Re: Words You Would Have Thought...
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:56 pm
audios
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Usage example?Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios
Audios, amigo!Charlie Reams wrote:Usage example?Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios
plural of audio.Michael Wallace wrote:Audios, amigo!Charlie Reams wrote:Usage example?Rhys Benjamin wrote:audios
I put in ENTRESOLN, and it gave a 7.Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Also I've put it through here
So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
"Rhys thinks audios is a word, however he is wrong."Charlie Reams wrote:So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.Charlie Reams wrote:So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
Hey, we're hungry why don't you go and audios some pizza!Charlie Reams wrote:So what's the usage example? When would you use the word?Rhys Benjamin wrote:plural of audio.
Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.
When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.
"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"
In the movie world.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.
When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.
"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"
Have you worked in the movie world for long?Rhys Benjamin wrote:In the movie world.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".Rhys Benjamin wrote:A sound signal: lost the audios during the broadcasts.
When you're talking about a split-screen, each screen has it's own audio. Pluralise it.
"On Windows Movie Maker, what are you going to do with the audios?"
Well of course it's ridiculous. You don't say "leafs" do you? It's "how are your family's healves?".Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".
HealthesMatt Morrison wrote:Well of course it's ridiculous. You don't say "leafs" do you? It's "how are your family's healves?".Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me. Each person has their own health, but you don't say "how are your family's healths?".
Doesn't it just make duplexes by copying?Andrew Feist wrote:duplexing^, as in what the big copier at work does.
links plsRhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.
I can't see any audios to select. Did you forget to put them in?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.
It was an example of audios.Jon Corby wrote:I can't see any audios to select. Did you forget to put them in?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Select one of these audios.
And if it were, Chris' last offered word in his heats would have been valid.Miriam Nussbaum wrote:I'm really surprised that RATIONALS^ isn't in. Like the set of rational numbers. (If it were, I would have beaten my Goatdown Letters Attack PB by 12 points!)
The question in both cases is whether the words are really in common usage. In the case of rationals I feel like the answer is yes, at least as much as many of the obscure scientific terms which have made the cut, but I'd have to concede that they're the ones with the zillion-word database.Graeme Cole wrote:FALSIE. Susie mentioned only the other day that FALSIES were pads for putting in bras, but apparently you can't have only one of them. What if you've got one breast smaller than the other?
And yes, RATIONALS really ought to be in the dictionary. The argument against inclusion could be that the noun is "rational number" rather than "rational", but "the rationals" is widely used to refer to the set of all rational numbers, and I'm sure I remember using it in that way at school a decade ago.
As in: The ODE mauves in mysterious ways.James Hall wrote:Mauves
Hehe nice one.Gavin Chipper wrote:As in: The ODE mauves in mysterious ways.
The justification Susie has given on the show is that 'primary' colours like reds and greens have various shades, while colours like mauve are a shade already and don't have sub-shades. (That's a paraphrase.)James Hall wrote:You can surely get reds and greens and things, so why not mauves?
Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.
it is though.Ian Volante wrote:Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.
It's not ABRASION (as in scraping) is in, although it's a mass noun and therefore not pluralised frequently enough to warrant entry into the dictionary. Abration (and any plural thereof) is a misspelling, sorryRhys Benjamin wrote:it is though.Ian Volante wrote:Might be worth investigating why abration isn't in either!Rhys Benjamin wrote:abrations - where more than one abration happens.
Does ABRASION really have no countable subsense in the ODE? I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.Lesley Hines wrote:ABRASION ... a mass noun and therefore not pluralised frequently enough to warrant entry into the dictionary
The usual English version is AZANOliver Garner wrote:ADHAN and ADHANS, the Islamic call to prayer.
You could take out your OED and your OCD in one fell swoop.Clive Brooker wrote:I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.
** LIKE **Gavin Chipper wrote:You could take out your OED and your OCD in one fell swoop.Clive Brooker wrote:I can't check in my ODE2r because ... it's still in its cellophane wrapper. Daft, I know.
Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?
Don't know about the "real" dictionary; my dictionary only contains etiolate as a verb and not an adjective.Charlie Reams wrote:Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?
Thanks well I guess that would make sense yeah, it's just that it appears 'Etiolate' is a verb, at least according to google, meaning to "make weak or stunt growth in a plant", or "make pale or sickly", and the example given by google even says "alcohol ETIOLATES your skin". Still, who knows, guess there must be some explanationCharlie Reams wrote:Not really. Something can be unkempt but no one unkemps it. Adjectives don't necessarily produce verbs.Jonathan Wynn wrote:ETIOLATED but not ETIOLATES? A mistake surely?
3rd edition has ETIOLATED (adj.) and ETIOLATION (noun) but not etiolate^.Andrew Feist wrote:Don't know about the "real" dictionary; my dictionary only contains etiolate as a verb and not an adjective.
Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides
It's given as a mass noun. I think the fact that Genocide is capitalised in both of Thomas' examples suggests that individual acts (the countable sense) are capitalised generally.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides
Yeah I know, but it seems like it should be covered by the "actions" clause (I think the example given is CIRCUMCISIONS). Depends on the wording of the definition.Kai Laddiman wrote:It's given as a mass noun.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, I think this is a mistake. Can someone check the definition?Thomas Cappleman wrote:Genocides - Armenian Genocide + Rwandan Genocide = 2 genocides
What did it look like when you realised?Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm surprised LIGHTBULB isn't there.
likeCharlie Reams wrote:What did it look like when you realised?Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm surprised LIGHTBULB isn't there.
Yeah, I guess it stems from this idiot.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Plaices...
you know those fish...
Plural is PLAICE, go with SPECIAL instead.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Plaices...
you know those fish...