c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:AERIES in but I don't think it should.

AERIE: noun. American spelling of EYRIE.

That says disallowed.

Under EYRIE, it says (N. Amer. also AERIE). I guess this means it should be disallowed?

Do we disallow North American spellings? Or just US spellings?

I thought it was just US spellings. I've posted on this before (on here and Gevincountdown I think). Maybe I'll have a look.

North American spellings have always been OK, I'm sure, it's just those explicitly given as US spellings that aren't kosher.

Add BIMAHS.

Zim Zimahs, who got da keys to my BIMAHS?

Maybe this is just AmEng, so if someone could check I'd appreciate it, but: TEARED should be in, as the past tense of tear in the sense of "to fill with tears".

Andrew Feist wrote:Maybe this is just AmEng, so if someone could check I'd appreciate it, but: TEARED should be in, as the past tense of tear in the sense of "to fill with tears".

The entry for TEAR is quite complicated but, so far as I can tell, that sense isn't listed anywhere, so no TEARED I'm afraid.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Andrew Feist wrote:Maybe this is just AmEng, so if someone could check I'd appreciate it, but: TEARED should be in, as the past tense of tear in the sense of "to fill with tears".

The entry for TEAR is quite complicated but, so far as I can tell, that sense isn't listed anywhere, so no TEARED I'm afraid.

It tears me to hear that.

Do cheeses count in the foodstuffs pluralisation rule? If so, HALLOUMIS is missing.

EDIT: Just seen a post to the same effect above. Sorry.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:HALLOUMIS is probably OK by the food portions in a restaurant rule.

Wouldn't that be a similar argument to OKRAS? (Invalid,and I brought it up a while ago.)

I love how Countdown leads to debates about what constitutes something you'd order in a restaurant

I'd definitely order some HALLOUMI in a restaurant. I probably wouldn't order two HALLOUMIS though, cos it's pretty greasy.

I had wheats disallowed the other day. I know it's mass noun but I thought foods were pluralisable in Countdown rules?

craig wrote:I had wheats disallowed the other day. I know it's mass noun but I thought foods were pluralisable in Countdown rules?

What you're probably thinking of is the 'items on a menu' thing. So for example, you can have LEMONADES because you might ask for "2 lemonades" in a restaurant or whatever. On the other hand, I think you're unlikely to ask for "2 wheats".

Fair enough, I should have known I'd got it wrong. Making up words seems to be my favourite thing to do at the moment.

craig wrote:Fair enough, I should have known I'd got it wrong. Making up words seems to be my favourite thing to do at the moment.

You're in good company there, don't worry.

Although this doesn't seem to completely conform to the rules used on the show, the following link helps to give you an idea:

CONTESTANT GUIDELINES

LINGUINES isn't in...it's listed as a plural noun.

OUTSETS? q.v. yesterday's duel.

Outset is listed as "the outset" so OUTSETS has been added already.

Michael Wallace wrote:

craig wrote:I had wheats disallowed the other day. I know it's mass noun but I thought foods were pluralisable in Countdown rules?

What you're probably thinking of is the 'items on a menu' thing. So for example, you can have LEMONADES because you might ask for "2 lemonades" in a restaurant or whatever. On the other hand, I think you're unlikely to ask for "2 wheats".

Kai Laddiman wrote:Although this doesn't seem to completely conform to the rules used on the show, the following link helps to give you an idea:

CONTESTANT GUIDELINES

quote from guidelines: "Plants e.g. CLOVER - CLOVERS, BARLEY - BARLEYS"

shouldn't WHEATS be allowed then?

Julie T wrote:quote from guidelines: "Plants e.g. CLOVER - CLOVERS, BARLEY - BARLEYS"

shouldn't WHEATS be allowed then?

Susie has disallowed CLOVERS too, much to my annoyance.

Add HELOTRIES.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Add HELOTRIES.

That's what Prince Charles says, isn't it?

Add ASSONATED and ASSONATES....odd omissions.

Delete VENETIAN but keep VENETIANS. VENETIANS is specified with a small v, VENETIAN^ only with a capital.

Add KEYEST.

