I was looking at the output of a wiki run which had been run in September 2007, and had missed GATEAUS. Clearly the CountMax dictionary has been updated since then.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:15 pm

I had GRANITES disallowed, but Soosbury Rules lists is as acceptable.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:29 pm

Apterous uses the same dictionary for everything. The alternative would be far too confusing.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:17 pm

Another mass noun thingy - I recently didn't risk DILUTIONS against Ollie Garner, settling for DILUTION, and DILUTIONS was allowed yet DILUTION is a mass noun. That cost me a Benjamin.

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:45 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:I had GRANITES disallowed, but Soosbury Rules lists is as acceptable.

In the ODE2r GRANITES is explicitly stated at the start of the book as one of the mass nouns that can take a plural. But television doesn't really follow that. Probably best to leave it and just offer ANGRIEST or something next time.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:19 pm

Gary Male wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:I had GRANITES disallowed, but Soosbury Rules lists is as acceptable.
In the ODE2r GRANITES is explicitly stated at the start of the book as one of the mass nouns that can take a plural. But television doesn't really follow that. Probably best to leave it and just offer ANGRIEST or something next time.

But the guidelines you get when you're a contestant state:

Categories of mass nouns that can take a plural:
rocks: e.g. granite/granites, lava/lavas, clay/clays

So this implies that they should allow it. I'd be annoyed if Susie disallowed it when it's in the guidelines you are sent as a contestant before appearing.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:25 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gary Male wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:I had GRANITES disallowed, but Soosbury Rules lists is as acceptable.
In the ODE2r GRANITES is explicitly stated at the start of the book as one of the mass nouns that can take a plural. But television doesn't really follow that. Probably best to leave it and just offer ANGRIEST or something next time.

But the guidelines you get when you're a contestant state:

Categories of mass nouns that can take a plural:
rocks: e.g. granite/granites, lava/lavas, clay/clays

So this implies that they should allow it. I'd be annoyed if Susie disallowed it when it's in the guidelines you are sent as a contestant before appearing.

Why doesn't someone (hint hint) make a dictionary with mass nouns pluralisable or unpluralisable?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:30 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:Another mass noun thingy - I recently didn't risk DILUTIONS against Ollie Garner, settling for DILTION, and DILUTIONS was allowed yet DILUTION is a mass noun.

I believe the spirit of the TV show's rules is essentially that, if a non-contrived sentence using the plural of a mass noun can be readily thought of (the food dishes principle), then it's allowed. I imagine chemists, for example, might often talk of a number of flasks containing the same chemical at different DILUTIONS.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:22 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:I imagine chemists, for example, might often talk of a number of flasks containing the same chemical at different DILUTIONS.

The also talk about making water from two hydrogens and an oxygen...

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:20 pm

All of which just serves to confirm that the mass noun tag is a good idea poorly implemented. If anyone from OUP ever reads this, please give us a pluralisable mass noun tag!

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:54 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Another mass noun thingy - I recently didn't risk DILUTIONS against Ollie Garner, settling for DILTION, and DILUTIONS was allowed yet DILUTION is a mass noun.
I believe the spirit of the TV show's rules is essentially that, if a non-contrived sentence using the plural of a mass noun can be readily thought of (the food dishes principle), then it's allowed. I imagine chemists, for example, might often talk of a number of flasks containing the same chemical at different DILUTIONS.

Fuck right off! Any self respecting chemist would talk about different molarities/(insert quantity calculus units here)

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:59 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:They also talk about making water from two hydrogens and an oxygen...

Yeah but only when we're being lazy. If I were describing a chemical mechanism informally I might say compound X accepts two hydrogens, but on an exam I'd talk about two hydrogen atoms or ions or isotopes or whatever depending on your respective element.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:17 am

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:They also talk about making water from two hydrogens and an oxygen...
Yeah but only when we're being lazy. If I were describing a chemical mechanism informally I might say compound X accepts two hydrogens, but on an exam I'd talk about two hydrogen atoms or ions or isotopes or whatever depending on your respective element.

Even Des O'Connor eventually figured out that the dictionary contains rather a lot of informality.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:35 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:They also talk about making water from two hydrogens and an oxygen...
Yeah but only when we're being lazy. If I were describing a chemical mechanism informally I might say compound X accepts two hydrogens, but on an exam I'd talk about two hydrogen atoms or ions or isotopes or whatever depending on your respective element.
Even Des O'Connor eventually figured out that the dictionary contains rather a lot of informality.

lol I loved those bits.

