Insofar

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
Stewart Gordon
Enthusiast
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am

Insofar

Post by Stewart Gordon »

INSOFAR was accepted, not for the first time, on yesterday's show. I'm made to wonder: How exactly does the ODE list this word?

I wonder because it seems to me that it exists only as "insofar as", not as a word in its own right. Generally, pseudowords like this haven't been accepted - for example, "mistle" has been rejected as it exists only as "mistle thrush".

What exactly is the situation here?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Insofar

Post by Charlie Reams »

Stewart Gordon wrote:INSOFAR was accepted, not for the first time, on yesterday's show. I'm made to wonder: How exactly does the ODE list this word?

I wonder because it seems to me that it exists only as "insofar as", not as a word in its own right. Generally, pseudowords like this haven't been accepted - for example, "mistle" has been rejected as it exists only as "mistle thrush".

What exactly is the situation here?
I think generally if a word occurs with a preposition then it will be accepted, whereas words in noun phrases and suchlike won't be. This might seem arbitrary but I think it works intuitively. If you allowed "gung" as in "gung ho" then that seems weird because the word doesn't seem to have any meaning in isolation, whereas it's clear what meanings "insofar" or "inasmuch" carry even though they require a preposition.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Insofar

Post by John Bosley »

mistle is another spelling for mizzle (fine rain)
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2038
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Insofar

Post by Graeme Cole »

Stewart Gordon wrote:INSOFAR was accepted, not for the first time, on yesterday's show. I'm made to wonder: How exactly does the ODE list this word?

I wonder because it seems to me that it exists only as "insofar as", not as a word in its own right. Generally, pseudowords like this haven't been accepted - for example, "mistle" has been rejected as it exists only as "mistle thrush".

What exactly is the situation here?
ODE3 lists INSOFAR on its own, which is why it's allowed.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13273
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Insofar

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Graeme Cole wrote:
Stewart Gordon wrote:INSOFAR was accepted, not for the first time, on yesterday's show. I'm made to wonder: How exactly does the ODE list this word?

I wonder because it seems to me that it exists only as "insofar as", not as a word in its own right. Generally, pseudowords like this haven't been accepted - for example, "mistle" has been rejected as it exists only as "mistle thrush".

What exactly is the situation here?
ODE3 lists INSOFAR on its own, which is why it's allowed.
It does in the NODE too. Did it stop for a bit and then start again?
User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Insofar

Post by Brian Moore »

Déja vu. There is something odd about the arbitrary cementing of words and not others. Still, a few loose prepositions is probably better than the German habit of using word-glue liberally. Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz is particularly fine.
Post Reply