Should JADEITES be in? I was helping Mike out with his recaps and noticed that JADEITE came up on last Friday's show, and the recap gave JADEITES as a possible 8, yet if you looked at when Susie looked it up in the dictionary on the pencam, it gave JADEITE as a mass noun.

James Robinson wrote:Should JADEITES be in? I was helping Mike out with his recaps and noticed that JADEITE came up on last Friday's show, and the recap gave JADEITES as a possible 8, yet if you looked at when Susie looked it up in the dictionary on the pencam, it gave JADEITE as a mass noun.

There's a few like this, DIORITES is another example. It's because they are rocks and some types of rock can supposedly be pluralised. Personally I think all mass noun plurals should be removed.

Thought YOWZER was ok.

Marc Meakin wrote:Thought YOWZER was ok.

I think this belongs in the "Marc Meakin errors" topic. Nearest I can find it WOWSER.

VERTISOL is missing.
Suprised nobody noticed earlier.

D Eadie wrote:VERTISOL is missing.
Suprised nobody noticed earlier.

Huh? It's in my edition and on apterous.

Quite. I typed in versitol by mistake. Self-chastisement coming.

D Eadie wrote:Self-chastisement coming.

Ha, so that's what you call it.

I'm not sure how the rules work with this (what did we decide?) but if someone offers JIMMYING it would be disallowed as JIMMY is listed and the definition is:

noun & verb US spelling of jemmy

But, if you offered JIMMYING and told Susie to look straight under JEMMY, there it says:

jemmy (also jimmy) and is listed as a verb with no Americanisms in sight, so you'd get the points. Frustratingly odd.

Add WOWEES, WOWEEING, WOWEED as far as I'm aware as it says WOW (also WOWEE) under exclamation but there are subsenses of nouns and verbs and I assume the variant spelling continues through the subsenses.

Add FUNNER and FUNNEST.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Add FUNNER and FUNNEST.

I balked when I heard Susie say yes. Does that mean we should also have GOODER and GOODEST?

Alec Rivers wrote:Does that mean we should also have GOODER and GOODEST?

Anyone fancy a can of worms?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:Does that mean we should also have GOODER and GOODEST?

Anyone fancy a can of worms?

Precisely.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Add FUNNER and FUNNEST.

I balked when I heard Susie say yes. Does that mean we should also have GOODER and GOODEST?

They're completely different cases. GOOD is undeniably an adjective whose inflections happen to be irregular, and are given explicitly in the dictionary. FUN is arguably not an adjective, although if it is (I need to check the dictionary when I get home) its inflections would be FUNER and FUNEST unless otherwise specified.

Charlie Reams wrote: They're completely different cases. GOOD is undeniably an adjective whose inflections happen to be irregular, and are given explicitly in the dictionary. FUN is arguably not an adjective, although if it is (I need to check the dictionary when I get home) its inflections would be FUNER and FUNEST unless otherwise specified.

One sense it is an adjective, Charlie. It mentions FUNNER and FUNNEST in the usage notes, saying it is popular in US English. Notice it's not FUNER or FUNEST.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Add FUNNER and FUNNEST.

I balked when I heard Susie say yes. Does that mean we should also have GOODER and GOODEST?

They're completely different cases. GOOD is undeniably an adjective whose inflections happen to be irregular, and are given explicitly in the dictionary. FUN is arguably not an adjective, although if it is (I need to check the dictionary when I get home) its inflections would be FUNER and FUNEST unless otherwise specified.

Except that the final consonant is doubled if the final vowel is changed by not doing so, e.g. FIT > FITTER. And, yes, FUN is an adjective, as indicated here.

Alec Rivers wrote:Except that the final consonant is doubled if the final vowel is changed by not doing so, e.g. FIT > FITTER.

Says who?

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:FUN is arguably not an adjective

And, yes, FUN is an adjective, as indicated here.

You might find this entry more useful.

Charlie Reams wrote:You might find this entry more useful.

Calm down, Charles. You expressed doubt about FUN being an adjective and I helpfully provided documentation to show that it is. If you thought I was somehow trying to contradict you and be argumentative, then you have a persecution issue.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You might find this entry more useful.

