c4countdown

It's Valentine's Day, and Victoria James is in love with Countdown right now. 6 wins have all but guaranteed her the number 2 slot, I suppose it is possible she can get number 1 if she averages over 150 in the next two games, but I would say those odds are slim. Gloria Hunniford is back in the corner and....can I have Kate Humble back please? I don't know if I find her worse than Michael Vaughan yet, but I definitely want Kate back over her.

Join Liam for a recap filled with love later.

Could you have LINESMEN for 8 in the SMILIER round?

Jordan F wrote:Could you have LINESMEN for 8 in the SMILIER round?

Wasn't there only one N? There was ANOTHER in the HAUNTER round.
Alt last numbers (((4x25)+50+10)x5) -1.

Controversy! SEDATIONS should've been allowed, and the margin of defeat was 18 points. Could this cost Victoria a place in the finals?

^...uh oh. Certainly valid according to apterous, and from what I'm looking up it doesn't appear like it's a mass noun. This COULD be a pretty big deal.

Has the dictionary entry for SEDATION changed at all since ODE2r? If not, that's very unfair on Victoria who may well have seen SEDATIONS allowed on the show before (or made the mistake of paying attention to the contestant guidelines).

Dan McColm wrote:Controversy! SEDATIONS should've been allowed, and the margin of defeat was 18 points. Could this cost Victoria a place in the finals?

Chris would have lost 8 points so Victoria would win by 10.

But the hard copy of ODE3 clearly says mass noun, and online version also has it as invalid, so it's not been added since that was published. So on what grounds are you so sure it should be allowed Dan?

Dan McColm wrote:Controversy! SEDATIONS should've been allowed, and the margin of defeat was 18 points. Could this cost Victoria a place in the finals?

ODE wrote:Sedation noun [mass noun] the action of administering a sedative drug to produce a state of calm or sleep

Although it's valid on apterous, it does say it's a mass noun so unless there's anything in the definition which suggests it falls into one of the categories of mass nouns you can pluralise according to the rules of the show, which I'm not sure of, Susie was right to disallow it. If it was allowed, Victoria would have won by eight points, assuming the rest of the rounds had stayed the same (it may have had a huge mental effect on both players). I fell into the same trap.

Although she was unlucky here, Victoria unfortunately was below par today, which was a shame because she'd been a good champion. Still a chance that she could make the finals.

3rd numbers: (25-5-4)x50-1 = 799

(25-8)*(10+6+1)*3=867 as a nice alternative in one of the rounds if I was given the numbers correctly.

I was hoping there might be a past case to look at, but the last time SEDATIONS was declared on the show was back in Series 57, when it was still ODE2r and in of course............

Have made the wiki SEDATIONS-less, so the max is down to a lowly 114.

ERMINES in round 6, MIRADOR in round 9, SNOUTED in round 11 and EEJIT in round 12.

3rd Numbers Alt.: ((25 - 5 - 4) x 50) - 1 = 799

Sorry to see Victoria lose there, although Chris isn't a bad player. She could have been a strong contender for the finals (and she might yet be). I think the disallowing of SEDATIONS is controversial, assuming the contestant guidelines haven't changed since I was sent them:

Countdown contestant guidelines wrote: Categories of mass nouns that can take a plural:
...
3. An instance of:
* an action or process: e.g. genocide (act of genocide = genocides), lambing (an act of lambing = lambings)

The definition of SEDATION in the ODE3 is as Jack quoted it - it says it's a mass noun, but also that it's an action. If you sedate two people, it's not inconceivable that you could be said to have performed two sedations.

Same could be said of OUTSETS, though. And as we both know, it wasn't. I dunno. It's all permanently confusing and a right answer probably doesn't exist. At least they haven't backtracked on previous precedent because there wasn't any.

I think the best bet here would be to do away with all the special Countdown rules, i.e. the food rule and the subjects rule and stuff. If it says mass noun, it's a mass noun, and it can't be pluralled on Countdown even if it can in real life. This will lead to a few hard-done-by cases in the future, but then, we have that anyway. The blanket rule would at least provide clarity.

Not that I think SEDATIONS was unjust. I'm just saying, though.

Mark Deeks wrote:I think the best bet here would be to do away with all the special Countdown rules, i.e. the food rule and the subjects rule and stuff. If it says mass noun, it's a mass noun, and it can't be pluralled on Countdown even if it can in real life. This will lead to a few hard-done-by cases in the future, but then, we have that anyway. The blanket rule would at least provide clarity.