Des: Isnt that slang?
Susie: Yes but it is also in the dictionary
Des: *brief puzzlement* Okey Doke...

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:35 am

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:I imagine chemists, for example, might often talk of a number of flasks containing the same chemical at different DILUTIONS.
Fuck right off! Any self respecting chemist would talk about different molarities/(insert quantity calculus units here)

Who said I was talking about self-respecting chemists? Presumably the people who create homeopathic placebos (sorry, "remedies") by diluting the active ingredient to the point where there are no molecules of the original compound left are employed as chemists, but I doubt they have much respect for themselves.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:46 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Presumably the people who create homeopathic placebos (sorry, "remedies") by diluting the active ingredient to the point where there are no molecules of the original compound left are employed as chemists, but I doubt they have much respect for themselves.

Interesting question, and totally off-topic, but I wonder how many homeopathists actually believe their own bullshit? Difficult to find out, but honestly I would assume quite a few of them. Seriously, it's amazing what people will believe in.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:03 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:in.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:18 pm

Has JOINDERS been kicked out of the ODE? Just had it disallowed on apterous.

Also, what about MANTEAUX? Not sure about this one, but MANTEAU is OK and a lot of the -EAU words take an x plural.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Paul Howe wrote:Has JOINDERS been kicked out of the ODE? Just had it disallowed on apterous.

Also, what about MANTEAUX? Not sure about this one, but MANTEAU is OK and a lot of the -EAU words take an x plural.

JOINDER is a mass noun plural but they always allow it on the show.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:41 am

My bro just had FANDOMS disallowed in a practice against Prime, but having looked FANDOM up, it is only listed as a noun, not a mass noun.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:08 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:Has JOINDERS been kicked out of the ODE? Just had it disallowed on apterous.

Also, what about MANTEAUX? Not sure about this one, but MANTEAU is OK and a lot of the -EAU words take an x plural.
JOINDER is a mass noun plural but they always allow it on the show.

Oh yeah they've been allowing JOINDERS for years, that should be in there. I seem to think Chris Wills got it against John Rawnsley.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:51 pm

I just had FUNNER disallowed on apterous, which, while admittedly rather clumsy, should be allowed under the:
"single syllable adjectives automatically having comparatives and superlatives allowed" rule.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:56 pm

Julie T wrote:I just had FUNNER disallowed on apterous, which, while admittedly rather clumsy, should be allowed under the:
"single syllable adjectives automatically having comparatives and superlatives allowed" rule.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=789

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:03 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Julie T wrote:I just had FUNNER disallowed on apterous, which, while admittedly rather clumsy, should be allowed under the:
"single syllable adjectives automatically having comparatives and superlatives allowed" rule.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=789

Thanks, Charlie. If Susie has specifically said that it's not allowed, then fair enough.
I agree with those who said that she shouldn't make exceptions to rules, though. It does confuse matters.
Do you know if there any other words that she does this to?

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:59 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:Presumably the people who create homeopathic placebos (sorry, "remedies") by diluting the active ingredient to the point where there are no molecules of the original compound left are employed as chemists, but I doubt they have much respect for themselves.
Interesting question, and totally off-topic, but I wonder how many homeopathists actually believe their own bullshit? Difficult to find out, but honestly I would assume quite a few of them. Seriously, it's amazing what people will believe in.

I used to get given homeopathic remedies as a child. I remember the day after taking a prescribed homeopathic dose I returned to my 'doctor' and he asked me if I'd had any dreams. I told him the semi-remembered dream from the night before (something about factories), upon which he turned his head as though to look at some unseen authority figure and remarked "it worked", with a really serious look on his face. Even as a nine year old boy I thought "lol wat".

Then again, my old GP once read my palm, so who can you trust these days?

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:31 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:in.
I know.

LOL!

Rob Thomas · Post by **Rob Thomas** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:51 pm

Most of the time my risky words are rubbish and I don't bat an eyelid when they are not in. Today, I had "sieged" ruled out in my Daily Duel. I had a nagging sense that it was dodgy as I played it (mainly because it wasn't "besieged"), but its disallowment still caused the left half of my one joined eyebrow to raise slightly in surprise.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:15 pm

Rob Thomas wrote:Most of the time my risky words are rubbish and I don't bat an eyelid when they are not in. Today, I had "sieged" ruled out in my Daily Duel. I had a nagging sense that it was dodgy as I played it (mainly because it wasn't "besieged"), but its disallowment still caused the left half of my one joined eyebrow to raise slightly in surprise.

