How To Better Rule Monosyllabic Adjective Inflections?

[Philip A]

I am of the opinion that Apterous is now pushing the monosyllabic adjective rule too far and allowing non-standard words like ‘innest’ ‘chiefer’ and ‘wornest’. There have even been suggestions such as ‘seccer’. Here’s how I’d adjust it.

Any word which appears in the Oxford Dictionary (Premium version) is allowed on Countdown, as well as standard inflections of nouns, verbs and adjectives.

A standard English dictionary in print or online, such as premium.oxforddictionaries.com (Countdown’s website dictionary which Susie Dent uses) typically does not specify all inflections – conjugated word forms – for all headwords. For example: the words ESCAPES, ESCAPED and ESCAPING are not in the dictionary but are of course words, and therefore allowable. They are logically and grammatically correct, unlike ‘escapeing’ which is a non-standard spelling and therefore not allowable in the game; comparative and superlative forms such as GREATER and GREATEST are also not listed, but are also allowable and logical words.

The aim of Oxford Dictionaries Premium (ODP) is to educate English as it is used. The recent expurgation of words from the historical Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has helped better achieve this aim as the OED content was flawed – the historical words gave no guidance on inflections, including contentious forms of ‘outsee’ such as ‘outseed’, and those of ‘outlie’ such as ‘outlain’ (and don’t get me started on the word ‘mxedrulis’!).

While ODP isn’t perfect and not free from a paywall, it is accurate, reliable and free from advertisements.

Some inflections are given to offer the user unambiguous guidance on how to spell them and sometimes, in any case, can be used. For example, if you describe something as more chic (more fashionable in other words) would you write ‘chicker’ or ‘chicer’? The answer is the latter; the sub-entries, or run-off entries as they are also known, give the words ‘chicer’ and ‘chicest’.

Regular viewers of Countdown will be aware of a guideline for allowing comparatives and superlatives of adjectives which have one syllable. That guideline is if an adjective has one syllable, the comparative ‘-er’ and superlative ‘-est’ forms need NOT be specified in the dictionary to be allowed (hence, GREATER and GREATEST, RIGHTER and RIGHTEST, DEADER and DEADEST are all valid. The last two pairs look odd, but I’ll return to those later).

However, this rule is flawed.

What if you applied this to all monosyllabic adjectives in the dictionary?

Well, for a start, that would mean ‘gooder’ and ‘goodest’ would be valid; neither are allowable on Countdown nor Apterous because the correct forms are BETTER and BEST.

Secondly, it would warrant nonsense ‘-eder’ and ‘-edest’ words. Most people used PAINED, but who on earth would use ‘painder’ and ‘paindest’? You would say, ‘more pained’ or ‘most pained’. An animal is either horned or not horned, not more/most horned, nor ‘horneder’ or ‘the hornedest’. These did use to be allowable on Apterous years ago, before they were sensibly culled after some discussion; with at least one contentious exemption, TIREDER and TIREDEST, which I will come to later. Of course, REDDER and REDDEST are words (and specified under ‘red’).

Let’s take a look a few contentious pairs. These below are currently valid on Apterous, but may not necessarily be allowed on Countdown:

BRUTER, BRUTEST (brut wine)
CHIEFER, CHIEFEST (chief meaning most important or highest rank)
DUSKER, DUSKEST (does dusk really compare? Dusker has been disallowed by Susie Dent)
FARSER, FARSEST (farse)
FEINTER, FEINTEST (feint meaning to denote paper with faded lines)
JOINTEST (JOINTER already valid as a noun; something is either joint or not joint, not more/most joint, not ‘jointer’ or ‘the jointest’)

JOINTEST does have an anagram: JETTISON.

If you type these on the Oxford Dictionaries Premium website, none of the above direct to BRUT, CHIEF, DUSK, FARSE, FEINT or JOINT.

There’s a good reason why they don’t direct – they don’t make sense. Countdown usually ignores direction for adjudication, possibly due to inconsistencies with plurals of mass nouns (generally not allowable), nouns marked [IN SINGULAR] and nouns only given as “the…” such as “the beyond”. But it does appear to work better and be fairer with monosyllabic adjectives and their inflections.

In grammar, whilst adjectives may be attributive, they may not always compare. For example, the word MAIN is attributive, but it does not compare, so someone or something cannot be ‘mainer’ or ‘mainest’; these were removed from Apterous in October 2024, and this seems sensible.

In my view, the inflections mentioned above should also be removed from Apterous and disallowed on Countdown as they do not direct to a main word entry (or headword as it is called). ‘Tireder’ and ‘tiredest’ should also not be allowable in the game as they are not listed and TIRED ends in -ED.

When a comparative or superlative directs to a specific definition, it can give the user guidance as to what sense it would be used. For example, typing “deader” directs to definition 1.1: “(Of a part of the body) having lost sensation; numb:” While a person cannot be deader, a leg can feel deader than the next (one could even have the DEADEST body part), so DEADER and DEADEST are allowable. RIGHTER and RIGHTEST also direct to definition 2. Okay, these look odd, but as yet they direct and Dent has allowed RIGHTER twice in recent series. (Words being in a dictionary depend on the lexicographers; in this case, the Oxford University Press)

The rule is different for adjectives with two syllables in that inflections must be specified (direct or not) which I think is a fair rule and shouldn’t be changed. But for one-syllable adjectives, my rule would be this:

If an adjective has one syllable, the comparative and superlative must take the website to the corresponding headword page to be allowed, even if they are not specified (not listed, in other words)

Basically:

1 syllable direct, 2 syllables listed.