Not that I think SEDATIONS was unjust. I'm just saying, though.

They're not really special Countdown rules. The rules on the acceptability of mass noun plurals are lifted from page xiii of the ODE3. OUTSETS isn't an action. The dictionary definition says it's the start or beginning of something, not the act of setting out as you might expect. Also, it's the "in singular" tag that caused it to be disallowed - it's not given as a mass noun.

Regarding disallowing all mass noun plurals regardless of how reasonable they are: I think the Scrabble dictionary, again in a bid to improve clarity and certainty, goes to the other extreme. Even silly mass noun plurals are accepted, like GUNFIRES.

I don't really see the controversy behind pluralising mass nouns, the rules clearly state that you cannot pluralise a mass noun but you can pluralise a food eg tandoori/tandooris although 'sedations' could be plausible in the fact that maybe an animal could have had 2 sedations in its life, I dont know, maybe I'm talking jibberish but that is just my take on it.

David Barnard wrote:I don't really see the controversy behind pluralising mass nouns, the rules clearly state that you cannot pluralise a mass noun but you can pluralise a food eg tandoori/tandooris although 'sedations' could be plausible in the fact that maybe an animal could have had 2 sedations in its life, I dont know, maybe I'm talking jibberish but that is just my take on it.

The rules equally clearly state that "actions" can be pluralised, and SEDATION is described explicitly as an action. It doesn't matter what the rules state if they're not going to be followed. Having Susie make a 'human judgement' on the sensibility of plurals is a nice idea and probably makes the show feel more down-to-earth, but it's not really fair that someone should lose a game (and very possibly a finals spot) on the basis of one of these judgements, especially if they're not consistent from one instance of a word to the next.

I hope I'm not coming across as critical towards Susie, that's certainly not my intention. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to adjudicate entirely consistently given such vague rules and so little time. So I would agree with Mark's idea, not only for the sake of consistency, but to shift the responsibility onto the dictionary compilers who aren't under any such pressure.

Innis Carson wrote:

David Barnard wrote:I don't really see the controversy behind pluralising mass nouns, the rules clearly state that you cannot pluralise a mass noun but you can pluralise a food eg tandoori/tandooris although 'sedations' could be plausible in the fact that maybe an animal could have had 2 sedations in its life, I dont know, maybe I'm talking jibberish but that is just my take on it.

The rules equally clearly state that "actions" can be pluralised, and SEDATION is described explicitly as an action. It doesn't matter what the rules state if they're not going to be followed. Having Susie make a 'human judgement' on the sensibility of plurals is a nice idea and probably makes the show feel more down-to-earth, but it's not really fair that someone should lose a game (and very possibly a finals spot) on the basis of one of these judgements, especially if they're not consistent from one instance of a word to the next.

I hope I'm not coming across as critical towards Susie, that's certainly not my intention. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to adjudicate entirely consistently given such vague rules and so little time. So I would agree with Mark's idea, not only for the sake of consistency, but to shift the responsibility onto the dictionary compilers who aren't under any such pressure.

Thanks for clearing that up Innis, it's definitely one of those words that could cause problems, it made me look rather silly at home when I said to my Mum 'I think I have a 9' to declare it and then see it disallowed, at least I can show her this page

I don't have an ODE3 so I can't really comment. But I'd be absolutely gutted and demand a 2nd opinion if was on the show.

R10: 50*75=3750; 3750/6=625; 625+(10/5)=627

I've never figured out why dictionaries can't just give the pluralisations of all words (if they have valid plurals), at least it would be consistent and it surely would be of use for some of the more obscure or difficult words. The ODE3 (or whichever one it is now) is supposed to be a dictionary for everyday use and whilst there are rules on pluralisation given at the start of the dictionary, should a casual user (rather than nerds like us) be expected to read through these to learn how to pluralise a word they don't know?

OK, most people won't need to be told that CARS is the plural of CAR and BABIES is the plural of BABY. But what about an unusual word with an unusual ending (opens dictionary at random) like EUONYMUS? It's a shrub or small tree, so obviously has a plural, but what is the plural? Is it EUONYMUSES? Or EUONYMUSSES? What about EUONYMI? I probably could have chosen a better example, but you get the gist.

JimBentley wrote:I've never figured out why dictionaries can't just give the pluralisations of all words, at least it would be consistent and it surely would be of use for some of the more obscure or difficult words. The ODE3 (or whichever one it is now) is supposed to be a dictionary for everyday use and whilst there are rules on pluralisation given at the start of the dictionary, should a casual user (rather than nerds like us) be expected to read through these to learn how to pluralise a word they don't know?

