c4countdown

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

Not according to ODE it's not.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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

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

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

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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.)

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?

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

Add EQUALISATIONS = EQUALIZATIONS.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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..."

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

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

JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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]

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.)

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!

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!

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.

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).

JackHurst wrote:JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.

I just had JUSTEST disallowed.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

JackHurst wrote:JUSTER and JUSTEST need adding.

I just had JUSTEST disallowed.

Such an injustest.

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

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.

REINSTAL(S) should be in.

FUCKABLE should also be in.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.