Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Mark Kudlowski » Fri May 26, 2017 1:55 pm

3rd (?) numbers, target 474

(100 + (4 x 10) + (9 x 2)) x 3

Peter Mabey
Devotee
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Peter Mabey » Fri May 26, 2017 1:59 pm

Last numbers: (75-7)x50x9/(10x10) = 306

Ray Wilding
Rookie
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Ray Wilding » Fri May 26, 2017 2:01 pm

ACTOREENS in whichever round it was.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Johnny Canuck » Fri May 26, 2017 3:20 pm

Apparently, today's challenger (Peter Sheridan) is notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia.
There are three erors in this semtence.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7670
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon May 29, 2017 3:56 pm

Peter Mabey wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 1:59 pm
Last numbers: (75-7)x50x9/(10x10) = 306
Nice method. I did it a different way (outside the time) - (75+10+10-50)*7-9 = 306.

Philip Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson » Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm

In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7670
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed May 31, 2017 11:16 pm

Philip Wilson wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm
In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
It's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.

Philip Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 11:16 pm
Philip Wilson wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 9:16 pm
In one of the rounds I saw defamity. Not being sure it's a word I checked on the site I think we use, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ - and it defaulted to defamer. It didn't say 'no exact match' though, which I usually see! So was I right or wrong?
It's not valid on Apterous but that's not necessarily 100% in line with how they adjudicate on the show.
I can't see it in any of the example sentences linked to 'defame' so I'll conclude it's not a word then. So why not just say 'no exact match'?

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by David Williams » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm

In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.

Philip Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Philip Wilson » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:20 am

David Williams wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm
In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
So you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by David Williams » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:47 am

Philip Wilson wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:20 am
David Williams wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:09 pm
In a similar vein, I saw CORRALED a few days ago. If you look it up, it takes you to CORRAL, exactly the same as if you look up CORRALLED. The old print dictionary specifies CORRALLED, and the Introduction to the ODE says that if nothing is specified in the entry for the word, the correct version would just add -ED. All the examples online have CORRALLED as the spelling. Not exactly definitive unless there's something else I haven't found.
So you're saying in situations like this the word is valid, right?
CORRALED (and many similar words) certainly wasn't valid in the print dictionary. I don't know of any reason why this would change. I just can't see where it tells you now what is and isn't valid when it comes to inflexions. The only thing that differentiates is that CORRALLED is the way it's spelt in the examples.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7670
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:38 am

I don't think the free version of the dictionary gives any inflections nowadays.

Ciaran McCarthy
Rookie
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:44 am
Location: Kempston, Bedford
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Ciaran McCarthy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:22 pm

How about CAROTENES for 9???

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:24 pm

Ciaran McCarthy wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:22 pm
How about CAROTENES for 9???
Sorry, no banana -- CAROTENE is explicitly listed as a mass noun.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/carotene
There are three erors in this semtence.

User avatar
Thomas Carey
Devotee
Posts: 893
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Friday, 26 May 2017

Post by Thomas Carey » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:38 pm

actoreens isn't it
signature

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest