c4countdown

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.

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.

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.

Jennifer Turner wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

Yes, I managed to get Rachel's name and the number 69 in the same sentence

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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...

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I just wanted to say how cute it was today when Rachel put up the number 9 and said N.

Would've been cuter had she put up a 2 and said "'T', err 'coffee' err I mean 2".

Rachel is just plain cute.

Martin Gardner wrote:Rachel is just plain.

Agreed.

Rachel has brought a touch of class to the show brains, beauty and wit.

Rachel is just plain cute.

Couldn't agree more.

Matt.

Baz wrote:Rachel has brought a touch of class to the show brains, beauty and wit.

No it already had all that, she's just continuing it.

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.

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.

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.

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.