A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Yeah, but that's a different kettle of clovers altogether. If CLOVER was simply the plural, that would mean you have the concept of a clover, and it would list the plural specifically. Mass noun means you can't refer to a clover.cheekbones3 wrote:Nah, CLOVER to me is singular and plural, although you're almost swaying me with referral to all those four-leaved clovers...
OPALINE isn't actually even a mass noun. Well, it is, but it isn't - unless the way Dictionary Corner use the dictionary has changed recently? The way the rules on mass nouns were always interpreted by Dictionary Corner when I was watching regularly (2000-2003) was that the [mass noun] marker had to be actually next to the word in the dictionary, for it to be a mass noun. So even with words like OPALINE, where the definition is simply "another term for MILK-GLASS", and MILK-GLASS is marked as a mass noun, OPALINE would not be considered a mass noun because it doesn't have that marker actually next to it. This was the case even before the current mass nouns rule came in, i.e. when all plurals of words marked [mass noun] were definitely not allowed.Charlie Reams wrote:Everyone loves arguing about mass noun plurals, and this seems like an ideal place to do it.
So I will begin by saying, OPALINES should be allowed.
http://thecountdowncorral.com/cd/recap.asp?recap=1131juj wrote:This never seemed very logical to me - if word Y is defined simply as "another term for word X", and word X is a mass noun, surely word Y is as well - but the rule was at least clear. Have DC started disallowing OPALINES or similar words recently?Charlie Reams wrote:Everyone loves arguing about mass noun plurals, and this seems like an ideal place to do it.
So I will begin by saying, OPALINES should be allowed.
Julian
I know my NODE is out of date, but I think the principle still applies. Mass nouns are obviously a dodgy issue. But to quote from my NODE:Julian wrote:Re the point made by the master himself: ALIMONY is indeed a mass noun, although of course that doesn't necessarily mean ALIMONIES wouldn't be allowed (it's a great spot incidentally - I certainly didn't think of it). Any views on whether DC would allow it, if a contestant offered it? If it helps, the full definition of ALIMONY in ODE2r is: "A husband's (or wife's) provision for a spouse after separation or divorce; maintenance"...
By "recorded" they presumably mean:Occasionally, a mass noun may be used in the plural, with the sense of 'different types of X' or 'portions of X', as in the panel tasted a range of bacons. Such uses are recorded in the New Oxford Dictionary of English only when they are particularly important.
So obviously even if a word indicated to be a mass noun is not also recorded as a count noun, it might still be "a word", but just not important enough to mention, which is where the confusion of the mass noun rule comes from.[count noun]: used to mark those nouns (and senses of nouns) which can take a plural and can be used with 'a', where this is in contrast with an already stated mass noun. By default, in this dictionary all nouns are to be regarded as count nouns unless otherwise stated.
However, there are still clear-cut cases, as I am about to demonstrate. Here's another quote from the old NODE.
Obviously ALIMONY ends in a Y, so this could be a way of finding an answer. But would the NODE only lists the plurals in these cases if the count noun version of the word is "important enough" to be specified? Well, let's look at a couple of examples:Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh, or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown.
Other plural forms are given in the dictionary, notably for:
[...]
nouns ending in -y, e.g. fly -> flies
BRANDY - mass noun, not listed as count noun but plural given as BRANDIES.
So, yes, the NODE will give a plural if it deems it to be a word, regardless of its "importance". So now the acid test.
ALIMONY - mass noun, not listed as count noun, no plural given.
So no, ALIMONIES should not be allowed, as long as the current dictionary is similar to my NODE in this respect. There was a similar discussion about PENURIES on the gevincountdown group, which was allowed despite no plural being listed.
The same acid test exists for words ending in -I and -O.
What, like this?Howard Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.Phil Reynolds wrote:I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.
I'm issuing you a brownie point Ian. Or as the French don't call it, un pointe-volante.Ian Volante wrote:What, like this?Howard Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.Phil Reynolds wrote:I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.
As you've just replied to a post made earlier today, I would have to say no.Ian Volante wrote:What, like this?Howard Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.Phil Reynolds wrote:I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.
Yay, I'm usually utterly pointless!Sue Sanders wrote:I'm issuing you a brownie point Ian. Or as the French don't call it, un pointe-volante.Ian Volante wrote:What, like this?Howard Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.
Damn your eyes and your pedantry!Phil Reynolds wrote:As you've just replied to a post made earlier today, I would have to say no.Ian Volante wrote:What, like this?Howard Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.
Shouldn't that be pedantries?Ian Volante wrote:Damn your eyes and your pedantry!
Then it all makes senseHoward Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old person and replying to them.
Dinos Sfyris wrote:PEDANTRIES = PEDESTRIAN
Excellent, Dinos!A PEDESTRIAN = IN A PEDERASTDinos Sfyris wrote:PEDANTRIES = PEDESTRIAN
Bastard!Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe Ian read it as:Then it all makes senseHoward Somerset wrote:The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old person and replying to them.
Months without any pederasts, and then two come up at once!Sue Sanders wrote:A PEDESTRIAN = IN A PEDERAST
