Mass noun plurals confusion

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Post Reply
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

I'm just a bit confused with the way that DC are repeatedly changing their minds over mass noun plurals - in the past they've said OPALINES, MIL(E)AGES and CARMINES would be ok, then more recently they've either disallowed them or said they're not valid... conversely in the past they've said TYMPANIES wouldn't be valid, but later have offered it as an acceptable word.

I don't want this to turn into a Gevin-style rant but it is a real minefield... it does seem very random at the moment. I don't think DC have ever really followed the rules in the guidance notes I was given as a contestant (they allow some plurals of foods/rocks/fabrics/chemical compounds etc. but not others), and now on top of that they've started going back on their past decisions... aaargh...

Damian can you shed any light on this? It is a legitimate concern isn't it?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Julian wrote:I don't want this to turn into a Gevin-style rant
Gevin-style rant indeed. Just stae your case, and let others react to it how they like.
User avatar
Damian E
Enthusiast
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Damian E »

Can you give any more instances of dual adjudication Julian? (Try saying that after a few beers).

I know what you mean, its a horrible area and one we've never really been able to nail down. Maybe we'll scrap the whole rule from next series and allow all mass noun plurals. Its very difficult to keep up with it. You can read the definition for a mass noun one day and disallow it but on a different day it seems to be acceptable.

You're not still pissed off at gambiers are you :mrgreen:
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

Damian E wrote:Maybe we'll scrap the whole rule from next series and allow all mass noun plurals.
If you do that, I will personally have you beatified.

Humm, that was meant to be an enticement but it sounded more like a threat.
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Yes still pissed off about GAMBIERS, I lie awake every night thinking about the injustice of it :D

Seriously though, I have to disagree with Charlie - please don't allow all mass noun plurals Damian, I've always thought word games should have some connection with how words are used in real life... if you start allowing PEACES, MANKINDS etc. you're getting into Scrabble territory, I for one wouldn't want to see that, and imagine the letters you'd get from irate old ladies...

The current situation is a mess, but even that is better than the 'nuclear option' of allowing all plurals. You probably know what I'm going to say - it would be great if we could go back to DISallowing all mass noun plurals... I don't suppose there's any chance of that Damian?

If you stay with things as they are now, is there any chance you could maybe keep a spreadsheet, and when DC allow or disallow a mass noun plural, you could make a note of it so that if the same word comes up again, the decision will stay the same? Just an idea, don't shout at me.... :)
User avatar
Ben Pugh
Enthusiast
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: North London

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Ben Pugh »

Julian wrote:if you start allowing PEACES, MANKINDS etc. you're getting into Scrabble territory, I for one wouldn't want to see that, and imagine the letters you'd get from irate old ladies...
PEACES should be allowed. Think of the Peace of Westphalia and the Peace of Prague, 2 PEACES.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Jon O'Neill »

You can justify any mass noun plural like that.
Martin Smith
Acolyte
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Martin Smith »

Isn't peace just an absence of war?
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Ben Pugh wrote:
Julian wrote:if you start allowing PEACES, MANKINDS etc. you're getting into Scrabble territory, I for one wouldn't want to see that, and imagine the letters you'd get from irate old ladies...
PEACES should be allowed. Think of the Peace of Westphalia and the Peace of Prague, 2 PEACES.
Aaaarrrgghhhh :D

But seriously, to expand on what Jono said - if you start saying, "well I can think of one (contrived, artificial) usage for such-and-such a word which might possibly be made, therefore it should be allowed" then not only would you allow a plural of every word, you might as well rewrite the dictionary as well - or why not just do away with the dictionary altogether, and simply challenge each contestant who offers a dodgy word to produce a (contrived, artificial) example of how it might be used, and then award them the points.

I'm not having a go at you Ben, but just making the point that you have to draw the line somewhere, and personally, I'm happy for the Oxford lexicographers to draw it for me.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

...which is why they should just designate "[pluralisable mass noun]" and then we'd all know. Given that they don't, we might as well allow everything, because at least that has consistency, which is the main thing you want from DC. The number of mass nouns for which the plural is completely meaningless (MANKINDS) is tiny. For most of them, it's perfectly plausible (CRYOLITES) or at worst a bit weird (STIFADOS.) I'd much rather learn a few odd-looking words than gamble on whether Susie can remember what she or someone else said last time.
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Hmmm... it is a thorny issue this, I don't think anyone would argue that the current uncertainty / inconsistency is a good thing, and I can certainly see where you're coming from Charlie - I just still can't get away from my gut feeling that it's a sad day when the rules of a word game become totally divorced from how words are used in real life.

IMHO the rules on mass nouns for series 43-48 were fine and I don't know why they changed it, they opened a real can of worms there... but hey, Damian will have had his reasons and there's (I would guess) no going back now. By the way, with regard to the idea of the dictionary specifying "pluralizable mass noun" - yes it would be nice, but we have to remember that the ODE is not produced solely to be used in Countdown, it has a somewhat wider circulation! It's not reasonable to expect the compilers to mould the dictionary specifically so that it will be helpful to Countdown aficionados like us.
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Can I take this chance to ask, just out of interest, what the rules on mass nouns were in the COD era?