Calm down, Charles. You expressed doubt about FUN being an adjective and I helpfully provided documentation to show that it is. If you thought I was somehow trying to contradict you and be argumentative, then you have a persecution issue.

You still seem confused about what arguably means. Surprisingly though, I managed to remain calm even while looking up words in an online dictionary, and I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise.

So, are you saying you never expressed any doubt about FUN being an adjective?

Alec Rivers wrote:So, are you saying you never expressed any doubt about FUN being an adjective?

I wasn't expressing an opinion, although if you're interested I'm fairly happy to use FUN as an adjective at least informally. I merely said that it's arguable whether it is an adjective, since some dictionaries give it and some don't, and I'm not sure what the ODE's position is until I check it later. Which is exactly what I said at the beginning. Your claim that it definitely is an adjective is simply incompatible with how English works.

I notice you ignored my other question.

Edit: Or until Kirk posts the answer. Hasn't FUNNEST been disallowed before? I seem to remember some controversy about it.

Was it allowed today or something? I hope not because its ghastly.

D Eadie wrote:Was it allowed today or something? I hope not because its ghastly.

Yep.

Add GENTILES.

Hugh Binnie wrote:Add GENTILES.

I'm not convinced.

gentile is an adjective and underneath it says:

noun (Gentile) a person who is not Jewish.

This implies the noun version of the word is only valid with a capital G.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Hugh Binnie wrote:Add GENTILES.

I'm not convinced.

gentile is an adjective and underneath it says:

noun (Gentile) a person who is not Jewish.

This implies the noun version of the word is only valid with a capital G.

I'm not convinced either, now.

I think we had a similar discussion many years ago with FROGGIES and concluded that it's not allowed.

Add APESHIT. It's listed under APE.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Add APESHIT. It's listed under APE.

Good spot, but isn't it part of the phrase "go apeshit"?

Charlie Reams wrote: Good spot, but isn't it part of the phrase "go apeshit"?

Not sure. It's certainly under the phrases section of the entry and says "go ape (chiefly N. America apeshit)"....

So maybe you're right. Seems odd that you'd only ever say it in that phrase.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Seems odd that you'd only ever say it in that phrase.

I suppose you might say it if you were a zoo keeper, but then it would be two words. Not that the ape would care one way or the other about these fine linguistic points or their implications for Countdown.

Marc Meakin wrote:Had something similar happen to me when played I DOSSIER at scrabble and my opponent challeged it twice

I know this was posted months ago, but what did he think would happen to the dictionary in between the first and second challenge?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Had something similar happen to me when played I DOSSIER at scrabble and my opponent challeged it twice

I know this was posted months ago, but what did he think would happen to the dictionary in between the first and second challenge?

You're allowed to re-challenge, because there are quite a lot of opportunities for human error to creep in. I've seen it several times that the adjudicator misreads the hand writing or miskeys the word, so if you're really sure the first challenge was incorrect, it's worth sending it back.

Handwriting? It's on a board isn't it? Oh well - I suppose there can be errors anyway. But I would have thought that would be more about missing words than allowing non-words.

"I'm challenging again."

"Again? I've just looked the word up and seen it in black and white! Either you think I'm a liar or mad!"

Gavin Chipper wrote:Handwriting? It's on a board isn't it? Oh well - I suppose there can be errors anyway. But I would have thought that would be more about missing words than allowing non-words.

"I'm challenging again."

"Again? I've just looked the word up and seen it in black and white! Either you think I'm a liar or mad!"

If only things were so simple... You write it on a paper slip which is collected by a "runner", who carries it to a guy with a computer at the front, who types the word(s) and then marks the paper accordingly, and it's then brought back to you. I think this system dates from manual validation, where you didn't want the player checking to see nearby words in the dictionary and therefore someone else had to do it, but in the days of ubiquitous laptops it's completely pointless.

Just had OATMEALS disallowed which I'm a bit dubious about as whilst its main entry in the ODE is just about the meal, the secondary entry is listed as a foodstuff and therefore (I would have thought) countable? Would've cost me a goatdown pb if I hadn't been so shit at the conundrum.