Were the other letters G A N ?

Rob Thomas · Post by **Rob Thomas** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:13 pm

Sadly no. If they were, I would have been able to release / free / detatch / withdraw my doubts...

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:13 pm

Did VERONALS ever get added back to Apterous? It's been allowed loads of times since Series 49, but since the CDB index is working backwards, I'm not sure how many hits I will get for it. Hmm so why don't I try?

Two so far, although I think it's been allowed more often that than, just the recaps don't exist yet.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 am

OK, I'm gone through all the comments on this thread since the last update and am going to post the new wordlist in the next half hour or so.

The following will be removed from the list:

CARLING
CARLINGS
FILABEG
FILABEGS
MEOW
MEOWED
MEOWING
MEOWS
TAGATIED
TAGATIES
WHITIER
WHITIEST

And this lot will be added:

BENTER
BENTEST
COZENAGES
EUCRITES
FANDOMS
FAUXER
FAUXEST
GRANITES
JOINDERS
KATSINAM
MATTEST
MOHAIRS
PIQUETS
RAREBITS
TAGATIS
VERONALS

If anyone strongly believes that any of the above are wrong, post here quick-smart. Ta!

EDIT: Here is the latest list, anyway. I can always do more tinkering later.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:24 pm

Looks great, good job.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:17 pm

FETTUCINI isn't in anymore of course, but then it's somewhat unlike that those letters will come up. But still...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:55 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:FETTUCINI isn't in anymore of course, but then it's somewhat unlike that those letters will come up. But still...

Also, CAFETIERE isn't in my version of Countmax.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:27 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:FETTUCINI isn't in anymore of course, but then it's somewhat unlike that those letters will come up. But still...
Also, CAFETIERE isn't in my version of Countmax.

Oh shit, yeah, I hadn't realised. Right, new version here.

Keep them coming, I'm going to try to keep this thing reasonably current if I can.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:47 pm

Not necessarily a CountMax error but I think MANIAE should be a word as HERNIAE, MEDIAE etc. are wods.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:05 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:Not necessarily a CountMax error but I think MANIAE should be a word as HERNIAE, MEDIAE etc. are wods.

I presume HERNIAE is an alternative plural of HERNIA, but what is MEDIAE? Clearly not a plural of MEDIA, since that is already a plural.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:07 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote:Not necessarily a CountMax error but I think MANIAE should be a word as HERNIAE, MEDIAE etc. are wods.
I presume HERNIAE is an alternative plural of HERNIA, but what is MEDIAE? Clearly not a plural of MEDIA, since that is already a plural.

A media is a layer in the wall of a blood cell as well.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:11 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:A media is a layer in the wall of a blood cell as well.

Thanks Kai. Just checked and it's listed with that sense in Collins Dictionary. It's not in the online Oxford though for some reason.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:53 pm

Personally, I think MEOW (etc.) should still be allowed, on the basis that under its own entry, it's not specified as being a US spelling, but am willing to concede because it is listed as being such under MIAOW! I can't see anything wrong with TAGATIED (how else would you spell the past tense of TAGATI?), although I can see that perhaps TAGATIES might be iffy. Another case of Oxford being a bit lax by not specifying, I guess.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:59 pm

Don't think VERONALS should be allowed, for exactly the reasons originally given by Kirk.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:09 pm

Mike Brown wrote:I can't see anything wrong with TAGATIED (how else would you spell the past tense of TAGATI?), although I can see that perhaps TAGATIES might be iffy.

Yeah, I agree, especially as TAGATIING pretty much has to stay given that TAGATI is a verb. At the time it seemed wrong taking out TAGATIES and leaving TAGATIED but now I think about it, TAGATIED could probably stay; TAGATI/TAGATIS/TAGATIED/TAGATIING. I'm with you on MEOW as well, but when Julian posted it I assumed it must have changed with the latest revision.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:16 pm

JimBentley wrote:I'm with you on MEOW as well, but when Julian posted it I assumed it must have changed with the latest revision.

