Words You Would Have Thought...

Official forum of apterous.org, the website which allows you to play against other people over the Internet.
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Adam Gillard » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:31 pm

*diablo/diablos

You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:55 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:*diablo/diablos

You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...
Diabolo?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:28 pm

*diablo/diablos

You know the devil...

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:36 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:I've seen a similar thread before (HEPTANES/ethanes etc.), but is there any good reason why BOVINE, FELINE & EQUINE are listed as nouns as well as adjectives,(allowing BOVINES, FELINES, EQUINES as valid words) while similar words like CAPRINE, PORCINE, VULPINE etc. are not ? CANINES (teeth) and LUPINES (flowers), are understandable exceptions, but these three just seem totally arbritrary to me. Is there some rule that i'm missing?
Probably not. Statistical lexicography is often inconsistent when you slice it in a different direction, for example TRIGRAM, TETRAGRAM, PENTAGRAM but not bigram. It just depends on coincidences of usage frequency.
Not even 'digram'?

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:15 pm

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Not even 'digram'?
Nope.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:52 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Not even 'digram'?
Nope.
Diabolical! You know the toy on the string that you throw up and catch...

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:21 pm

Fairnesses.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:46 am

In French versus Matt B:

NOYERAI.

User avatar
Karen Pearson
Devotee
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:28 am
Location: Bromsgrove

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Karen Pearson » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:00 pm

Simon Le Fort wrote:In French versus Matt B:

NOYERAI.

NOIERAI

Bloody irregular verbs!!!

Simon Le Fort
Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Le Fort » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:10 am

NOYERAI is the correct spelling of will drown, as confirmed by a simple google. I'll paste a little bit:

noyerai
will drown verbe

All the --YER verbs keep their Y in past and future forms, just the present and the noun forms modify. Making the rule up myself, I think it's like that. (Essuyait; payerez; tutoyerai etc)

Apterous just doesn't like the word NOYERAI.

User avatar
Karen Pearson
Devotee
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:28 am
Location: Bromsgrove

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Karen Pearson » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:33 am

Simon Le Fort wrote:NOYERAI is the correct spelling of will drown, as confirmed by a simple google. I'll paste a little bit:

noyerai
will drown verbe

All the --YER verbs keep their Y in past and future forms, just the present and the noun forms modify. Making the rule up myself, I think it's like that. (Essuyait; payerez; tutoyerai etc)

Apterous just doesn't like the word NOYERAI.
Sorry, not according to my dictionary. Payer is the only one that can be PAYERAI or PAIERAI. Admittedly my dictionary is pretty old. But an online translator also comes up with NOIERAI.
http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_s ... lator.html

Maybe Jeff Clayton could clarify for us - his French is a lot more up-to-date than mine!

Jeff Clayton
Enthusiast
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:47 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jeff Clayton » Sat May 01, 2010 4:05 pm

I believe it's NOIERAI.

"Nettoyer" is another -oyer verb that follows the same rule in the future tense.

Jeff

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ryan Taylor » Mon May 03, 2010 7:53 pm


User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Michael Wallace » Mon May 03, 2010 7:56 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking
Err...

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ryan Taylor » Mon May 03, 2010 8:03 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking
Err...
That's at least some relief that the word exists, but quite frightening how bad my spelling is!

Simon Myers
Enthusiast
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:41 am
Location: Stamford, Connecticut

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Simon Myers » Mon May 03, 2010 9:00 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Shocking
Err...
That's at least some relief that the word exists, but quite frightening how bad my spelling is!
You're not the first to have made that kind of mistake...

Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Dinos Sfyris » Tue May 04, 2010 12:14 pm

Has mauves recently been removed? I've played it a few times before and it's been fine but played it in this game yesterday only to have it disallowed (although bizarrely I still got a Page of Page for my efforts). I'm guessing it's been taken out because you can't have different shades of MAUVE because mauve is a specific shade of purple. Bizarrely AZURES was acceptable in the same round and on the same basis should this be removed :?:

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Michael Wallace » Tue May 04, 2010 12:19 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Has mauves recently been removed? I've played it a few times before and it's been fine
Really? If you look down the list in word search it's been played loads of times and doesn't seem to have ever been valid. I can remember playing MAUVES months and months (possibly years) ago and having it disallowed.

Edit: Although from searching the forums it seems it has been allowed on the show, so hmm...

Liam Tiernan
Devotee
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Liam Tiernan » Wed May 26, 2010 3:47 pm

MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Adam Gillard » Mon May 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Liam Tiernan wrote:MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.
On a similar note, *SHALLOWER isn't in. SHALLOWED, SHALLOWING, SHALLOWLY and SHALLOWNESS all are. So it doesn't make much sense to me.

NB: Of course Liam could have declared the obvious 7 EELWORM to win that round, so I don't see why he's complaining.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:58 am

Adam Gillard wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:MELLOWER http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?g ... ower&dic=0 ended up costing me the game.
On a similar note, *SHALLOWER isn't in. SHALLOWED, SHALLOWING, SHALLOWLY and SHALLOWNESS all are. So it doesn't make much sense to me.

NB: Of course Liam could have declared the obvious 7 EELWORM to win that round, so I don't see why he's complaining.
Well SHALLOWER (and MELLOWER for that matter) are comparative forms of two-syllable words, which mostly aren't allowed. The other forms of SHALLOW aren't particularly relevant.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:50 am

Ian Volante wrote: Well SHALLOWER (and MELLOWER for that matter) are comparative forms of two-syllable words, which mostly aren't allowed. The other forms of SHALLOW aren't particularly relevant.
This.

At some point I might invest some time in making a list of the longer adjectives which do have inflections.

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:55 pm

After having DC give SEXTETTES many times, I was pretty surprised to discover that *nonettes was invalid.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:07 pm

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:After having DC give SEXTETTES many times, I was pretty surprised to discover that *nonettes was invalid.
Variations with numbers are often weird. For some reason QUARTETTE, SEXTETTE and SEPTETTE are accepted, but there's no DUETTE, QUINTETTE, OCTETTE or NONETTE. Incidentally the usual spelling is SEXTET, and NONET is indeed valid.

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:14 pm

Yeah – this was in unlimited and I was feeling confident, never having bothered to check it and assuming it was like the fencing guards, which are also numbers and valid.

Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Dinos Sfyris » Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:07 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Variations with numbers are often weird. For some reason QUARTETTE, SEXTETTE and SEPTETTE are accepted, but there's no DUETTE, QUINTETTE, OCTETTE or NONETTE. Incidentally the usual spelling is SEXTET, and NONET is indeed valid.
This is true. In the audience for The Series 61 final I was sat next to Innis who had NONUPLET^ written down which I thought was a brilliant beater. Turns out its invalid :(

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:43 pm

Swatter.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:24 pm

SUD!
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Liam Tiernan
Devotee
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Liam Tiernan » Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:34 pm

Ian Volante wrote:SUD!
One just doesn't wash.


*Marc Meakin is on holiday.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ian Volante » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:57 pm

Unclotted. Humph.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:56 pm

FANBASE. Also, you can have UPTIME but not DOWNTIME.

Andrew Feist
Enthusiast
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:43 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Andrew Feist » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:22 am

ferrites. Especially when DC chides me for not playing FERRATES.

Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Peter Mabey » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:58 am

Andrew Feist wrote:ferrites. Especially when DC chides me for not playing FERRATES.
Whereas NODE records FERRATE as a ferric salt, it does not have FERRITE as a ferrous one :roll: , so it's only there as a mass noun (in two senses) :shock:

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:22 am

On the flip side, I'm surprised that WYSIWYG is in.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:30 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:FANBASE.
I got that a couple of years ago, but it looks as though it's built up quite a fanbase since then.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Ryan Taylor » Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:55 pm

I can't believe FATTENER isn't a word. Pfftttttt

Hugh Binnie
Enthusiast
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:46 pm

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Hugh Binnie » Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:58 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:FANBASE. Also, you can have UPTIME but not DOWNTIME.
Good news and bad news wrt the 3rd edition — DOWNTIME is in [mass noun] but fan base is two words.

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:33 am

LENITION is in but not FORTITION^. :cry:

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Adam Gillard » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:00 pm

Yes that is strange Miriam. One that just came to my attention was FRO*. I suppose it's only ever used in the set phrase "to and fro" / "to-ing and fro-ing", so that would be why it isn't in. Or, as Mark James suggested, is it an abbreviation of "towards and from", hence the disallowedness. Thoughts?

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7625
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Matt Morrison » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:27 am

...Ought Not Be Valid As Conundrums.

Had two conundrums recently that have confused me.

FLESHPOTS - without the S it is not valid, but I can still not find a definition of the word which isn't a plural definition of a singular fleshpot.
HOOKAHS - to me, clearly a plural, and also in this case HOOKAH without the S is valid on apterous.

Not saying anything's wrong, just need them explained to sate my curiosity and understanding.

Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Dinos Sfyris » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:32 pm

Nasty numbers 15 rders include plurals as conundrums. Some of these have been included in recent duels inc fleshpots

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:20 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:FLESHPOTS - without the S it is not valid, but I can still not find a definition of the word which isn't a plural definition of a singular fleshpot.
I see what you mean, it's difficult to know how to handle the plural-but-no-singular cases (BEESTINGS is another example). I tended to allow them where I wasn't sure.
HOOKAHS - to me, clearly a plural, and also in this case HOOKAH without the S is valid on apterous.
Yep, just a mistake. Will remove.

Miriam Nussbaum
Rookie
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Miriam Nussbaum » Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:01 am

I would have beaten my Junior Unlimited personal best just now if I'd declared PEEWEE or even WEEP instead of BEWEEP^. >>;

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Adam Gillard » Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:02 pm

beheadings

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:42 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings
Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...

Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Peter Mabey » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:36 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings
Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...
From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.
a1225 Ancr. R. 184 Nolde me tellen him alre monne dusi{ygh}est, {th}et forsoke..ane nelde prikunge, uor ane bihefdunge. 1541 R. COPLAND Guydon's Quest. Cyrurg., Whan he had a deade body by beheadyng or other wyse. 1585 THYNNE in Animadv. Introd. 75 The duke of Buckinghams beheadding. 1586-7 Churchw. Acc. St. Margaret's, Westm., (Nichols 1797) 21 Paid for ringing at the beheading of the Queen of Scotts. 1615 HIERON Wks. I. 664 That story, which reports his beheading at Rome. 1732 T. LEDIARD Sethos II. VII. 54 The easiest and shortest of all deaths, beheading. 1863 THACKERAY in Cornh. Mag. Jan., Battles and victories, treasons, kings, and beheadings.
Last edited by Peter Mabey on Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:44 pm

Peter Mabey wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Adam Gillard wrote:beheadings
Can someone with a ODE3 check this? Perhaps you could argue it was a surgical procedure and justify the mass noun plural on that basis...
From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.
I forget the exact wording of the intro, but I believe that specific actions are pluralisable.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Kirk Bevins » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Certainly in ODE2r, BEHEADING is not specified in its entirety but you asked about ODE3 so I can't help.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7981
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:40 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Peter Mabey wrote:From OED3 (thanks to online Manchester City library)
The action of cutting off the head; spec. of execution by decapitation.
I forget the exact wording of the intro, but I believe that specific actions are pluralisable.
OED3 != ODE3

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Adam Gillard » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:14 pm

I have a book at home called Countdown - The Ultimate Challenge (Wylie & Eadie, 2005). Apart from Whiteley being spelt wrong on the front cover, there is something else that bothers me. In the introduction on page 8, it is claimed that the selection AAIIRHKTS yields a 9-letter word, TARAHIKIS (fish). However, it's not in the apterous lexicon - was it in the dictionary in 2005 and subsequently removed or is it just another mistake?

Edit: I've just found TARAKIHI(S) in Lexplorer so it must have been a mistake.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7625
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Matt Morrison » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:37 pm

Absolutely really surprised by GICLEE not being in when other French-sounding art words like GOUACHE are fine. I can only suppose it's because Giclee has an accent in it, is that right? For some reason I thought if a word was valid in English then you could play it without using the accent, but guess I'm massively wrong as no one else has even attempted GICLEE.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:42 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Absolutely really surprised by GICLEE not being in when other French-sounding art words like GOUACHE are fine. I can only suppose it's because Giclee has an accent in it, is that right? For some reason I thought if a word was valid in English then you could play it without using the accent, but guess I'm massively wrong as no one else has even attempted GICLEE.
Don't think the accent comes into it, must just be insufficiently common. (I've never heard of it, for what that's worth.)

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7625
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:39 am

ZINES too.

User avatar
James Hall
Acolyte
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:26 pm
Location: Portsmouth
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by James Hall » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:07 pm

MINOTAURS

I was well chuffed when I saw it too...
______________
___________
________
_____
__

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:55 pm

James Hall wrote:MINOTAURS

I was well chuffed when I saw it too...
The Minotaur is a particular fictional character, like Theseus or Robert Baxter.

User avatar
James Hall
Acolyte
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:26 pm
Location: Portsmouth
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by James Hall » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:48 am

Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.
______________
___________
________
_____
__

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7981
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:42 am

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores
Or the legendary Esquilax, a horse with the head of a rabbit and... the body of a rabbit!

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:14 pm

James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.
It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7981
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:25 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.
It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.
I think there's certainly a case for saying it has become generalised as a half-man/half-bull creature, but obviously not so much that the ODE cares to recognise it. I was surprised too when I first found it wasn't in, but I did learn MINATOUS and TINAMOUS and improved my spotting of NATURISM as a result :D

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9447
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Words You Would Have Thought...

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:24 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
James Hall wrote:Well they're no less fictional than manticores - I just thought as a mythical beast it would be a good score.
It's not because they're fictional (I just threw that in for the joke), it's because the word Minotaur refers to a specific thing so it's a proper noun like Paris.
I think there's certainly a case for saying it has become generalised as a half-man/half-bull creature, but obviously not so much that the ODE cares to recognise it. I was surprised too when I first found it wasn't in, but I did learn MINATOUS and TINAMOUS and improved my spotting of NATURISM as a result :D
Yep, sure. I'm not saying James was wrong to be surprised. Incidentally it just occurred to me that people tend to assume that the Minotaur was just one from a race of minotaurs, whereas poor old Polyphemus has the reverse problem, he always gets called "the Cyclops" even though there were plenty of other cyclopses (or cyclopes if you prefer).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests