c4countdown

Everyone has a time once a week when they think, "Why does the English language have no word for that?" (Well they probably don't but I'm saying it so I get some replies.) It is commonly said that English has a word for everything. Let the online Countdown enthusiasts aid this most awesome of languages to its full capacity of vocabulary!

Four ways to reply:
1) With a new word and new definition;
2) With a new definition;
3) With a new word;
4) Suggesting a word or definition for 2) or 3) respectively.

Of course you can just reply for the hell of it, seeing as that is what 87.63% of posts on c4countdown fall under.

Here's a few to start you off:


Interbabble, v. To interrupt a conversation, only to talk incoherently, quickly, or deviate from the topic so that your contribution to the conversation is useless.

Pfennig-quantiser (needs definition)

(needs word) To bounce along the ground due to a combination of fatness and falling over at speed.

Good luck, my lexicalinventorforumpersons,

Joseph

So he does. Thank you for your contribution, but I am fearful to add these to the list for fear of breaking copyright laws, being sent to prison, and being tortured by being forced to play Anagrammatic for eternity.

The absence of an opposite of elevate troubles me occasionally, so maybe delevate or something. lower doesn't quite do it.

On the creative side, I think this forum has done its part to bring lexonerd into common currency.

Charlie Reams wrote:The absence of an opposite of elevate troubles me occasionally, so maybe delevate or something. lower doesn't quite do it.

On the creative side, I think this forum has done its part to bring lexonerd into common currency.

Lexonerd definitely.

Delevate is quite good; how about alevate?

There should be an equivalent to fewer for more, so we can have another thing to feel pedantically superior about.

My contribution already recorded in a similar thread.

Michael Wallace wrote:There should be an equivalent to fewer for more, so we can have another thing to feel pedantically superior about.

The fact that there isn't is one of the reasons that I argue that it's fine to use "less" instead of "fewer". The argument goes - "less" is just the opposite of "more". "fewer" is just a separate word that has no direct opposite. We would use "less" if "fewer" didn't exist and its existence doesn't change the validity of "less" in cases where "fewer" will also do.

I use the words "bes" and "beed" where "is" and "was" don't really fit.

Frankie Boyle described someone as a 'fucknugget', which was definitely my word of the day.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:There should be an equivalent to fewer for more, so we can have another thing to feel pedantically superior about.

The fact that there isn't is one of the reasons that I argue that it's fine to use "less" instead of "fewer". The argument goes - "less" is just the opposite of "more". "fewer" is just a separate word that has no direct opposite. We would use "less" if "fewer" didn't exist and its existence doesn't change the validity of "less" in cases where "fewer" will also do.

I use the words "bes" and "beed" where "is" and "was" don't really fit.

Speaking of things that are usually ungrammatical, I sometimes think it would be useful to have a kind of meta-comparative: "Alex is more taller than Pat than Pat is than Sam."