The ODE entry hasn't changed, it's just that Susie disallowed it on the September 26th show of last year (which prompted Julian's post). Still think we should probably allow it, though. I'm not even convinced it *is* purely a US spelling, although I think I would always use the admittedly slightly odd MIAOW spelling myself.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:35 pm

Mike Brown wrote:Don't think VERONALS should be allowed, for exactly the reasons originally given by Kirk.

They have allowed it before (as cited above) but the dictionary entry might have changed since. I've just Googled OPALINES on the Countdown Wiki and it only comes up with one hit in the plural (loads in the singular) and it was disallowed - Aaron Webber vs. Anita Freeland. So that gets zero hits as a valid word, and VERONALS at the very least gets two.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:39 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:They have allowed it before (as cited above) but the dictionary entry might have changed since. I've just Googled OPALINES on the Countdown Wiki and it only comes up with one hit in the plural (loads in the singular) and it was disallowed - Aaron Webber vs. Anita Freeland. So that gets zero hits as a valid word, and VERONALS at the very least gets two.

They used to allow the plural of OPALINE on the grounds that it wasn't listed as a mass noun, even though its equivalent MILK-GLASS was (dodgy logic, in my opinion, but I suppose it was kind of following the dictionary to the letter). That anomaly seems to have been addressed by Damian and Susie, so I suspect they would now almost certainly disallow VERONALS because BARBITONE is listed as a mass noun, and I'm pretty certain its plural would be considered verboten.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:44 pm

Mike Brown wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:They have allowed it before (as cited above) but the dictionary entry might have changed since. I've just Googled OPALINES on the Countdown Wiki and it only comes up with one hit in the plural (loads in the singular) and it was disallowed - Aaron Webber vs. Anita Freeland. So that gets zero hits as a valid word, and VERONALS at the very least gets two.
They used to allow the plural of OPALINE on the grounds that it wasn't listed as a mass noun, even though its equivalent MILK-GLASS was (dodgy logic, in my opinion, but I suppose it was kind of following the dictionary to the letter). That anomaly seems to have been addressed by Damian and Susie, so I suspect they would now almost certainly disallow VERONALS because BARBITONE is listed as a mass noun, and I'm pretty certain its plural would be considered verboten.

Hmm I'm on that page now, it says:

noun [mass noun] a long-acting sedative and sleep-inducing drug or the barbituate type.

I think it's somewhat pluralisable because you could take two veronals before you go to sleep (like aspirine). Hmm. I'm now officially on the fence on this one.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:47 pm

Martin Gardner wrote: (like aspirine)

Have to stop you here. It's spelt ASPIRIN.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:13 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote: (like aspirine)

Have to stop you here.

This does not make sense. I am sorry, Kirk.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:23 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote: (like aspirine)

Have to stop you here.
This does not make sense. I am sorry, Kirk.

Just I am not because very good at grammar and construction sentences does not mean have to you pick up on my mistakes.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:01 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote: (like aspirine)

Have to stop you here. It's spelt ASPIRIN.

Ha yes, good spot. I thought it was like adrenalin(e) but no, there's no e. There is one in French, which confused me.

Speaking of aspirin, it says : "noun [mass noun] (pl. same or aspirins)." See brandy for another example of this.

Final word, as I'm bored of talking about it, the plural of VERONALS is somewhat unlikely but at least possible in the sentence "I took two veronals before I went to bed." So if you're allowing anything that's possible, even if unlikely, I say yes to this one.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:24 pm

Velvet just got COZIEST against me on Apterous. Is that not American?

Callum Laddiman · Post by **Callum Laddiman** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:14 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:Velvet just got COZIEST against me on Apterous. Is that not American?

Probrably not, I think it is just another way of spelling it.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:16 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:Velvet just got COZIEST against me on Apterous. Is that not American?

It is indeed listed as cosy (US cozy).

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:06 pm

JimBentley wrote:Right, new version here.

Is there an electronic version available?

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:11 pm

Callum Laddiman wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:Velvet just got COZIEST against me on Apterous. Is that not American?
Probrably not, I think it is just another way of spelling it.

Is probrably another way of spelling probably

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:13 pm

Oliver Garner wrote:
Callum Laddiman wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:Velvet just got COZIEST against me on Apterous. Is that not American?
Probrably not, I think it is just another way of spelling it.
Is probrably another way of spelling probably

Probrably.