Spoilers for Friday August 10th 2012 (Series 67 Prelim 25)

[Jordan F]

It's the end of the week, and Grant Waters has been on a roll, with 3 wins and an average of almost 96 points per game. Can he get a 4th to wrap up the week? It's also the end of Mark Foster in the corner who I'd have to think about to give an opinion of. I'm not sure one way or the other.

Join Thomas for the recap later.

[Mark Deeks]

GEOTAXIS in round 1. Easier to remember as I SEX GOAT.

[Mark Deeks]

BUMPENIS in round four.

[Grant Waters]

... as in turbulence?

[James Robinson]

ALKANES and ARSENAL in round 3, LANDSIDE in round 6, TAURINE in round 9.

3rd Numbers Alt.: (75 - 4 - 2) x 7 = 483

Well done again, Grant. That's actually the first conundrum (except from the special) that I haven't got this series (Thought it was GOUPINESS. )

[Innis Carson]

I was a bit confused by Susie's explanation regarding MATEYS, it sounded like she was saying that MATEY is in but that the plural should be assumed to be MATIES (which isn't valid on apterous). Surely the regular plural would be MATEYS, as with DONKEYS and JOCKEYS? Did I misunderstand her, or was this a bad call?

[David Williams]

I was a bit confused by Susie's explanation regarding MATEYS, it sounded like she was saying that MATEY is in but that the plural should be assumed to be MATIES (which isn't valid on apterous). Surely the regular plural would be MATEYS, as with DONKEYS and JOCKEYS? Did I misunderstand her, or was this a bad call?

Me too. I wondered about BROWED as well. I don't have the up-to-date dictionary, but doesn't this only exist in combination? Why is it different to SEATER, disallowed yesterday.

[Graeme Cole]

I think disallowing MATEYS was a bad call, yes. Page xvi at the front of the dictionary says "Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown". It goes on to say "Other plural forms are given in the dictionary, notably for: ... nouns ending in -y, e.g. fly -> flies".

I take this to mean that if a noun ends in -y, then it will specify the plural, because some such nouns are pluralised with -ies (queries, dollies, dictionaries) and some with -eys (monkeys, trolleys, keys). In all those examples, the plural is specified in the dictionary, but with MATEY it isn't. So the plural must be assumed to be regular, as Susie said. But in my opinion, "regular" in this case means you just put an S on the end. This is both in accordance with the letter of what the dictionary says, and in accordance with common sense: all the words I can think of which end with a vowel followed by a Y are pluralised -ys, and words ending with a consonant followed by a Y are pluralised -ies (can anyone think of any exceptions?). So I'd say the plural of MATEY should be MATEYS and not MATIES.

Incidentally, BROWED is listed under BROW like this:

DERIVATIVES browed adjective [in combination] furrow-browed.

I would err on the side of allowing it, because it has an entry as an individual word, even though the definition says it's used in combination. The lack of the hyphen before the bold word (compare with the entry for -seater, which isn't allowed) suggests you could have it as a separate word (e.g. "furrow browed", "large browed", etc).

[David Williams]

Not one word of that has changed since the NODE. I think you must be right that the distinction they make is between the entries for BROWED (on its own) and -SEATER (including the hyphen). But I'm pretty sure the Countdown Rules used to say that words that only appeared in combination were not allowed (example MISTLE?). Has that changed? Maybe the distinction is that MISTLE only appears as a dictionary entry in combination, whereas BROWED has its own entry, even though that entry says you can only use it in combination. If you see what I mean.

[Graeme Cole]

Not one word of that has changed since the NODE. I think you must be right that the distinction they make is between the entries for BROWED (on its own) and -SEATER (including the hyphen). But I'm pretty sure the Countdown Rules used to say that words that only appeared in combination were not allowed (example MISTLE?). Has that changed? Maybe the distinction is that MISTLE only appears as a dictionary entry in combination, whereas BROWED has its own entry, even though that entry says you can only use it in combination. If you see what I mean.

As of last year, "words which appear only in combinations: for example, mistle (mistle thrush) and quo (status quo) are not allowed". Neither "mistle" nor "quo" has an entry on its own, so that must be what sets it apart from "browed".

The question of whether a word can only appear "in combination" is a difficult one, anyway: every full sentence has to have a verb in it, so does that mean all nouns and adjectives should be disallowed because they can't appear on their own? A sensible approach to take is to say that a word only appears in combination if it only appears in combination in the dictionary, that is, only as part of a multi-word entry. -seater should be disallowed not by this rule, but by the rule that says you can't have hyphenated words.

