Can she regain her top form and make it 5 out of 5
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
Join me later for the Robinson Recap to see if she can.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Moderator: James Robinson
It's one of those debatable ones. In S61, it was disallowed after Susie looked it up, but not long before that she allowed it, while using the same dictionary..............Jack Worsley wrote:Also, is TONNAGES allowable? DC only mentioned TONNAGE today but I'm sure I've seen it allowed before.
Come on mate, that was easy.Andy Platt wrote:Anyone get the conundrum though? I was miles off it.
I hope Adam got it! Nobody in the audience had any idea.Andy Platt wrote: Anyone get the conundrum though? I was miles off it.
I got it fairly quickly and I'm shit at conundrums.Andy Platt wrote: Anyone get the conundrum though? I was miles off it.
Really nice comments Keith but I fear you might be giving Tony some ammunition hereKeith Bennett wrote:I hope Adam got it! Nobody in the audience had any idea.Andy Platt wrote: Anyone get the conundrum though? I was miles off it.
Before the show Rachel had presented Caleb (sp?) with a birthday present from the crew - a lovely gesture. As Jeff said, he's an audience regular; not sure exactly what his condition is, possibly cerebal palsy. But apparently it's a 4 hour drive to get there whenever his father brings him. So I guess the crew took the opportunity to let him have his moment and earn a mug to take home too.
Having seen CV in action some years ago I have to say RR comes across as a much more genuine and approachable person; hope she stays that way. In fact the whole thing felt a lot more relaxed than in the RW/CV days. Get the feeling now that they really do see the show as being more about the contestants than the presenters.
Long may it continue.
I got it after a few secondsAndy Platt wrote:Anyone get the conundrum though? I was miles off it.
James Robinson wrote:It's one of those debatable ones. In S61, it was disallowed after Susie looked it up, but not long before that she allowed it, while using the same dictionary..............Jack Worsley wrote:Also, is TONNAGES allowable? DC only mentioned TONNAGE today but I'm sure I've seen it allowed before.
It's a mass noun, and it doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories of mass noun you can pluralise. However, if you're using it to refer to the carrying capacity of a ship, I think it's perfectly valid to say that two ships have two different tonnages, just the same as saying they have two different capacities.ODE3 wrote:tonnage noun [mass noun] weight in tons, especially of cargo or freight: road convoys carry more tonnage; the size or carrying capacity of a ship measured in tons; shipping considered in terms of total carrying capacity: the European Community's total tonnage.
Sounds familiar.Graeme Cole wrote:I think it's perfectly valid to say that two ships have two different tonnages
Personally I'd agree with that, but the implication of the ODE is that the correct expression is simply that two ships have different tonnage. For two ships to have different tonnages each of them would have to have a tonnage, which would make it a count noun.Graeme Cole wrote:It's a mass noun, and it doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories of mass noun you can pluralise. However, if you're using it to refer to the carrying capacity of a ship, I think it's perfectly valid to say that two ships have two different tonnages, just the same as saying they have two different capacities.ODE3 wrote:tonnage noun [mass noun] weight in tons, especially of cargo or freight: road convoys carry more tonnage; the size or carrying capacity of a ship measured in tons; shipping considered in terms of total carrying capacity: the European Community's total tonnage.