The funnest topic ever

[Kirk Bevins]

What I really really really do not understand is how Susie disallowed FUNNEST. FUN is a single syllable adjective. She even said later the same show that any single syllable adjective can have ER or EST put on them and they don't have to specified (when the challenger got LITHER). How can she be so contradictive?

[David O'Donnell]

She said there was a specific note forbidding it.

[Paul Howe]

I think I agree with Kirk on this one, if you publicise the rule that all single syllable adjectives can be extended by -EST, then you have to allow it. Contestants can't be expected to know a list of exceptions.

[Martin Gardner]

While mine is not the current edition, FUNNEST is fine in my NODE. It doesn't say "not comparable" so I'd have to allow it.

Martin

[Martin Gardner]

She said there was a specific note forbidding it.

That'd be alright then, but I think it's a word. "That was the funnest day out I've had in months" not brilliant English, I grant you, but English all the same.

[Martin Gardner]

Technically if it's not specified, wouldn't it be FUNER and FUNEST? If it doesn't specify that you double the N, you don't, right? Then they'd have to allow FUNER and FUNEST which they don't want to.

Martin

[Jon O'Neill]

Technically if it's not specified, wouldn't it be FUNER and FUNEST? If it doesn't specify that you double the N, you don't, right? Then they'd have to allow FUNER and FUNEST which they don't want to.

Martin

[Martin Gardner]

It says the same thing in my dictionary (word for word, as far as I can see) and in that case, if it's not specified, you don't double the consonant. So at a Co-event I think I'd be obligated to allow FUNEST.

Martin

[Charlie Reams]

Yep, I think Martin is right here, but it sure is horrible.

[Paul Howe]

Technically if it's not specified, wouldn't it be FUNER and FUNEST? If
it doesn't specify that you double the N, you don't, right? Then they'd
have to allow FUNER and FUNEST which they don't want to.

Martin

Hmm, I didn't think of that. I'm tempted to say "use some common sense" but I'd look daft as before I insisted on strict aherence to the rules. It's a bit of a pickle really.

[Joseph Bolas]

Commiserations to Debbi, but well done for winning 6 games. It is a pity you didn't become an Octochamp, but you will definitely back for the finals, so am looking forward to that. Plus I also believe you have knocked Neil off the top stop in the seed list, so I also love you for that

[Julian Fell]

I think the rule re adding -ER and -EST to single-syllable adjectives is that it's allowed within reason - I think Damian said once that truly ridiculous examples like SOLER and LONEST wouldn't be allowed.

Obviously these would have to reach a very high standard of ludicrousness to be disallowed - so even unnatural-sounding extensions like RIGHTEST are ok; I suppose it's just about imaginable that it might be used in a sentence. Likewise PRONER / PRONEST, which Charlie brought up elsewhere.

However I think (and I really hope, for the sake of the language) that the likes of MAINEST (suggested somewhere by Martin/Gevin) and FUNER / FUNEST would be disallowed.

[Charlie Reams]

I think the rule re adding -ER and -EST to single-syllable adjectives is that it's allowed within reason

I really hope this isn't the case. FUNER and FUNEST are certainly ridiculous but confusing contestants with such an ambiguous rule is much worse. Until OUP sort their act out and publish a dictionary which actually makes sense, I think we just have to accept the existence of some occasional oddments.

[Julian Fell]

confusing contestants with such an ambiguous rule

Well they were happy enough to do that re the mass-nouns rule, which is an issue far more often than things like FUNEST / LONEST ever are...

The NODE, ODE2 and ODE2r do make sense, anyway. Like I keep saying, you'll never find a general-use dictionary which doesn't ever throw up anomalies / grey areas when used in word games like Countdown. It just isn't possible. The only way to be absolutely certain about every single word which is allowed and every single word which isn't, would be to use as the authority an abstract and arbitrary word list instead of an actual dictionary, and IMHO that would be the end of Countdown if it ever happened. A small amount of uncertainty around the 'fringes' is necessary if you want to keep things reasonably aligned with how language is actually used in the real world.

Still don't like the mass-nouns rule though - I see that as unnecessary uncertainty

[Kevin Thurlow]

It would solve a lot of problems if fun (a noun) weren't used as an adjective. There's too much of this sort of thing - using two nouns consecutively like, "We had a fun time". "There was a hostage situation" etc.

Ghastly - isn't it?

They'll be allowing "text-speak" next, introducing numbers into word games, so you could get L8R for 5.......

I know the Oxford reflects practical use of English, but surely it could have a comment like, "Only common, vulgar and stupid people use this, but we have included it, despite the fact that the sight of garbage like this on our pages makes us want to vomit uncontrollably."

Kevin

[Damian E]

Taken from the dictionary entry for FUN........

USAGE

The use of FUN as an adjective meaning 'enjoyable', as in we had a fun evening, is not fully accepted in standard English and should only be used in informal contexts. There are signs that this situation is changing though, given the recent appearance in US English of comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest, forms as if fun were a normal adjective.

I think it was fairly disallowed, but can understand why some think it should have stood.

[Jon O'Neill]

It would solve a lot of problems if fun (a noun) weren't used as an adjective. There's too much of this sort of thing - using two nouns consecutively like, "We had a fun time". "There was a hostage situation" etc.

Ghastly - isn't it?

They'll be allowing "text-speak" next, introducing numbers into word games, so you could get L8R for 5.......

I know the Oxford reflects practical use of English, but surely it could have a comment like, "Only common, vulgar and stupid people use this, but we have included it, despite the fact that the sight of garbage like this on our pages makes us want to vomit uncontrollably."

Kevin

It's truly awful. Why just yesterday I ate some tomato soup, went into my vegetable garden and vomited in just the way you described! I threw my can opener in the bin in disgust!

[Damian E]

Should have stuck to Box's Pizza.

[Jason Larsen]

I think, "most fun" would be allowed, but I'm not sure if you can use compound words!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It's truly awful. Why just yesterday I ate some tomato soup, went into my vegetable garden and vomited in just the way you described! I threw my can opener in the bin in disgust!"

Nice one Jono! I suspect in those cases the words should be hyphenated, or maybe put together in the way German compound words are.... it just proves that you cannot make rules to cover everything.

Anyway, funnest or funest is horrible.

[Martin Gardner]

I think the rule re adding -ER and -EST to single-syllable adjectives is that it's allowed within reason

I really hope this isn't the case. FUNER and FUNEST are certainly ridiculous but confusing contestants with such an ambiguous rule is much worse. Until OUP sort their act out and publish a dictionary which actually makes sense, I think we just have to accept the existence of some occasional oddments.

Well, This is why in Scrabble we use a list of all the valid words, rather than just a dictionary. Dictionaries are not really all that well suited for this sort of task, as it needs a person to interpret them. As Damian once said about mass nouns, you just use 'common sense' but one person's common sense is not the same as the next persons, so at a Countdown tournament it will depend on who your referee is. SHAGPILES being allowed recently was a good one, as I can't really think when you'd use it in the plural. I'm not sure it's actually financially viable to print such a dictionary just for Countdown, but nobody could really argue with the fact it would be this decision making uniform. You could always compile the dictionary and not publish it, just use it for reference in the studio itself and nowhere else.

Martin

[Martin Gardner]

I remember in an article written by Stewart Holden said that in Scrabble in the 1970s CINQ was allowed whereas CHEF was not. It just depends who's reading the dictionary.

Martin

[Damian E]

I think the ODE did a fair job this time. It clearly states that FUNNEST isnt acceptable in standard English.

It's about balancing things out. It's raised a few eyebrows on this forum, but not 1 viewer has queried it, but i think had we allowed, we'd have had a mob weilding burning tyres outside the door.

Well done Debbie F. See you in the Finals.................(perhaps).

[Debbi Flack]

Thanks Damien - hope so!

[Kirk Bevins]

It's about balancing things out. It's raised a few eyebrows on this forum, but not 1 viewer has queried it, but i think had we allowed, we'd have had a mob weilding burning tyres outside the door.

I'm not surprised viewers haven't mobbed you with letters as most people would think the word is bizarre - however most people aren't aware of the single syllable adjective rule and if they were hardcore addicts and cared that much they'd either a) be on here or b) wouldn't bother wasting 26p to write in to you - they'd think Susie was wrong and move on.

[Gavin Chipper]

If you take this literally, it doesn't actually explicitly say that all one syllable adjectives can have _ER or _EST added unless otherwise specified. It can be interpreted as saying that where you can, it is regarded as regular and not listed.

[Julian Fell]

I remember in an article written by Stewart Holden said that in Scrabble in the 1970s CINQ was allowed whereas CHEF was not. It just depends who's reading the dictionary.