Because the CODs didn't specify mass nouns did they, and I note from Mike Brown's site that monstrosities like GUNFIRES have been allowed back in the day... but I also note from David Ballheimer's experience that he initially had SCREES disallowed in his quarter-final, before DC changed their minds and allowed it. So they must have had some concept of non-pluralizable nouns... I'm confused, so any info would be gratefully received!
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

You say that, but the preface to the ODE clearly suggests that they've made some concessions to the dictionary being used as a source for word games - including, I suspect, the current [mass noun] tag. Incidentally I'd be equally happy with disallowing all mass noun plurals, because at least then you get some consistency.
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Yes I remember reading references to Countdown in the ODE preface so that's a fair point Charlie - although the [mass noun] marking is not because of Countdown, it was in place in the NODE from when that dictionary was first published, which was quite some time before anyone proposed using it on Countdown...
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by David O'Donnell »

Stifados isn't remotely weird. In fact the shorter Oxford specifies the plural (os). If you are at a restaurant you don't say three soup, or three stew, you say three soups or three stews.
User avatar
Mike Brown
Legend
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: King's Lynn
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Mike Brown »

Julian wrote:Yes still pissed off about GAMBIERS, I lie awake every night thinking about the injustice of it :D

Seriously though, I have to disagree with Charlie - please don't allow all mass noun plurals Damian, I've always thought word games should have some connection with how words are used in real life... if you start allowing PEACES, MANKINDS etc. you're getting into Scrabble territory, I for one wouldn't want to see that, and imagine the letters you'd get from irate old ladies...

The current situation is a mess, but even that is better than the 'nuclear option' of allowing all plurals. You probably know what I'm going to say - it would be great if we could go back to DISallowing all mass noun plurals... I don't suppose there's any chance of that Damian?

If you stay with things as they are now, is there any chance you could maybe keep a spreadsheet, and when DC allow or disallow a mass noun plural, you could make a note of it so that if the same word comes up again, the decision will stay the same? Just an idea, don't shout at me.... :)
Found myself nodding in agreement at your first point, Julian, but I would hate to go back to the disallowing of all mass noun plurals. Soo's comment in another post about Oxford adding 'pluralizable mass noun' where relevant (which would probably mean pluralizable would have to be added to the dictionary; I suspect it would more likely be 'countable mass noun', but I digress) sounds ideal, although I'm not holding my breath. I don't agree that it wouldn't be relevant for everyday dictionary users either, any more than mass noun specification is aimed exclusively at word game players.

Mike (who eagerly awaits the return of the comparatives of polysyllabic adjectives debate!).
Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Dinos Sfyris »

Mike Brown wrote:Mike (who eagerly awaits the return of the comparatives of polysyllabic adjectives debate!).
Hell yeah! Wish DC allowed my CUTTIER! Though I wish even more that I'd never even uttered such a ridiculous word!
Julian Fell
Series 48 Champion
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Julian Fell »

Mike, you'll know: what were the rules on noun plurals before the NODE and the [mass noun] tag came in?

Also why don't you like the disallowing of all mass noun plurals? (that's not meant to sound aggressive / sulky by the way, I respect your views a lot and I'm just interested!)
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Gavin Chipper »

There can only be a limited number of these mass nouns, so surely it would even be possible for the Countdown team to give a definitive list of pluralisable ones. Failing that, either allow or disallow them all, with a possible exception for the ones that would have irregular plurals. Either disallow them as well anyway, or only allow the ones where the plurals are given. STIFADO has no plural listed in the NODE (unlike BRANDY), and if this is also the case in the current dictionary, then the plural should not be allowed. After all, it would take a decision from DC as to whether the plural is STIFADOS or STIFADOES. It doesn't matter that it might be obvious to you or listed as STIFADOS in another dictionary - the dictionary used should be self-contained.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Mike Brown wrote:Mike (who eagerly awaits the return of the comparatives of polysyllabic adjectives debate!).
Is this not a more clear-cut matter? Only allowable when listed, right? Of course then you have words like FRAIL and REAL that everyone considers to be one syllable, but when you really think about it, are they?

Also, in the NODE, it mentions that when terms can be one word, two words, or hyphenated, it only listed one of the forms but:
NODE wrote:This does not, however, imply that other forms are incorrect or not used.
So this is another area where proper words can be disallowed, although not a grey area in terms of the rules.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

Gevin-Gavin wrote:There can only be a limited number of these mass nouns, so surely it would even be possible for the Countdown team to give a definitive list of pluralisable ones.
That's a top idea. They could get a work experience lackey to compile it. The quality of the list wouldn't even have to be that great, as long as it was followed consistently.

Alternatively Susie could annotate the dictionary each time she allows or disallows a word, so at least they'd be consistent on a per-word basis. Then I'd have much less to complain about.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by David Williams »

The real problem here is the deficiencies of the dictionary. The entry for, say, LAGER (mass noun) has a glaring omission - the subsidiary (count noun) meaning as a glass of the said alcoholic beverage. If the lackey were to be employed in Oxford getting the next issue of the dictionary right we could revert to the simple rule that it has to be in the dictionary to be valid. Pluralisable mass nouns are a nonsense.