OK, most people won't need to be told that CARS is the plural of CAR and BABIES is the plural of BABY. But what about an unusual word with an unusual ending (opens dictionary at random) like EUONYMUS? It's a shrub or small tree, so obviously has a plural, but what is the plural? Is it EUONYMUSES? Or EUONYMUSSES? What about EUONYMI? I probably could have chosen a better example, but you get the gist.

I thought it was just add an S unless otherwise specified. What are the rules given?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

JimBentley wrote:I've never figured out why dictionaries can't just give the pluralisations of all words, at least it would be consistent and it surely would be of use for some of the more obscure or difficult words. The ODE3 (or whichever one it is now) is supposed to be a dictionary for everyday use and whilst there are rules on pluralisation given at the start of the dictionary, should a casual user (rather than nerds like us) be expected to read through these to learn how to pluralise a word they don't know?

OK, most people won't need to be told that CARS is the plural of CAR and BABIES is the plural of BABY. But what about an unusual word with an unusual ending (opens dictionary at random) like EUONYMUS? It's a shrub or small tree, so obviously has a plural, but what is the plural? Is it EUONYMUSES? Or EUONYMUSSES? What about EUONYMI? I probably could have chosen a better example, but you get the gist.

I thought it was just add an S unless otherwise specified. What are the rules given?

The waffly bit at the front of the ODE says "Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown." It then goes on to say that plurals are given in the dictionary for certain other nouns, such as those ending with -y to show whether the plural is -ys or -ies (e.g. trolleys or queries).

So if no plural form is listed for EUONYMUS, it's EUONYMUSES.

You know those word wheel puzzles you see in newspapers and the like where you have to find as many words as possible that contain the centre letter? They don't allow plurals at all. I think that could be a solution. Actually, that would suck, but I just thought I'd put it out there.

Mark James wrote:You know those word wheel puzzles you see in newspapers and the like where you have to find as many words as possible that contain the centre letter? They don't allow plurals at all. I think that could be a solution. Actually, that would suck, but I just thought I'd put it out there.

OR more sensibly, not allow plurals of mass nouns!

Do away with ordering three sheeps for dinner

Innis Carson wrote:

David Barnard wrote:I don't really see the controversy behind pluralising mass nouns, the rules clearly state that you cannot pluralise a mass noun but you can pluralise a food eg tandoori/tandooris although 'sedations' could be plausible in the fact that maybe an animal could have had 2 sedations in its life, I dont know, maybe I'm talking jibberish but that is just my take on it.

The rules equally clearly state that "actions" can be pluralised, and SEDATION is described explicitly as an action. It doesn't matter what the rules state if they're not going to be followed. Having Susie make a 'human judgement' on the sensibility of plurals is a nice idea and probably makes the show feel more down-to-earth, but it's not really fair that someone should lose a game (and very possibly a finals spot) on the basis of one of these judgements, especially if they're not consistent from one instance of a word to the next.

I hope I'm not coming across as critical towards Susie, that's certainly not my intention. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to adjudicate entirely consistently given such vague rules and so little time. So I would agree with Mark's idea, not only for the sake of consistency, but to shift the responsibility onto the dictionary compilers who aren't under any such pressure.

There are some links to the games it's been allowed in on this apterous ticket http://www.apterous.org/ticket_view.php?ticket=386

although the second link can be discounted as it's a MSN online tourney game (apterous still being in it's infancy then) between Michael Wallace and myself. Michael got SEDATIONS, and he would've won even if it had been disallowed.

IMHO, as SEDATIONS has a similar entry in ODE2r as in ODE3, then there's a case for a dispute, and requesting that Victoria be given another chance in a future series.

Maybe one of the apterites in the current series could confirm whether the "actions can be pluralised" rule is still given in the current guidance to contestants.

If anyone's on twitter (I'm not), I believe Countdown can be contacted with queries. It would be useful to know whether this was a one off, a mistake, or if, from now on, all mass noun actions can no longer be pluralised.

I agree that it's can't be easy for Susie to make quick decisions on air, and we all are human and make mistakes, but if it was wrong then Victoria should be offered the chance to be a contestant again.