Martin

I think I read a quote from Joyce Cansfield where she said one of her funniest (funnest?) memories of her years playing Scrabble was where an opponent furiously argued with her that her word DINNER wasn't acceptable, because the dictionary didn't specify an agent noun under the verb "to din".

Btw I think in "hostage situation", "can opener" etc., the first word is technically a noun modifier, not an adjective. Though I've never really understood precisely where you draw the line between noun modifiers and adjectives - why isn't "fun" in "a fun time" a noun modifier as well? If someone can explain that I'll be most grateful.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think the ODE did a fair job this time. It clearly states that FUNNEST isnt acceptable in standard English.

There are many terms in the dictionary that would not be used in standard English. It's not about whether they are used in standard English, but whether they are used enough to be in the dictionary. As it is, because FUNNER and FUNNEST would have meant doubling the N and aren't listed (they are only mentioned in the usage box), it could be disallowed on those grounds.

As for FUNER and FUNEST, they could be disallowed on the grounds that in the usage box, it says that the comparative and superlative would be FUNNER and FUNNEST.

[Jason Larsen]

When was the last time we had heard anything from Joyce Cansfield?

[Howard Somerset]

When was the last time we had heard anything from Joyce Cansfield?

At the end of July, Jason. She was one of the participants at the Nottingham event. It was good to meet and talk with her, having seen her on TV in the first series way back 25 years ago.

[Jason Larsen]

She must be one very sweet, older lady, Howard!

[Kirk Bevins]

She must be one very sweet, older lady, Howard!

Why must she?

[Phil Reynolds]

I think in "hostage situation", "can opener" etc., the first word is technically a noun modifier, not an adjective. Though I've never really understood precisely where you draw the line between noun modifiers and adjectives - why isn't "fun" in "a fun time" a noun modifier as well? If someone can explain that I'll be most grateful.

I don't know the technical explanation, but the rule of thumb I use is that, since an adjective imparts a characteristic to a noun, you should be able to reorder the phrase "the adj noun" to "the noun which is adj" and have it still make sense.

So, in the examples above, "fun" is being used adjectivally, because "a fun time" is "a time which is fun". In contrast, "a can opener" is not "an opener which is can". The noun "can" is being used to qualify the noun "opener" to specify what kind of opener it is. Ditto with "hostage situation".

Edit: on re-reading the above, I think Julian probably understands all that and is asking why, if "fun" is not formally an adjective, does it not then become a noun modifier in the context quoted? My claim that rewording to "a time which is fun" makes sense is only true if you've already conceded that "fun" can be an adjective, so the argument becomes circular. I'll stop now because my brain is starting to bleed.

[Charlie Reams]

I think in "hostage situation", "can opener" etc., the first word is technically a noun modifier, not an adjective. Though I've never really understood precisely where you draw the line between noun modifiers and adjectives - why isn't "fun" in "a fun time" a noun modifier as well? If someone can explain that I'll be most grateful.

I don't know the technical explanation, but the rule of thumb I use is that, since an adjective imparts a characteristic to a noun, you should be able to reorder the phrase "the adj noun" to "the noun which is adj" and have it still make sense.

So, in the examples above, "fun" is being used adjectivally, because "a fun time" is "a time which is fun". In contrast, "a can opener" is not "an opener which is can". The noun "can" is being used to qualify the noun "opener" to specify what kind of opener it is. Ditto with "hostage situation".

Edit: on re-reading the above, I think Julian probably understands all that and is asking why, if "fun" is not formally an adjective, does it not then become a noun modifier in the context quoted? My claim that rewording to "a time which is fun" makes sense is only true if you've already conceded that "fun" can be an adjective, so the argument becomes circular. I'll stop now because my brain is starting to bleed.

Good explanation.

To avoid this being a "me too" post, I'll point out that the ordering of nouns within a compound has significance in English. For example, a houseboat is totally distinct from a boathouse, but you could probably guess the meaning of either even if you'd (somehow) never encountered the words before. Words which can be switched round like this are quite interesting, e.g. OWNERSHIP/SHIPOWNER (both Countdown-valid), SHIPMATE/MATESHIP. My favourite, which is more of a visual trick really, is TOOLBARS/BARSTOOL, but sadly the ODE gives BAR STOOL as two words.

[Phil Reynolds]

the ordering of nouns within a compound has significance in English. For example, a houseboat is totally distinct from a boathouse, but you could probably guess the meaning of either even if you'd (somehow) never encountered the words before.

Indeed. And to break wind is something totally different to a windbreak.