c4countdown

Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 10:31 pm Found a couple recorded as 30s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4419 and this wonderfully ironic entry http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_761)

Also a couple of 29.75s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5293 and http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5326) and a 29.9 after an incorrect 29s buzz (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5050)

Steve Hyde wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 5:22 pm From the Ask Graeme thread:

Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 10:31 pm Found a couple recorded as 30s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4419 and this wonderfully ironic entry http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_761)

Also a couple of 29.75s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5293 and http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5326) and a 29.9 after an incorrect 29s buzz (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5050)

Stewart Gordon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 9:16 pm
(As an aside, I'm puzzled at why IC isn't valid. I get the impression that Roman numerals derive from a way of marking tally sticks, whereby 17 would be IIIIVIIIIXIIIIVII, shortened to XVI. Furthermore, apparently 'subtractive' notation is actually ordinal in origin (IX meaning "the I just before the X" rather than "I subtracted from X"). But by that argument, IC should be valid.)

Stewart Gordon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:53 pm What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:58 pm

Stewart Gordon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:53 pm What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

I agree that they should always show the relevant dictionary page to clarify definitions and contexts, like they used to with the pen-cam.

MATEY and MATY are in fact given as nouns and not exclamations. The plurals are not explicitly listed (a problem with most dictionaries), but Googling suggests that MATEYS and MATIES (as in pirate speak) are fine and therefore should be allowed, whilst ‘matys’ would look odd and ‘matie’ isn’t a word at all.


Definition of matey in English:

matey
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪti/
(also maty)
British English informal
NOUN

Used as a familiar form of address to a man:
don't worry, matey, it 's all part of my plan
that 's my seat, matey
More example sentences
ADJECTIVE (matier, matiest)

Familiar and friendly; sociable:
a matey grin
More example sentences
Derivatives

mateyness
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪtɪnɪs/
(also matiness)
NOUN


Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid. The dictionary should always be followed. So for example, EUREKAS is valid – eureka moments are eurekas – but ‘wilcos’ and ‘cheerios’ are not valid as the dictionary does not give ‘as noun’ contexts.

Separately, recently suggested ‘paralyze’ is not valid as -YZE is the US spelling. I see no evidence that suggests -YZE is the original.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:14 pm

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:58 pm

Stewart Gordon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:53 pm What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

I agree that they should always show the relevant dictionary page to clarify definitions and contexts, like they used to with the pen-cam.

MATEY and MATY are in fact given as nouns and not exclamations. The plurals are not explicitly listed (a problem with most dictionaries), but Googling suggests that MATEYS and MATIES (as in pirate speak) are fine and therefore should be allowed, whilst ‘matys’ would look odd and ‘matie’ isn’t a word at all.


Definition of matey in English:

matey
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪti/
(also maty)
British English informal
NOUN

Used as a familiar form of address to a man:
don't worry, matey, it 's all part of my plan
that 's my seat, matey
More example sentences
ADJECTIVE (matier, matiest)

Familiar and friendly; sociable:
a matey grin
More example sentences
Derivatives

mateyness
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪtɪnɪs/
(also matiness)
NOUN


Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid. The dictionary should always be followed. So for example, EUREKAS is valid – eureka moments are eurekas – but ‘wilcos’ and ‘cheerios’ are not valid as the dictionary does not give ‘as noun’ contexts.

Separately, recently suggested ‘paralyze’ is not valid as -YZE is the US spelling. I see no evidence that suggests -YZE is the original.

Susie has suggested (twice I think) that cheerios would be allowed

Adam Dexter wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:01 pm

Stewart Gordon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 9:16 pm
(As an aside, I'm puzzled at why IC isn't valid. I get the impression that Roman numerals derive from a way of marking tally sticks, whereby 17 would be IIIIVIIIIXIIIIVII, shortened to XVII. Furthermore, apparently 'subtractive' notation is actually ordinal in origin (IX meaning "the I just before the X" rather than "I subtracted from X"). But by that argument, IC should be valid.)

I could be entirely wrong here, but I always thought that you couldn't subtract a number more than one magnitude smaller than the number you're subtracting from.

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:58 pm Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid.