c4countdown

Spoilers

2nd numbers: (25+6) x (9x4-5) -3

Loving the Joe Lycett dance to the end credits - Susie even tried to join in today (briefly!)

1st numbers alternative: 7 * (9 + 4) * 10 + 9 * 1

I have trouble believing Susie managed to make this fundamental error: "Yes, same in the plural. It's a mass noun, in other words." Somebody of her standing certainly shouldn't be confusing the two concepts.

Stewart Gordon wrote:I have trouble believing Susie managed to make this fundamental error: "Yes, same in the plural. It's a mass noun, in other words." Somebody of her standing certainly shouldn't be confusing the two concepts.

What was the word? I'm not saying that your nitpicking is wrong, but I can think of plenty of cases where Susie would be right, at least in the obvious sense of common usage.

Joe asked if TINSELS would be valid. So TINSEL is the word that Susie was claiming is singular, plural and a mass noun all at the same time. (Which might actually be true of some words, but they would be distinct subcategories of noun to which the word belongs, not ways of saying the same thing.)

Stewart Gordon wrote:Joe asked if TINSELS would be valid. So TINSEL is the word that Susie was claiming is singular, plural and a mass noun all at the same time. (Which might actually be true of some words, but they would be distinct subcategories of noun to which the word belongs, not ways of saying the same thing.)

From the way you originally couched it, that's not the same thing at all. She was taking a shortcut really, wasn't she? Rather than explain the minutae of the mass noun rule and how it may or may not be applied to the word, she was saying that TINSEL in the plural is the same word as TINSEL in the singular. Which is entirely correct in context, as a display consisting of many strands of tinsel would still be referred to as "tinsel", just as a single piece would be.

You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense. Speaking nonsense in the name of saving time is a false economy.

I'm pretty sure her usual "shortcut" explanation is "you can't pluralise it"....

(7x(3+3)+50)x9=838

Peter Mabey wrote:(7x(3+3)+50)x9=838

That's 828, and today is 22 November.

Sorry - saw Tuesday on this thread, so jumped in assuming today - and then posted without checking to get in quickly

I'll make a new thread. I haven't done a bulk load in a while.

Stewart Gordon wrote:You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense.

Of course not. You would speak of a strand of tinsel, or five strands of tinsel. And when you had assembled those strands of tinsel, you would refer to the assemblage as "a display of tinsel". I still don't know how else Susie could have handled this one.

JimBentley wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:You wouldn't speak of "a tinsel" or "five tinsel", therefore it's nonsense.

Of course not. You would speak of a strand of tinsel, or five strands of tinsel. And when you had assembled those strands of tinsel, you would refer to the assemblage as "a display of tinsel". I still don't know how else Susie could have handled this one.

I've just looked up the definition and it says that it's a mass noun, but doesn't mention the plural being the same. So Susie would just say that it's a mass noun. It's possible that she just "mis-spoke" with the plural being the same bit, and moved swiftly onto it being a mass noun afterwards.