What's Dxford? Do you mean Duxford? Anyway, Carol used to say "times by" all the time(s). There was once a discussion about this on the show, and Susie said that actually "times by" is perfectly acceptable nowadays. Still sounds utterly bizarre to me, though.Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.
Rachel Riley Unveiled.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:56 pm
- Location: East Hell
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I think whenever someone says "times by" I hear it as "timesed by". Not that this really adds anything to the discussion, but there you go.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13329
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I remember Carol once mocking contestants that said it (not to their faces, can't remember the context), obviously not realising that she did also say it herself. "Perfectly acceptable" is of course subjective, but I'm sure I've said it loads of times ("times by" not "perfectly acceptable", although that as well), so although it may be ridiculous if you do say it you're in good company.Jennifer Turner wrote:What's Dxford? Do you mean Duxford? Anyway, Carol used to say "times by" all the time(s). There was once a discussion about this on the show, and Susie said that actually "times by" is perfectly acceptable nowadays. Still sounds utterly bizarre to me, though.Albert Vennison wrote:Thinking back to my schooldays, surely Rachel is grammatically incorrect in referring to a multiplication as "times by". In this context "times" means "multiplied by" so she is saying "multiplied by by" which is tautology. Carol never made this mistake - perhaps they taught better English at Cambridge than they do at Dxford.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:29 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Times doesn't bother me, but 'by' does, as in four by three. I guess it just depends how you learnt maths when young. I have trouble getting my head round 'into' as well, as in 5 into 20 instead of 20 divided by 5. There's nothing wrong with it, it just takes me a while to get what they are saying. Is it a regional thing?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I would say: plus (+), minus (-), times OR by (x), over (/)
Just my personal vocab - at least I think it's concise and quick to say. I dislike phrases like "multiplied by" and "timesed by" simply because they are laboured, regardless of any grammatical arguments. It would also motivate Rachel to start writing the working-out more quickly
Another thing that pees me off are those contestants that insist on specifying when and where they want brackets written, rather than leaving it to the hostess to write however she feels is appropriate. Far clearer IMO to simply punctuate your solution with brief pauses as you explain it to clarify the order. To be fair to those contestants though, the more I read this forum, I think it might be an Aspergers thing?
Just my personal vocab - at least I think it's concise and quick to say. I dislike phrases like "multiplied by" and "timesed by" simply because they are laboured, regardless of any grammatical arguments. It would also motivate Rachel to start writing the working-out more quickly
Another thing that pees me off are those contestants that insist on specifying when and where they want brackets written, rather than leaving it to the hostess to write however she feels is appropriate. Far clearer IMO to simply punctuate your solution with brief pauses as you explain it to clarify the order. To be fair to those contestants though, the more I read this forum, I think it might be an Aspergers thing?
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Well if the brackets are wrong then they might end up with completely the wrong number. So if it's a question of getting 0 points, I think it's quite understandable. No, "timesed by" doesn't annoy me at all, it is in the dictionary so I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13329
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
The dictionary is no objective arbiter of what is sensible English (although obviously I would cite the dictionary if it favoured me in an argument). I do think it sounds a little bit stupid, even if I have said it myself.Martin Gardner wrote:Well if the brackets are wrong then they might end up with completely the wrong number. So if it's a question of getting 0 points, I think it's quite understandable. No, "timesed by" doesn't annoy me at all, it is in the dictionary so I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I'm sure if a contestant said "75 minus 3 times 2 is 144" rather than "75 minus 3 in brackets, times 2 is 144" Rachel would still write "(75 - 3) x 2" and NOT declare "Sorry, no, it's 69, so no points I'm afraid".Martin Gardner wrote:Well if the brackets are wrong then they might end up with completely the wrong number. So if it's a question of getting 0 points, I think it's quite understandable.
