c4countdown

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:56 pm**

audios

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:09 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios

Usage example?

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:11 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios
Usage example?

Audios, amigo!

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:13 pm**

Michael Wallace wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios
Usage example?
Audios, amigo!

plural of audio.

Also I've put it through here

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:15 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Also I've put it through here

I put in ENTRESOLN, and it gave a 7.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:20 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.

So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:21 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?

"Rhys thinks audios is a word, however he is wrong."

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?

A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.

When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.

"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:23 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?

Hey, we're hungry why don't you go and audios some pizza!

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:24 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.

When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.

"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"

Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:26 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.

When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.

"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"
Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".

In the movie world.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:32 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.

When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.

"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"
Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".
In the movie world.

Have you worked in the movie world for long?

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:51 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".

Well of course it's ridiculous. You don't say "leafs" do you? It's "how are your family's healves?".

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:59 pm**

Well I just hope AUDIOS and AUREOLING are in the OED3.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:05 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".
Well of course it's ridiculous. You don't say "leafs" do you? It's "how are your family's healves?".

Healthes

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:51 am**

duplexing^, as in what the big copier at work does.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:28 am**

Andrew Feist wrote:duplexing^, as in what the big copier at work does.

Doesn't it just make duplexes by copying?

Posted: **Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:40 pm**

Select one of these audios.

Posted: **Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:48 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.

links pls

Posted: **Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:05 pm**

minused or minussed. Can't be bothered checking to see if it's been discussed before.

Posted: **Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:26 pm**

sluttier! How is that not there? The Oxford lexicographers have never been to Worcester, I can tell you

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:59 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.

I can't see any audios to select. Did you forget to put them in?

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:12 am**

Nothings

Posted: **Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:42 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.
I can't see any audios to select. Did you forget to put them in?

It was an example of audios.

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:30 am**

I'm really surprised that RATIONALS^ isn't in. Like the set of rational numbers. (If it were, I would have beaten my Goatdown Letters Attack PB by 12 points!)

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:20 pm**

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:I'm really surprised that RATIONALS^ isn't in. Like the set of rational numbers. (If it were, I would have beaten my Goatdown Letters Attack PB by 12 points!)

And if it were, Chris' last offered word in his heats would have been valid.

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:18 pm**

FALSIE. Susie mentioned only the other day that FALSIES were pads for putting in bras, but apparently you can't have only one of them. What if you've got one breast smaller than the other?

And yes, RATIONALS really ought to be in the dictionary. The argument against inclusion could be that the noun is "rational number" rather than "rational", but "the rationals" is widely used to refer to the set of all rational numbers, and I'm sure I remember using it in that way at school a decade ago.

Posted: **Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:26 pm**

Graeme Cole wrote:FALSIE. Susie mentioned only the other day that FALSIES were pads for putting in bras, but apparently you can't have only one of them. What if you've got one breast smaller than the other?

And yes, RATIONALS really ought to be in the dictionary. The argument against inclusion could be that the noun is "rational number" rather than "rational", but "the rationals" is widely used to refer to the set of all rational numbers, and I'm sure I remember using it in that way at school a decade ago.

The question in both cases is whether the words are really in common usage. In the case of rationals I feel like the answer is yes, at least as much as many of the obscure scientific terms which have made the cut, but I'd have to concede that they're the ones with the zillion-word database.

Posted: **Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:46 pm**

Mauves

Posted: **Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:15 pm**

James Hall wrote:Mauves

As in: The ODE mauves in mysterious ways.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:13 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:As in: The ODE mauves in mysterious ways.

Hehe nice one.

You can surely get reds and greens and things, so why not mauves?

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:05 pm**

James Hall wrote:You can surely get reds and greens and things, so why not mauves?

The justification Susie has given on the show is that 'primary' colours like reds and greens have various shades, while colours like mauve are a shade already and don't have sub-shades. (That's a paraphrase.)

[Edit - And I dare say reds and greens are allowable for snooker as well - "he potted three reds followed by three greens", for example.]

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:10 am**

abrasions - where more than one abrasion happens.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:50 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.

Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:06 am**

Ian Volante wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.
Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!

it is though.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:46 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.
Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!
it is though.

It's not

ABRASION (as in scraping) is in, although it's a mass noun and therefore not pluralised frequently enough to warrant entry into the dictionary. Abration (and any plural thereof) is a misspelling, sorry

I know it's bad luck (and happens to me often enough) but you'll know for next time

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm**

Lesley Hines wrote:ABRASION ... a mass noun and therefore not pluralised frequently enough to warrant entry into the dictionary

Does ABRASION really have no countable subsense in the ODE? I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.

FWIW the NODE did include the countable sense, i.e. an area damaged by scraping or wearing away. Ditto the COD until its non-appearance in the celebrated 10th edition.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:34 pm**

ADHAN and ADHANS, the Islamic call to prayer.

Posted: **Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:42 pm**

Oliver Garner wrote:ADHAN and ADHANS, the Islamic call to prayer.

The usual English version is AZAN

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:21 pm**

Clive Brooker wrote:I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.

You could take out your OED and your OCD in one fell swoop.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:00 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.
You could take out your OED and your OCD in one fell swoop.

** LIKE **

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:11 pm**

ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:05 am**

Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?

Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:08 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?
Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.

Don't know about the "real" dictionary; my dictionary only contains etiolate as a verb and not an adjective.

Posted: **Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:00 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?
Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.

Thanks well I guess that would make sense yeah, it's just that it appears 'Etiolate' is a verb, at least according to google, meaning to "make weak or stunt growth in a plant", or "make pale or sickly", and the example given by google even says "alcohol ETIOLATES your skin". Still, who knows, guess there must be some explanation

Posted: **Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:36 pm**

Andrew Feist wrote:Don't know about the "real" dictionary; my dictionary only contains etiolate as a verb and not an adjective.

3rd edition has ETIOLATED (adj.) and ETIOLATION (noun) but not etiolate^.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:13 pm**

Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:28 pm**

Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides

Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:34 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides
Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?

It's given as a mass noun. I think the fact that Genocide is capitalised in both of Thomas' examples suggests that individual acts (the countable sense) are capitalised generally.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:36 pm**

Kai Laddiman wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides
Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?
It's given as a mass noun.

Yeah I know, but it seems like it should be covered by the "actions" clause (I think the example given is CIRCUMCISIONS). Depends on the wording of the definition.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:41 pm**

genocide noun (mass noun) the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.

I would say yes to the plural, for sure, it makes sense. But my record on these things is not great.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:11 pm**

Oh yeh, sorry, completely forgot about this.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:24 pm**

Good call, Thomas. Post this in the "Countmax errors" thread and I'll eventually fix it maybe perhaps.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:31 pm**

I'm surprised LIGHTBULB isn't there. There must be a joke there somewhere.

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:15 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm surprised LIGHTBULB isn't there.

What did it look like when you realised?

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:30 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm surprised LIGHTBULB isn't there.
What did it look like when you realised?

like

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:05 pm**

Plaices...

you know those fish...

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:23 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Plaices...

you know those fish...

Yeah, I guess it stems from this idiot.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:38 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Plaices...

you know those fish...

Plural is PLAICE, go with SPECIAL instead.

Posted: **Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:34 am**

Tenably. with tenable, untenable and untenably valid seems like tenably should be valid.

c4countdown

Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...