You could look at this incident slightly differently. With that selection, anyone who can spot SEDATION can also see SEDATIONS. I think it's a reasonable assumption that both players were in the same position - knowing that they had to second-guess what Susie would say. The difference between them therefore had nothing to do with word-finding ability, and it's extremely unfortunate that a 26 point swing should result from the decision. I'd argue that a fairer outcome would be for rounds like this to be shared - Susie could say that each position was equally supportable and call for a retake.

I'm not sure how much pressure Susie is under - I imagine Damian overrules any decision of this sort that he disagrees with. I would be that surprised if he checks Apterous in borderline cases and tells Susie to give the opposite ruling.

As a more genuine suggestion, a lot of trouble would be saved by reverting to the COD, as there wouldn't be any mass noun labels to imply false certainty and lead people astray. I always thought the problem of roadsidegate was exaggerated - it could easily have been a couple of years before a similar case came up. And many of the compound words missing from the COD10 (including ROADSIDE) were restored in the 2001 revision anyway.

In COD times there were still mass nouns, it's just that the dictionary gave no indication. RAIMENTS seemed to be disallowed so often you wondered if some of the contestants ever watched the programme, as you muttered "Minarets" to yourself.

Julie T wrote:If anyone's on twitter (I'm not), I believe Countdown can be contacted with queries. It would be useful to know whether this was a one off, a mistake, or if, from now on, all mass noun actions can no longer be pluralised.

I already have asked. Haven't got a response yet. But looking at the rules I was sent more closely, just because a mass noun is an action (or a fabric, or a rock, or whatever), that doesn't automatically mean the plural will always be allowed. It says "Where a noun falls into one of these categories, it means that a plural is usually allowed, though each individual case will be judged on its merits." I still take the view that SEDATIONS should have been allowed, as "I performed two sedations" seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable usage example, but the rule isn't as clear cut as you might think.

Clive Brooker wrote:You could look at this incident slightly differently. With that selection, anyone who can spot SEDATION can also see SEDATIONS. I think it's a reasonable assumption that both players were in the same position - knowing that they had to second-guess what Susie would say. The difference between them therefore had nothing to do with word-finding ability, and it's extremely unfortunate that a 26 point swing should result from the decision. I'd argue that a fairer outcome would be for rounds like this to be shared - Susie could say that each position was equally supportable and call for a retake.

I agree it's a bit of a crappy situation to be in, but I think they have to rule one way or the other. Otherwise a list of "acceptability undefined" words gets accumulated, which if declared automatically void the round, and some cheeky contestants might try to use that to their advantage.

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm not sure how much pressure Susie is under - I imagine Damian overrules any decision of this sort that he disagrees with.

I'm not sure why he'd choose to do that. Susie disallowed OUTSETS when I was on, and just before the next round she was talking to Damian about it. Obviously I could only hear one side of the conversation, but I got the impression that Damian thought it should be allowed, but was checking that Susie was happy with the ruling she'd made, which she was. The impression I got was that Damian prefers to defer to Susie rather than overrule her, which I think is sensible - Susie's a lexicographer, she's studied words and their usage for years, so it's expected that she's better placed than anyone in the studio to decide whether a word is acceptable or not (even though I personally find it difficult to agree with the ruling on SEDATIONS). Obviously there are borderline cases which could quite reasonably go either way (e.g. TONNAGES), and that's when I'd expect Susie would check with Damian to see what he thinks about it (as happened with TELOGENS^, by the way). We don't know whether Susie's disallowing of SEDATIONS was as a result of such a discussion - perhaps someone who was at the recording could tell us?

Clive Brooker wrote:I would be that surprised if he checks Apterous in borderline cases and tells Susie to give the opposite ruling.

Item request: a Tinfoil Hat for when you get a word allowed on apterous that's been disallowed on Countdown.

Graeme Cole wrote: Item request: a Tinfoil Hat for when you get a word allowed on apterous that's been disallowed on Countdown.

ROADSIDE.

Maybe they should have a list What fun we used to have.

Has SEDATIONS actually been allowed in the past? Apterous doesn't really create a precedent.

David Williams wrote:Has SEDATIONS actually been allowed in the past? Apterous doesn't really create a precedent.

Yes, Charlie lists a few examples here, but they're all from before they switched to the ODE3. I don't know if the definition has changed between the two dictionaries.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Julie T wrote:If anyone's on twitter (I'm not), I believe Countdown can be contacted with queries. It would be useful to know whether this was a one off, a mistake, or if, from now on, all mass noun actions can no longer be pluralised.

I already have asked. Haven't got a response yet.

Great, Graeme. Please let us all know what they say.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:I would be that surprised if he checks Apterous in borderline cases and tells Susie to give the opposite ruling.

Item request: a Tinfoil Hat for when you get a word allowed on apterous that's been disallowed on Countdown.

Love it!

Graeme Cole wrote:The impression I got was that Damian prefers to defer to Susie rather than overrule her, which I think is sensible - Susie's a lexicographer, she's studied words and their usage for years, so it's expected that she's better placed than anyone in the studio to decide whether a word is acceptable or not (even though I personally find it difficult to agree with the ruling on SEDATIONS).

I'm not sure I agree with that personally. Having a lexicographer for that job (like having an Oxford maths graduate to do the numbers - if that's anything to do with why Rachel was chosen) is probably more about making the show look more respectable than about the skills required. Most people could be trained up to Susie's level at this inside a day. I'm not saying that she's bad at the job - it's more that there isn't much skill involved. Borderline decisions to be made are more likely to be arbitrary rather than based on years of lexicographical knowledge. In fact disallowing words like RIGHTEST suggests that having someone off the street who is less likely to do any thinking about the decisions is more likely to lead to consistent and fair decisions.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:The impression I got was that Damian prefers to defer to Susie rather than overrule her, which I think is sensible - Susie's a lexicographer, she's studied words and their usage for years, so it's expected that she's better placed than anyone in the studio to decide whether a word is acceptable or not (even though I personally find it difficult to agree with the ruling on SEDATIONS).

I'm not sure I agree with that personally. Having a lexicographer for that job (like having an Oxford maths graduate to do the numbers - if that's anything to do with why Rachel was chosen) is probably more about making the show look more respectable than about the skills required. Most people could be trained up to Susie's level at this inside a day. I'm not saying that she's bad at the job - it's more that there isn't much skill involved. Borderline decisions to be made are more likely to be arbitrary rather than based on years of lexicographical knowledge. In fact disallowing words like RIGHTEST suggests that having someone off the street who is less likely to do any thinking about the decisions is more likely to lead to consistent and fair decisions.

Why does it have to be a human at all? If only someone could design a computerised system that could check a word list of all allowable words. Oh wait...

Mark James wrote:Why does it have to be a human at all? If only someone could design a computerised system that could check a word list of all allowable words. Oh wait...

I seem to remember reading somewhere here that they do have a computer program to check words. In case of a disagreement between that and the print dictionary the latter takes precedence. (Edit: found it.)

Presumably the dictionary is provided to them in electronic form by OUP. There's a difference between a "dictionary" and a "word list" though. The dictionary doesn't list common inflections such as regular plurals of nouns, and comparatives and superlatives of one-syllable adjectives. I don't know if their electronic version lists these - i.e. whether it lists the plural for mass nouns that can be pluralised. If it does, it would mean someone at OUP has gone through every mass noun in the book and decided one way or the other whether it can take a plural. Not impossible, but in a lot of cases it'd would be very much a matter of opinion which is probably why they don't publish this information if it exists at all.

Incidentally, if you search for words on Oxford Dictionaries Online (subscription required after you've made a certain number of searches), searching for some plurals of mass nouns takes you straight to the entry for the singular form, and searching for others give you a "no exact results found" page. For example, "gunfires", "arrogances", "ignorances", "sewages" and indeed "sedations" give you the "no exact results found" message, but more obviously pluralisable mass nouns such as "lasagnes", "terrains" and "mueslis" link straight to their respective singular noun entries. I'm not sure whether this implies anything about the acceptability of a word though, as there are other examples that don't fit the pattern - it denies the existence of "polentas" or "gruels", for example. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, and whether searching for a plural gives you the singular depends on how often people have used or searched for the word rather than whether OUP consider it an acceptable plural or not.

Graeme Cole wrote:Incidentally, if you search for words on Oxford Dictionaries Online (subscription required after you've made a certain number of searches)

Not if you use the free one.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:Incidentally, if you search for words on Oxford Dictionaries Online (subscription required after you've made a certain number of searches)

Not if you use the free one.

True. That one seems to be a lot faster, too.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Julie T wrote:If anyone's on twitter (I'm not), I believe Countdown can be contacted with queries. It would be useful to know whether this was a one off, a mistake, or if, from now on, all mass noun actions can no longer be pluralised.

I already have asked. Haven't got a response yet.

Any reply yet about SEDATIONS, Graeme?

they tactically ignored him