c4countdown

I'm groggy today, so no attempts of humor in the spoiler today, I apologize.

Jack Worsley has had an impressive few days on Countdown so far, averaging just over 104 points per game with 5 centuries out of 5. Can he keep it going today? This also wraps up Nick Hewer's first full week as host of Countdown, and while I think he has a ways to go, he has a pretty good start for a first week and having never presented TV before. It's also Paul Zenon's last day here this week...oh goody, another sleight of hand or "mind-reading" trick (yay, I spelled sleight right this time).

Since Mike Brown has "retired" from the Friday recaps, join...somebody...for the recap some time this weekend.

Although OZONES* is no good wasn't there OZONISER ?

Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.

??????????

Stewart Gordon wrote:Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.

??????????

INVADED wasn't it? Tbh I thoutgh it sounded like INVADERS but judging by the selection and the fact that it's Jack I assumed I'd misheard.

Great show again today Jack, very well played. Hope you get the 8!

Peter Mabey wrote:Although OZONES* is no good wasn't there OZONISER ?

Indeed there was. Very good spot.

I spotted MENSTRUA just out of time in round 2, but I got INFARCT in round 8.

Thomas Carey wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.

??????????

INVADED wasn't it? Tbh I thoutgh it sounded like INVADERS but judging by the selection and the fact that it's Jack I assumed I'd misheard.

Sounded unambiguously like INVADED to me.

Good episode today I thought, particularly Jack's numbers skills, KINETICS, and Nick breaking character on the conundrum.

Just wondering, is there anything in the dictionary definition of MAIN to suggest that MAINER shouldn't be allowed as a comparative? Or was it just a judgement call by Susie? She seemed oddly definite about it.

Innis Carson wrote:Just wondering, is there anything in the dictionary definition of MAIN to suggest that MAINER shouldn't be allowed as a comparative? Or was it just a judgement call by Susie? She seemed oddly definite about it.

Well, since MAIN is itself effectively a superlative, it's hard to see how you could derive a comparative from it. ODE2r defines it as "chief in size or importance". MAINER would thus be "more chief in size or importance" which is clearly nonsense.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:Just wondering, is there anything in the dictionary definition of MAIN to suggest that MAINER shouldn't be allowed as a comparative? Or was it just a judgement call by Susie? She seemed oddly definite about it.

Well, since MAIN is itself effectively a superlative, it's hard to see how you could derive a comparative from it. ODE2r defines it as "chief in size or importance". MAINER would thus be "more chief in size or importance" which is clearly nonsense.

The ODE3 doesn't indicate whether adjectives are comparable or not, and it's caused controversy on here in the past. The Countdown guidelines (at least, the ones I was sent) say this:

Countdown wrote:The rule of thumb for Countdown is that comparatives of all 2-syllable adjectives must be specified in the dictionary or they will not be allowed on the show. You’ll get used to what is acceptable and what isn’t over a period of time – but in general, if it’s not listed in the dictionary, it is not allowed – with ONE exception – and this is for 1-syllable adjectives like dark, cold, bleak. The dictionary doesn’t list darker and darkest, colder and coldest etc, as we have a general rule that all 1-syllable adjectives can be extended in this way, and they are pretty obvious anyway, so there’s no need to take up space in the book.

aptodic applies this quite rigidly (except for adjectives that come from past tenses of verbs, like PISSED), so you get stuff like MAINER/-EST and CHIEFER/-EST. The extent of the monosyllabic adjective rule has been debated before, but I think the only real solution is for the dictionary to include an "[incomparable]" tag next to every monosyllabic word where a comparative and superlative don't make sense. Until then I think rulings on the show will still come down to case-by-case judgement calls.

Stewart Gordon wrote:Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.

??????????

Sorry if it sounded like INVADERS but I definitely declared INVADED.

Thanks for the support I'm getting. I certainly never expected to get six centuries in a row, especially against the opponents I've had so far. They've all been worthy opponents. I've been happy just to win the six games and the high scores have been a bonus.