This, in my view, would be a more logical and fairer rule than applying the current rule to all monosyllabic adjectives by default.

TL;DR

- Don’t apply the rule to all monosyllabic adjectives by default!
- Sensible, grammatical and logical inflections only!
- Use direction to judge validity of conjugations of monosyllabic adjectives.

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm not sure the rule forces words like gooder and goodest, as surely BETTER and BEST are listed as the comparative and superlative, so this would override them.

I use the words mainer and mainest all the time. I realise that this is probably not particularly standard, but I do use them. I talk about e.g. characters in a film being mainer than others.

TIREDEST was actually allowed by Susie on a Cats game once. The discussion on the show was about whether TIRED was one syllable or not, rather than whether sticking ER or EST on the end would be OK if it was.

But there has been a lot of discussion in the past about EDER and EDEST words. See e.g. this Apterous ticket which also links to others on the subject.

But anyway, your primary idea seems on the surface a good one, and I used to think the same. However, there was a long discussion in 2015 about using redirects as a validity checker, and it was ultimately decided to be a bit rubbish. Maybe the dictionary is better at it now, but it would need to be thoroughly tested.

[David Roe]

I don't disagree with anything you say about the one-syllable words.

However, with the two-syllable word that end in Y, I would allow the comparative. Happier, Jollier, Prettier, Grumpier (in case you think I'm too cheerful!) are all standard inflections and would no doubt be in the dictionary, but I think the principle extends to all two-syllable Y adjectives and would like to see that rule changed. Unless I'm missing something that negates the argument?

[Fiona T]

But there are also two syllable adjectives with redirects (e.g. yellower/yellowest) which seem just as valid.

As Gav says, BETTER and BEST as specified, so gooder and goodest would not be permitted.

The annoying thing is that if this stuff is in the data behind the dictionary (which it must be if the redirects work) then why do they stick it on some pages and not others. (Same with plurals and verb inflections)

But it's not what you'd do or what I'd do, it's what Susie does that apterous needs to reflect, and she seems to apply the one syllable rule (I had fakest allowed, albeit 5(!) years ago now and that doesn't redirect)

[Philip A]

I think what causes the issue is not the dictionary, but interpretation.

Mistakes can and do happen during recordings, but they do learn lessons from these to help better rule these things for future. For example tney used to disallow words which contained diacritics, but not any more.

YOLKED was disallowed in a Grand Final, after which they realised it actually was valid as YOLK is a verb, so as a kind gesture they awarded the runner-up the full OED, identical to the prize formerly awarded to the series champion.

HEDARIM was initially disallowed, but after they realised it was a plural of HEDER (like CHEDER > CHEDARIM), the decision was reversed and the 7 points were reinstated.

They once spent 5 minutes debating ‘medias’.

‘Shoutier’ which isn’t listed, was allowed (presumably by accident). This wasn’t added to Apterous and it’ll probably be disallowed next time.

I like to think my original suggestion here, for monosyllabic adjectives specifically, is reasonable and worthy of consideration. I don’t think ‘worner’ and ‘wornest’ are words.

[Fiona T]

I think what causes the issue is not the dictionary, but interpretation.

Mistakes can and do happen during recordings, but they do learn lessons from these to help better rule these things for future. For example tney used to disallow words which contained diacritics, but not any more.

YOLKED was disallowed in a Grand Final, after which they realised it actually was valid as YOLK is a verb, so as a kind gesture they awarded the runner-up the full OED, identical to the prize formerly awarded to the series champion.

HEDARIM was initially disallowed, but after they realised it was a plural of HEDER (like CHEDER > CHEDARIM), the decision was reversed and the 7 points were reinstated.

They once spent 5 minutes debating ‘medias’.

‘Shoutier’ which isn’t listed, was allowed (presumably by accident). This wasn’t added to Apterous and it’ll probably be disallowed next time.

I like to think my original suggestion here, for monosyllabic adjectives specifically, is reasonable and worthy of consideration. I don’t think ‘worner’ and ‘wornest’ are words.

It's very reasonable (but should probably extend beyond 1-syllable) but apterous needs to reflect the show's rulings.

[Gavin Chipper]

Diacritics? Oh, accents.

As discussed elsewhere COD 8 and 9 had a specific rule about -EDER and -EDEST words:

Words of one syllable adding -er or -est, those ending in silent e dropping the e (e.g. braver, bravest) are regarded as regular. Most one-syllable words have these forms, but participial adjectives (e.g. pleased) do not.

I'm not sure why this disappeared but Countdown could take on this rule. Though it seems that would mean getting rid of words like DRUNKER as well.

But as said, your suggestion of using redirects was discussed about 10 years ago and it wasn't reliable enough so we'd need to see evidence that it does a better job now.

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't disagree with anything you say about the one-syllable words.

However, with the two-syllable word that end in Y, I would allow the comparative. Happier, Jollier, Prettier, Grumpier (in case you think I'm too cheerful!) are all standard inflections and would no doubt be in the dictionary, but I think the principle extends to all two-syllable Y adjectives and would like to see that rule changed. Unless I'm missing something that negates the argument?

Most of these are listed so where they aren't I don't think the dictionary needs to be overruled. There might be some weird omissions but there are probably lots of weird omissions from the dictionary in general.

It's very reasonable (but should probably extend beyond 1-syllable) but apterous needs to reflect the show's rulings.

The problem only exists for one-syllable adjectives because the others need to be listed so no ridiculous words would get in from adjectives that have two or more syllables.

[Robert Foster]

If I were to suggest a rule that would take Countdown closer to identifying a sensible set of inflections using only the dictionary entry itself (no subjective judgment call needed), it would be to disallow any -er/-est forms for adjectives marked [attributive] or [predicative]. This isn't strictly what those markings mean but there seems to be a very strong correlation between adjectives that are marked in this way and adjectives where an -er/-est form is extremely awkward.

This would prevent inflected forms of e.g. main, front, back, rear, hind, fore, joint, in, out, down, up, head, to name a few.

It wouldn't do anything to prevent inflected forms of any of the other edge cases which aren't notated with anything special in the dictionary entry e.g. haute, sec, feint, brut, key.

If anyone can find examples of [attributive] or [predicative] adjectives where -er/-est forms seem totally sensible then that bursts my bubble. But I haven't encountered any yet!

[David Roe]

[Edit - double post, sorry]

[David Roe]

Another "nonsense but allowable" single syllable adjective's comparative that occurred to me in the dark watches of the night is "CHASTER", "CHASTEST". It really doesn't feel like a word.

[Fiona T]

In this thread Ray suggests that "past tense" adjectives should not be comparable unless specified.

So that covers your -ED words, as well as WORN, BLOWN (blowner and blownest not currently valid on apto), FOUND, LOST etc...

That seems sensible, but WWSD?


Edit - that's what Gav said!

[Fiona T]

If I were to suggest a rule that would take Countdown closer to identifying a sensible set of inflections using only the dictionary entry itself (no subjective judgment call needed), it would be to disallow any -er/-est forms for adjectives marked [attributive] or [predicative]. This isn't strictly what those markings mean but there seems to be a very strong correlation between adjectives that are marked in this way and adjectives where an -er/-est form is extremely awkward.

This would prevent inflected forms of e.g. main, front, back, rear, hind, fore, joint, in, out, down, up, head, to name a few.

It wouldn't do anything to prevent inflected forms of any of the other edge cases which aren't notated with anything special in the dictionary entry e.g. haute, sec, feint, brut, key.

If anyone can find examples of [attributive] or [predicative] adjectives where -er/-est forms seem totally sensible then that bursts my bubble. But I haven't encountered any yet!

I could have sworn I found an everyday example recently, but my search history turns up nothing.

WWSD (what would Susie do) - In this very recent episode the contestant didn't risk VOGUEST, which Susie confirmed would have been fine. (vogue is marked as attributive) https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_8337

https://premium.oxforddictionaries.com/ ... glish/fond - possible example where "fond of" is the only example not marked as attributive, but agree as a general rule it seems sensible.

[Philip A]

Rob’s and Fiona’s suggestions are probably better than my OP of relying on redirect TBH – some interesting and sound input. I think redirection is best ignored for now. After this discussion, I do agree the rule shouldn’t apply to adjectives labelled [attributive] such as ‘main’. Indeed, adjectives can be past participles as well as verbs, such as ‘worn’ and ‘lost’ (you can google this) and I also agre the rule shouldn’t apply to those either. (Note that ‘blunt’ is not a past participle so the -er/-est forms are fine, as are sharper/est; the past participle is ‘blunted’)

As for adjectives that are neither past participles nor labelled [attributive], I don’t think their derivatives can be fairly policed. As weird as e.g. ‘chiefer’ and ‘chiefest’ look, I think these are better kept for now until OUP say otherwise.

[Fiona T]

Rob’s and Fiona’s suggestions are probably better than my OP of relying on redirect TBH – some interesting and sound input. I think redirection is best ignored for now. After this discussion, I do agree the rule shouldn’t apply to adjectives labelled [attributive] such as ‘main’. Indeed, adjectives can be past participles as well as verbs, such as ‘worn’ and ‘lost’ (you can google this) and I also agre the rule shouldn’t apply to those either. (Note that ‘blunt’ is not a past participle so the -er/-est forms are fine, as are sharper/est; the past participle is ‘blunted’)

As for adjectives that are neither past participles nor labelled [attributive], I don’t think their derivatives can be fairly policed. As weird as e.g. ‘chiefer’ and ‘chiefest’ look, I think these are better kept for now until OUP say otherwise.

Now you just have to convince Susie

[Philip A]

HUNGEST is one I’d like to see the back of, but I think a vote on this would lead to a hung parliament.