Yes, I managed to get Rachel's name and the number 69 in the same sentence
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
The brackets are an important part of the answer: it seems unduly harsh to castigate the candidate for gettig it exactly right. Of course, as you say, a slight pause in reading is usually enough, because Carol, and Rachel already, are usually a couple of penstrokes ahead of the candidate and write the brackets automatically.Vikash Shah wrote:I'm sure if a contestant said "75 minus 3 times 2 is 144" rather than "75 minus 3 in brackets, times 2 is 144" Rachel would still write "(75 - 3) x 2" and NOT declare "Sorry, no, it's 69, so no points I'm afraid".
I don't think it could be called "an Aspergers thing", it's more likely "a mathematician's thing": without the brackets the written equation is plain wrong.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:59 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
On the subject of normal usage, there was an Indian-born contestant a few months ago who said '4 into 3' when she meant '4 times 3'. Having taught many Indian students, I can vouch that this is normal usage in India, because they all say it this way.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Yes - there was a somewhat acrimonious correspondence on the Crossword Centre message board on the same subject, with maths teachers being pitted against ordinary members of the public.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't think it could be called "an Aspergers thing", it's more likely "a mathematician's thing": without the brackets the written equation is plain wrong.
When Carol wrote something like 75-3=72x2=144+5=149 that's mathematical nonsense, but what was actually said was 75-3=72, x2=144, +5=149: I've noticed that Rachel usually writes intermediate results on a separate line, which is clearer.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
What both of them are writing down is not really intended to be a perfect, pedantic solution, just a record of what was said. Rachel does do each step more clearly, but I expect even she will develop some bad habits over the next 26 years.PeterMabey wrote:When Carol wrote something like 75-3=72x2=144+5=149 that's mathematical nonsense, but what was actually said was 75-3=72, x2=144, +5=149: I've noticed that Rachel usually writes intermediate results on a separate line, which is clearer.
The candidates in the French version have to type in each step of their solution into a computer, but I think they get more time for that.
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I just wanted to say how cute it was today when Rachel put up the number 9 and said N.
I think she's lovely. I know I love Carol, but as someone who's thinking of buying my local Rosemary Conley franchise, but is slightly aprehensive as the woman who already owns it - my boss - is so adored, I can see that if someone chooses to go, you can still love their replacement. There's room to love everyone! (And I hope I will be loved too as I'm 99% convinced I'm going to go for it.)
I've had a couple of post Burns night whiskys so not sure if that last para makes sense, but still the 9 and N were sweet...
I think she's lovely. I know I love Carol, but as someone who's thinking of buying my local Rosemary Conley franchise, but is slightly aprehensive as the woman who already owns it - my boss - is so adored, I can see that if someone chooses to go, you can still love their replacement. There's room to love everyone! (And I hope I will be loved too as I'm 99% convinced I'm going to go for it.)
I've had a couple of post Burns night whiskys so not sure if that last para makes sense, but still the 9 and N were sweet...
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Would've been cuter had she put up a 2 and said "'T', err 'coffee' err I mean 2".Lesley Jeavons wrote:I just wanted to say how cute it was today when Rachel put up the number 9 and said N.
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Rachel is just plain cute.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Agreed.Martin Gardner wrote:Rachel is just plain.
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Rachel has brought a touch of class to the show brains, beauty and wit.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:23 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Couldn't agree more.Rachel is just plain cute.
Matt.
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
No it already had all that, she's just continuing it.Baz wrote:Rachel has brought a touch of class to the show brains, beauty and wit.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:09 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Saying her favourite Beatle was "the scouse one" was a funny line. Goshdarn, I think Rachel might actually be the kind of comic foil that Carol simply never could be, while Jeff Stelling (now that he's got over making football references in every round) might be the best presenter the show has ever had. Yes, better than RW. Thank fuck C4 slashed the budget for the presenters, it's the best thing that ever happened to the show.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
I didn't think anyone would ever say that, but I have to agree with that statement. Richard will always rightly be a legend but Jeff is definitely the more authoritative presenter.Pete Fraser wrote:Jeff Stelling (now that he's got over making football references in every round) might be the best presenter the show has ever had. Yes, better than RW.
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: Rachel Riley Unveiled.
Jeff obviously "knows" what is going on, no one can beat Richard in my eyes but Jeff is a sure fire winner after Des O.
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum