c4countdown

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:21 pm**

Gaijin baka desu~ (no I don't know or care if the sentence structure is right, actually speaking Japanese properly is actually very difficult, and thus is not kawaii sugoi desu~)

I had SKULLFUCK disallowed for KUF in a recent Aegilops game. Though, I think I was actually more disappointed that it would only have scored 6 if it were valid than it not being valid.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:25 am**

CODENAMES.

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:42 pm**

Thank you, girlfriend's obsessive fiber arts hobby, for making me think that DESTASH^ is a much, much more logical and sensical word than STASHED.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:40 pm**

BULEMIC.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:27 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:BULEMIC.

Your 5000th post.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:30 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:BULEMIC.

Get your fingers out of your throat for long enough, and you'll find that it's BULIMIC.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:32 pm**

Fucks sake, I knew that. Sums up how well I'm playing these days.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:43 pm**

Yea it's an easy mistake to have made.

In Scrabble BUMELIA (a thorny tree) is a word. So if ABEILMU sits on your rack or comes up on Zyzzyva and you know there's an anagram it's easy to mess things up.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 12:12 am**

BOOMBOX is apparently no good, quite surprised at that.

Also you can be a SKYWRITER, but you can't SKYWRITE.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:03 am**

I had INSINCERENESSES for 15.

INSINCERENESSES? No, I'm afraid not.

...

We managed to find a 13 in SINCERENESSES.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:29 am**

Steve Balog wrote:I had INSINCERENESSES for 15.

INSINCERENESSES? No, I'm afraid not.

...

We managed to find a 13 in SINCERENESSES.

Heh - same case can be made for INSANENESSES (not valid) to SANENESSES (valid)...

Although I suppose in both senses it would have -ITY rather than -NESS(ES). Insincerity and insanity are both more efficient than insincereness(es) and insaneness(es).

Posted: **Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:22 pm**

PHILTRUM.

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:18 pm**

Mark Deeks wrote:PHILTRUM.

Don't get snotty about it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:44 pm**

MISOPHONIA, especially since it's what the introduction was about today. I wondered why they didn't name it. Now I know.

Don't say the word! It will make our dictionary look stupid!

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:50 pm**

Uploader.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:17 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:44 pm MISOPHONIA, especially since it's what the introduction was about today. I wondered why they didn't name it. Now I know.

Don't say the word! It will make our dictionary look stupid!

Also, at the end of the programme today, I noticed on the thing at the bottom of the screen it was talking about their "webpage". Not in I'm afraid!

Posted: **Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:15 pm**

TAVERNER.

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2021 11:39 am**

I've been (badly) playing some Hyper Nasty Letters Attacks recently and knew that RATIONALS was inexplicably not in the dictionary, because I'd confidently declared it before only to have it disallowed (probably more than once knowing me). But I was playing a game just now and DC came out with IRRATIONALS! WTF's going on with that?

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2021 11:53 am**

JimBentley wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 11:39 am I've been (badly) playing some Hyper Nasty Letters Attacks recently and knew that RATIONALS was inexplicably not in the dictionary, because I'd confidently declared it before only to have it disallowed (probably more than once knowing me). But I was playing a game just now and DC came out with IRRATIONALS! WTF's going on with that?

I have no explanation for that bizarre oddity. It’s just totally… oh, what’s the word?

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:06 pm**

Girliest. Wang. The two biggies

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:59 pm**

Thanks for resurrecting this thread.

Why has MEDIAS been taken out again? Is it not the plural of social media? "I have updated the company's social medias."

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:07 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:59 pm Thanks for resurrecting this thread.

Why has MEDIAS been taken out again? Is it not the plural of social media? "I have updated the company's social medias."

It's already a plural. The problem is that the plural is used for the singular too.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:11 pm**

I know that, etymologically speaking, it ought to be a plural noun, but in common usage "social medias" is definitely a thing.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:34 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:11 pm I know that, etymologically speaking, it ought to be a plural noun, but in common usage "social medias" is definitely a thing.

Only among idiots.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:46 pm**

SEEDINGS obviously. A bit of a joke omission.

Edit - Further discussion.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:33 pm**

Yep. Number one on my list of weird omissions too. It's used *all the time* in sport.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:46 pm SEEDINGS obviously. A bit of a joke omission.

Edit - Further discussion.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2022 6:33 pm**

TESSERACT. The 4-dimensional version of a square or cube, for those not in the know.

EDIT: it is in Scrabble though

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2022 7:23 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:46 pm SEEDINGS obviously. A bit of a joke omission.

Edit - Further discussion.

It won the 'most plausible non-word' prize at co:lon, 'coz we've all declared it

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:03 am**

Chirpsy

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:29 am**

What would that mean?

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:16 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:29 am What would that mean?

Flirtatious basically, but specifically in conversation. "Baz was getting all chirpsy with Shaz at the party".

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:31 am**

Adam Gillard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:16 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:29 am What would that mean?
Flirtatious basically, but specifically in conversation. "Baz was getting all chirpsy with Shaz at the party".

I had no idea this word exisited, but CHIRPSE is in as a verb, but there's no listed adjective to go with it.

Interestingly, Apterous has CHIRPSING, as opposed to CHIRPSEING, although Lexico (the free version at least) doesn't specify which would be valid, and neither redirect to CHIRPSE if you enter them. (You can have e.g. WHINGEING and WHINGING.)

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:36 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:31 am
Adam Gillard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:16 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:29 am What would that mean?
Flirtatious basically, but specifically in conversation. "Baz was getting all chirpsy with Shaz at the party".
I had no idea this word exisited, but CHIRPSE is in as a verb, but there's no listed adjective to go with it.

Interestingly, Apterous has CHIRPSING, as opposed to CHIRPSEING, although Lexico (the free version at least) doesn't specify which would be valid, and neither redirect to CHIRPSE if you enter them. (You can have e.g. WHINGEING and WHINGING.)

I feel it would be CHIRPSING only. Compare CORPSING (with laughter).

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm**

Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:23 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.

I suspect the dictionaries are based on frequency analysis of the Oxford Corpus, so Susie's probably right. If CHIRPSY or another word doesn't come up much in the publications used to build the corpus then it won't make the (more selective) dictionaries.

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:52 pm**

Adam Gillard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:23 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.
I suspect the dictionaries are based on frequency analysis of the Oxford Corpus, so Susie's probably right. If CHIRPSY or another word doesn't come up much in the publications used to build the corpus then it won't make the (more selective) dictionaries.

I'm sure that's partly it, though the Corpus is supposed to be a good sample across the spectrum of how English is used, both formal and informal.

But I think also you get old words that are basically never used any more that just stick around (e.g. GOUTINESS). Sometimes newer words get in really quickly seemingly for the headlines, whereas other more boring ones take longer even though they're common enough (I seem to remember some lag around LAGGY). Plus I think offensive words have a higher bar for inclusion.

And SEEDINGS still isn't in.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:23 pm**

How is HAPHAZARDOUS not in!?

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:09 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:23 pm How is HAPHAZARDOUS not in!?

Haphazard is an adjective. How would it be different?

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 9:08 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.

The other day a word came up that Susie said is never used. Can't recall it right now. I'll have a think.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:41 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 9:08 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.
The other day a word came up that Susie said is never used. Can't recall it right now. I'll have a think.

Might have been WAITRON.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 10:55 am**

Uromastyx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uromastyx
Justice for Vulcan.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:36 am**

Unsure why tesseract isn’t in ODP.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:46 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:41 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 9:08 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:28 pm Susie claimed today when a word got disallowed that it's all frequency-based. It definitely isn't.
The other day a word came up that Susie said is never used. Can't recall it right now. I'll have a think.
Might have been WAITRON.

She brought this up again the other day - that no-one uses this word.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:46 am**

Philip A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:36 am Unsure why tesseract isn’t in ODP.

Yeah, bit of a weird omission.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:55 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:46 am
Philip A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:36 am Unsure why tesseract isn’t in ODP.
Yeah, bit of a weird omission.

Falseagram of RASCETTES.

Posted: **Fri Jul 07, 2023 8:51 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:46 am
Philip A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:36 am Unsure why tesseract isn’t in ODP.
Yeah, bit of a weird omission.

but muh low usage frequency!!!11

Posted: **Sun Jul 09, 2023 12:41 pm**

I declared SUBFINITE in a game last month, assuming it would be valid, but it wasn't.... It's a mathematical term.

Posted: **Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:45 am**

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 12:41 pm I declared SUBFINITE in a game last month, assuming it would be valid, but it wasn't.... It's a mathematical term.

A lot of us got burned at Newcastle by bijects not being in. And rationals not being valid still surprises me

Posted: **Mon Jul 10, 2023 8:23 am**

seabass not being in another newcastle entry for ???

(aware it's two words if strictly speaking about the animal but it's not two words on every single food menu i've ever seen)

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2023 2:46 pm**

Beasted.

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:06 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 2:46 pm Beasted.

It's in as a verb so should be in.

will ticket

Posted: **Thu Nov 23, 2023 12:45 pm**

Can’t believe ‘eschalot’ is not in ODP at all!

Posted: **Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:12 am**

Is it me or has there been a QUOINER at one point?

Posted: **Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:56 am**

I was surprised by WEDGIED not being allowed at CO:MK

Posted: **Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:44 pm**

Andres Sanchez wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:12 am Is it me or has there been a QUOINER at one point?

There's QUOITER, QUOILER and QUOINED.

Checking lexplorer, many of the game's best players have gone for it but it's never been in!

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 11:44 am**

Spick, spicker, spickest, spannest. SPAN and SPANNER are in though!

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:34 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 11:44 am Spick, spicker, spickest, spannest. SPAN and SPANNER are in though!

Think it might be spic instead of spick, but honestly I woulda thought the same way as you when I first heard the phrase

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2023 1:12 pm**

From Wikipedia:

The phrase "span-new" meant as new as a freshly cut wood chip, such as those once used to make spoons. In a metaphor dating from at least 1300, something span-new was neat and unstained.

Spic was added in the 16th century, as a "spick" (a spike or nail) was another metaphor for something neat and trim. The British phrase may have evolved from the Dutch spiksplinter nieuw, "spike-splinter new".[7] In 1665, Samuel Pepys used "spicke and span" in his famous diary. The "clean" sense appears to have arisen only recently.[8] The term is completely unrelated to the modern epithet spic.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:22 pm**

Limbic.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:38 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:22 pmLimbic.

Not just me then.

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...