Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Words / Re: Passata
« Last post by 2dognight on April 17, 2024, 07:03:08 PM »
Passata is common in this house but I think it should be rare

Carol
32
Words / Re: Glutes
« Last post by jancsika on April 17, 2024, 06:53:38 PM »
I'd actually add a 5th option to that. Make "glute" rare, but bar "glutes" on account of being plural  ;D
33
Whatever / Re: Happy Birthday, Linda
« Last post by Linda on April 17, 2024, 05:47:47 PM »
Many thanks, Paula.   :)

34
Words / Re: Passata
« Last post by pat on April 17, 2024, 05:37:02 PM »
If so, I think it should be accepted as a rare word.
35
Words / Re: Passata
« Last post by cmh on April 17, 2024, 05:02:41 PM »
I try this every time as I forget it is not allowed and as  we are big pasta eaters it is common to us. Christine and David
36
Word Games / Re: 7 by many club
« Last post by Ozzyjack on April 17, 2024, 04:04:53 PM »
I could manage one glute but not two glutes.
37
Words / Passata
« Last post by Alan W on April 17, 2024, 03:38:41 PM »
A couple of days ago the 7-by-many puzzle did not allow passata, the Italian tomato sauce base. It's been suggested to me that it should be accepted. I'm inclined to agree. Any thoughts?
38
Words / Re: Glutes
« Last post by Alan W on April 17, 2024, 03:34:07 PM »
This issue has come up quite a few times before, jancsika.

I draw your attention to the Glute topic in 2007, the Glute/augered topic in 2009, the glutes topic in 2012, the glutes (again) topic in 2012 and the glutes - yet again! topic in 2018. Plus the occasional mention in threads dealing with other matters.

In 2013, responding to an argument that glutes should be disallowed as a plural, I summed up the situation as follows:

Quote
This suggestion was previously made by mkenuk in May 2012. That thread is here. So far, Morbius, you've kept to your statement in the original post: "I promise this is the last you'll hear from me on this subject!" I was sorely tempted to rely on that undertaking, and ignore the issue! However, you're not the only forumite with an interest in the subject, so I fear it will keep cropping up.

The word was first discussed way back in 2007, in this thread, started by anonsi. It was raised again in 2009, by pat, and I discussed it here. In the end, glute was added as a rare word, and glutes continued to be allowed - and in fact was re-classified from rare to common. The word has been mentioned in a few other discussions over the years.

As I see it, the options are:
  • leave things as they are
  • bar glutes, as a plural
  • continue to allow both glute and glutes, but as rare words (i.e. put glutes back to rare)
  • bar glutes, as a plural and make glute a common word

The second option, as urged by mkenuk and Morbius among others, is probably the most logical one. But the problem is that all that would be left in our word list is the singular glute, a rare word. Some people have firmly declared that glute/s is definitely a common word. As stated in a previous thread, my researches tend to confirm that glutes is common, but I would not feel too uncomfortable about treating it as a rare word. But that is probably because, as anonsi correctly surmised in the earlier discussion, I have never been a woman. And I strenuously avoid anything to do with exercise.

I'm tending to lean towards the last option. Although the singular word is used much less frequently than the plural, it's not in the same class as a word like doldrum, which is very rarely used. It probably wouldn't seem weird to say that glute is a common word because of its widespread use these days (mainly in the plural).

Any further thoughts?

Forumites responding to this had a variety of views, and ultimately I made no further changes to the word list, but Morbius's suggestion is still logged as an open issue.

I guess it's time for another round of comments!
39
Words / Glutes
« Last post by jancsika on April 17, 2024, 02:36:23 PM »
Should this really be classified as common, or even accepted at all? According to the definition:

Or maybe I'm just butthurt at missing out on a rosette...
40
Whatever / Re: More or Les (was Bloody Plurals)
« Last post by Ozzyjack on April 17, 2024, 12:51:48 PM »
My offering today is a book from the 18th century and also a telly series.

Hi Pen,

Quote from: Internet Archive (redacted)

***** ********'s immortal trilogy, containing **** ****, **** ** **********, and ********** *****, is a heartwarming portrayal of country life at the close of the 19th century. This story of three closely related Oxfordshire communities - a hamlet, the nearby village and a small market town - is based on the author's experiences during childhood and youth. It chronicles May Day celebrations and forgotten children's games, the daily lives of farmworkers and craftsmen, friends and relations - all painted with a gaiety and freshness of observation that make this trilogy an evocative and sensitive memorial to Victorian rural England

Trilogy originally published in 1945

The three books were published before the trilogy which has the title of your rebus.

Two Historians have written a book about the original books.

They claim the town in the titles contains elements of Bicester, Banbury, Buckingham and Brackley.  t sounds like something out of "My Fair Lady" but they should be familiar to you

Neither Historian  was particularly impressed by the BBC adaptation of the trilogy, saying it had several historical inaccuracies and softened or ‘prettified’ the life of those depicted.

It was a very clever rebus, Pen, but it needs a bit of editing in the Introduction.


I’ve spent all morning unsuccessfully trying to get the last word in the 7-by-many and I’m knackered.  After a good lunch and a swim,  I might find the motivation to return with a rebus.  It could be injurious to your health to hold your breath while you are waiting. :D


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10