I assume Susie disallowed MAINER on the basis that it doesn't sound logical for something to be MAINER than something else going off the dictionary definition, although I'm not 100% sure what the rules are for words like these. It's valid on apterous though.

Thanks Graeme, I'm well aware of all that you pointed out - all I was saying is that, in this instance, it would be hard to argue that Susie's judgement call was incorrect.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Thanks Graeme, I'm well aware of all that you pointed out - all I was saying is that, in this instance, it would be hard to argue that Susie's judgement call was incorrect.

Ah yes, I was really replying to Innis' post. I think it would have made more sense for me to quote only his post rather than yours as well.

Jack Worsley wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.
??????????

Sorry if it sounded like INVADERS but I definitely declared INVADED.

Thanks for that Jack. My wife and I both thought we heard 'invaders' and this was re-enforced by the subtitles but we guessed at the time we were wrong. Good luck.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Thanks Graeme, I'm well aware of all that you pointed out - all I was saying is that, in this instance, it would be hard to argue that Susie's judgement call was incorrect.

No, I don't think it would be hard to argue that.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:in this instance, it would be hard to argue that Susie's judgement call was incorrect.

No, I don't think it would be hard to argue that.

Want to give it a try?

Thomas Carey wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:Jack gave INVADERS. But he had declared 7, and there was no R or S in the selection. Yet it was just accepted without comment.

??????????

INVADED wasn't it? Tbh I thoutgh it sounded like INVADERS but judging by the selection and the fact that it's Jack I assumed I'd misheard.

I listened to it at least three times, and each time heard INVADERS. So did grandma. One of these times the final consonant sound may have been ambiguous, but the preceding sound sounded unambiguously like an ER.

But thanks Jack - that's cleared up what you actually said.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:in this instance, it would be hard to argue that Susie's judgement call was incorrect.

No, I don't think it would be hard to argue that.

Want to give it a try?

Well we've had the whole debate before. But the rules say one-syllable adjectives can have -ER and -EST forms.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:No, I don't think it would be hard to argue that.

Want to give it a try?

Well we've had the whole debate before. But the rules say one-syllable adjectives can have -ER and -EST forms.

Yep. It's all very well going by what we think makes for a logical word, but you end up with less precision in the rulings. I'm sure I've "offered" the word at home before.

Only just got around to watching.

everyone wrote:some boring stuff about MAINER

Alternatively you could just play remain like a sane person lol.

Excellent numbers rounds in this episode, Jack.

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's all very well going by what we think makes for a logical word, but you end up with less precision in the rulings. I'm sure I've "offered" the word at home before.

I'm sure I've done much the same in order to "win" a tight game. I assume the guidelines on one-syllable adjectives were derived from the notes on inflection which form part of the introduction to all Countdown dictionaries. Perhaps these could be interpreted as supporting blanket acceptance but I doubt they were ever intended to do so.

It might be "interesting" to see if there's any evidence of a policy change. In any event, Susie's "Not there, I'm afraid" was a pretty inadequate explanation, as well as being misleading.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Well we've had the whole debate before. But the rules say one-syllable adjectives can have -ER and -EST forms.

Does anyone have the full, exact wording of this rule as it currently stands?

Moreover, does the ODE make use of any label like "not comparable" or "not gradable"?

My ODE3 says:

Oxford Lexicographers and Grammarians Society wrote:The following forms for comparative and superlative are regarded as regular and are not shown in the dictionary:

* words of one syllable adding -er and -est, e.g. great -> greatest

No mention of anything else of relevance. Sorry in advance for adding fuel to the fire.

Stewart Gordon wrote:Does anyone have the full, exact wording of this rule as it currently stands?

Didn't Graeme give this a bit further up?

When they say "we have a general rule that all 1-syllable adjectives can be extended in this way" I would assume that "general" is being used in a non-mathematical sense, implying that most of them will be OK. If so, the one-syllable rule says no more than that comparatives and superlatives may be considered even though the ODE doesn't specify them.