But what about BROWEDER and BROWEDEST?

[David Williams]

If the rule means "words which appear only in combinations in the dictionary are not allowed" that's what it should say.

[Grant Waters]

Yikes. SO much controversy from one game!

FWIW I think MATEYS should have been allowed as it appears to be the most plausible pluralisation of MATEY. However, it (luckily) would not have affected the outcome of the game although it would have raised Colin's total a little.

BROWED however, was a random stab in the dark in the dying seconds of "clock-time", and I would not have been at all surprised if it had been disallowed for any reason, but I accept that it is listed subtly differently in the dictionary than other combining forms, notably without the leading "-".

The fact that there is no plural of MATEY in the apto-dict seems a little odd though. And BROWED is in the apto-dict.

DOUGHS however, eariler in the week was a much tougher call - it's not in apto-dict and clearly specified as a mass noun, but Susie did say the acid test for mass noun pluralisation was whether you could order two of them in a restaurant - e.g. "Can I have two Kormas" etc. I could go into Pizza Hut and ask for "Two cookie doughs please"?? Again - I don't think that decision affected the outcome of the game.

[Keith Bennett]

The question of whether a word can only appear "in combination" is a difficult one, anyway: every full sentence has to have a verb in it, so does that mean all nouns and adjectives should be disallowed because they can't appear on their own?

Surely it's not whether they can appear on their own, it's whether they have a meaning on their own. E.g mistle apparently has no stand alone meaning, thrush does.

The thrush qualified as "mistle" apparently has a fondness for mistletoe berries, so presumably one could argue that mistle means "liking mistletoe berries". But as said thrush is probably (and understandably!) in a minority of one, the word isn't used sufficiently to get its own entry.

[Grant Waters]

This game was quite interesting for many reason and has certainly raised some good discussions but I haven't seen a recap for it yet. Is anyone in a position to do a recap?

[James Robinson]

This game was quite interesting for many reason and has certainly raised some good discussions but I haven't seen a recap for it yet. Is anyone in a position to do a recap?

Really we need to wake up Thomas. I'll sort that out now.

[Mark Deeks]

Turns out BUMPENIS isn't it. FYI.

[Adam Gillard]

all the words I can think of which end with a vowel followed by a Y are pluralised -ys, and words ending with a consonant followed by a Y are pluralised -ies (can anyone think of any exceptions?)

TROLLIES (although TROLLEYS is also in, trollie* isn't).

[Stewart Gordon]

I think disallowing MATEYS was a bad call, yes. Page xvi at the front of the dictionary says "Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown".

So the regular plural of LOCH would be LOCHES....

It goes on to say "Other plural forms are given in the dictionary, notably for: ... nouns ending in -y, e.g. fly -> flies".

So in the absence of any information to the contrary, the plural of a word ending in a Y ends in YS.

I take this to mean that if a noun ends in -y, then it will specify the plural, because some such nouns are pluralised with -ies (queries, dollies, dictionaries) and some with -eys (monkeys, trolleys, keys). In all those examples, the plural is specified in the dictionary, but with MATEY it isn't. So the plural must be assumed to be regular, as Susie said. But in my opinion, "regular" in this case means you just put an S on the end. This is both in accordance with the letter of what the dictionary says, and in accordance with common sense: all the words I can think of which end with a vowel followed by a Y are pluralised -ys, and words ending with a consonant followed by a Y are pluralised -ies (can anyone think of any exceptions?). So I'd say the plural of MATEY should be MATEYS and not MATIES.

Taken the words out of my mouth there. Moreover, if the regular plural of -Y were always -IES, then in this instance it would be MATEIES.

Unless the dictionary doesn't give MATEY, but only MATY or MATIE.

I was further confused by the claim on today's show that SALMONS is valid. We were told that the normal plural of SALMON is SALMON, but by the portions-of-food rule SALMONS is allowed. This seems wrong: If a plural of a word is given, then this overrides any regular plural rule. So if the plural is SALMONS in this specific sense, then this fact would have to be specified in the dictionary.

This has in turn reminded me of BADDER and BADDEST. At least one of these times, we were told that the comparative and superlative can be inferred because BAD is a monosyllabic adjective. Does the dictionary not indicate that the inflections of BAD are WORSE and WORST? (I know of BADDER and BADDEST being the inflections of BAD in the slang meaning of "excellent", but that doesn't factor into what was said at all.)

[Graeme Cole]

I think disallowing MATEYS was a bad call, yes. Page xvi at the front of the dictionary says "Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown".

So the regular plural of LOCH would be LOCHES....

Nope - the CH in LOCH is a "hard" CH. Compare with the "soft" CH in MATCH. The plural of MATCH is MATCHES because it's a soft CH, and the plural of LOCH is LOCHS because it's a hard CH.

I was further confused by the claim on today's show that SALMONS is valid. We were told that the normal plural of SALMON is SALMON, but by the portions-of-food rule SALMONS is allowed. This seems wrong: If a plural of a word is given, then this overrides any regular plural rule. So if the plural is SALMONS in this specific sense, then this fact would have to be specified in the dictionary.

Agreed.

This has in turn reminded me of BADDER and BADDEST. At least one of these times, we were told that the comparative and superlative can be inferred because BAD is a monosyllabic adjective. Does the dictionary not indicate that the inflections of BAD are WORSE and WORST? (I know of BADDER and BADDEST being the inflections of BAD in the slang meaning of "excellent", but that doesn't factor into what was said at all.)

The comparative and superlative of BAD are specifically given in the dictionary as WORSE and WORST, so in the absence of any other information you wouldn't be allowed BADDEST, but yes, as you say, later on in the entry the comparative and superlative of a different sense are given as BADDER and BADDEST, so they're valid.

A better example is GOODER and GOODEST - it's specified under the entry for GOOD that the comparatives are BETTER and BEST, and no different comparatives are given anywhere else in the entry, so you can't have GOODER and GOODEST.

[Stewart Gordon]

I think disallowing MATEYS was a bad call, yes. Page xvi at the front of the dictionary says "Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown".

So the regular plural of LOCH would be LOCHES....

Nope - the CH in LOCH is a "hard" CH. Compare with the "soft" CH in MATCH. The plural of MATCH is MATCHES because it's a soft CH, and the plural of LOCH is LOCHS because it's a hard CH.

LOCH isn't pronounced as "lock". The "ch" sound is a voiceless velar fricative, similar to the "ch" found in Welsh, German and a number of other languages. On the other hand, CHEMIST and possibly EUNUCH (the only such word ending in "ch" I can think of at the moment) have hard "ch" sounds.

[Adam Gillard]

-es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch

So the regular plural of LOCH would be LOCHES....

Nope - the CH in LOCH is a "hard" CH. Compare with the "soft" CH in MATCH. The plural of MATCH is MATCHES because it's a soft CH, and the plural of LOCH is LOCHS because it's a hard CH.

LOCH isn't pronounced as "lock". The "ch" sound is a voiceless velar fricative, similar to the "ch" found in Welsh, German and a number of other languages. On the other hand, CHEMIST and possibly EUNUCH (the only such word ending in "ch" I can think of at the moment) have hard "ch" sounds.

I think the problem here is the attempt in the ODE to explain pronunciation and phonotactics in layman's terms (i.e., 'soft' and 'hard' ch). In truth, 's', 'x', 'z', 'sh' and 'soft ch' are all sibilants, hence the -es plural. The sibilants present in English are /szʃʒ/, as found in 'bus', 'buzz', 'bush', 'budge' (/bʌs/, /bʌz/, /bʊʃ/, /bʌdʒ/). To break it down, the letter 'x' is essentially /ks/, 'sh' is /ʃ/ and 'soft ch' (as in 'match' (/mætʃ/) is /tʃ/. All of these present a sibilant (shown in bold) at the end of the word. The final consonantal sound in 'loch' is not a sibilant, so it takes the -s plural rather than -es. In phonological terms, it may be said that the English regular plural is -/z/, which becomes -/s/ after a voiceless sound (due to voicing agreement) and -/ɪz/ after a sibilant (due to a phonotactic constraint against adjacent sibilants).

[Grant Waters]

Just had this in a game against Nude and got a dose of Deja Vu!!



It was interesting because in both cases where MATEYS was suggested, I got STEAMY!

Rnd Selection Grant Waters Score Colin Costello Others Max.
13 NSEAYMUTE STEAMY 75 – 33 mateys ☓ AMNESTY*, MEANEST 100

GXW