If that isn't going to happen, I do think there would be value in a list of what has been allowed and what hasn't. Useful to contestants, and useful to Susie et al in firming up what the policy is. Annotating the dictionary wouldn't help as much - LAGERS yes, POTEENS no, STIFADOS not considered - but if they were all on one list we might get more consistency.

David
User avatar
Mike Brown
Legend
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: King's Lynn
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Mike Brown »

Julian wrote:Also why don't you like the disallowing of all mass noun plurals? (that's not meant to sound aggressive / sulky by the way, I respect your views a lot and I'm just interested!)
I just don't like seeing what I consider to be acceptable plurals being disallowed (I'm thinking in particular of words that do come up in everyday life, rather than just on Countdown). And it would be crazy if we started disallowing (e.g.) lagers again, while continuing to allow brandies, just because brandy ends in a 'y' and therefore has its plural listed. Conversely, I really don't want to start seeing the likes of mankinds and mercuries being admissible.

Mike.
User avatar
Martin Gardner
Kiloposter
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Martin Gardner »

I agree that it gets a bit silly if a word changes from invalid to valid or visa versa during a series. I thought CARMINES was an odd one as they didn't even say that you couldn't add an S, and they've used it in the plural before. I remember when Grace Page was on (best female contestant of the last 5 years) that she went for MAUVES which was fine because you can pluralise colours - it's not that hard when you think about it. So unless that rule has change (R. Sampson was the lexicographer, I believe) CARMINES is allowed.

Martin
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by David Roe »

Unless my memory's going, Susie has allowed plurals of primary colours (eg. reds, blues) but not allowed secondary colours (eg. mauves).
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Jon Corby »

David Roe wrote:Unless my memory's going, Susie has allowed plurals of primary colours (eg. reds, blues) but not allowed secondary colours (eg. mauves).
Susie also recently explained that "MAGENTAS" wasn't allowed as in the plural of the colour, but was allowed as the plural of the dye. Get your head around that one if you can.

Here's a (possible) oddity: I see ICONIZE in my dictionary but no ICONISE. What gives? (I'm assuming it's a verb along the lines of iconify or something). Any more -IZE words with no -ISE equivalent?
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Jon O'Neill »

I think that one's another dictionary error.

While we're there, what about INDOORSES and, for that matter, INDORSES?
User avatar
Ben Pugh
Enthusiast
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: North London

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Ben Pugh »

Ginger Jono wrote:I think that one's another dictionary error.

While we're there, what about INDOORSES and, for that matter, INDORSES?
And how about the lack of POOEY?
Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Dinos Sfyris »

Ben Pugh wrote:And how about the lack of POOEY?
Thats just pooey!
User avatar
Harry Whitehouse
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: Scarborough
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Harry Whitehouse »

Corby wrote:
David Roe wrote:
Here's a (possible) oddity: I see ICONIZE in my dictionary but no ICONISE. What gives? (I'm assuming it's a verb along the lines of iconify or something). Any more -IZE words with no -ISE equivalent?
Strictly speaking, doesn't this depend on whether the word is of Latin or Greek origin?
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

Not really. All -IZE words should have -ISE inflections, at least when the meaning is the usual "make into" sense; obviously this doesn't apply to things like CAPSIZE. Similarly some -ISE words have no -IZE inflection when the meaning is different, e.g. EXERCISE doesn't mean "to make into a exerc". I have posted this comprehensive list of ISE-only words before, but here it is anyway. Interestingly some spurious ones like TELEVIZE* are now so widespread that they will probably become acceptable eventually.

ADVERTISE (ADVERTIZE gets 1 million Google results)
ADVISE
APPRAISE
COMPRISE
DEMISE
DESPISE
DEVISE (250K for DEVIZE)
EXERCISE (300K for EXERCIZE)
FRANCHISE (2 million for FRANCHIZE)
IMPROVISE
INCISE
MORTISE
PRACTISE
PRAISE (PRAIZE gets half a million results! Amazing)
REPRISE (260K for REPRIZE)
REVISE (4.4 million for REVIZE)
SUPERVISE (460K for SUPERVIZE)
SURMISE
SURPRISE (1.6 million, and Google even suggests SURPRIZE if you type SUPRIZE)
TELEVISE (14.6 million for TELEVIZE, the worst of the lot)
User avatar
Harry Whitehouse
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: Scarborough
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Harry Whitehouse »

Thanks for that.

It's provided me with a wonderfully diverting half an hour reading the various conflicting offerings of authoritative advice on the internet. Only ten minutes to knocking-off time now. :roll:
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Mass noun plurals confusion

Post by Charlie Reams »

My list excludes things like PORPOISE which I would hope no one reading this is stupid enough to spell with a Z. Interestingly one can have EXPERTIZE as there is a verbal sense of EXPERTISE.
Post Reply