Author Topic: FOUL!!!!  (Read 7915 times)

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2041
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
FOUL!!!!
« on: April 13, 2009, 11:04:18 AM »
I must protest.

I tried and tried and tried to get the last 'common' word for Sunday's Challenge puzzle. I put way too much time into it, but I really wanted that rosette. I didn't get it. I even resorted to combining random letter combinations (ruined my percentage) and found some odd words, but I still couldn't find that last common word.

With today's new puzzle, I look at the missing 'common' word: ONCER !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?   :o

Surely this is a jest. Even the Bard doth not use foresaid word.

In fact, when I clicked on the word and opened the Free Dictionary page, I received:
Quote
Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.

How can you, kind Sir Wordmeister, categorise as 'common' a word which the dictionary of your choice to which you link, doesn't contain?

Forget a yellow card. I think this calls for a red card straightway!  :laugh:

I haven't enough remaining hair on my pate for you to do this to me, Sir Wordmeister.
TRex

Alan W

  • Administrator
  • Eulexic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2009, 01:46:55 PM »
TRex, don't beat about the bush - let us know how you really feel!

Oncer probably isn't common, so my apologies for your distress, and your dis-tress. However in my defence, it may not have been used by Shakespeare, but it was used in a poem inspired by him - W. H. Auden's The Sea and the Mirror (Part 1. Prospero to Ariel) "A commentary on Shakespeare's The Tempest":

Quote
Could he but once see Nature as
In truth she is for ever,
What oncer would not fall in love?

This quote is courtesy of Wiktionary, illustrating the definition "(poetic) a person who does something once". However, other dictionaries label this meaning as British informal. The other British informal usage is for a one-pound note, which is now a historical usage, since the pound has become a coin.

The word also has an Australian usage, which may help to explain how it got to be classed as common: "A person elected as a member of parliament (esp. in a marginal seat), who is considered unlikely to hold the seat for more than one term." (Australian National Dictionary)

I couldn't see any signs of this word ever being used, in any of its senses, in the USA. And its use in Britain and Australia is fairly infrequent, so there doesn't seem to be any justification for its current status in the game. (I think it's one of those words that long-time players have just got used to, from seeing it so often in the puzzle.)

So I will reclassify oncer to rare, TRex.
Alan Walker
Creator of Lexigame websites

Linda

  • WordStar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7063
  • Cumbria, England
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2009, 07:33:17 PM »
I always think of it in boxing terms, "I gave him a oncer" ...  a thumping great thump which doesn't need to be repeated, hence the word 'oncer'!!  >:D

birdy

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3371
  • Brooklyn, NY
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2009, 11:31:41 PM »
You're right, Alan, I've never heard it here.  We'd probably used "oner" instead, and I'm not sure even that is that common.

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2041
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2009, 12:46:49 PM »
Quote
TRex, don't beat about the bush - let us know how you really feel!
:laugh:


Quote
Oncer probably isn't common, so my apologies for your distress, and your dis-tress.
Pardon my  ???  but, Sir Wordmeister, what is the difference between 'distress' and 'dis-tress'?

Quote
However in my defence, it may not have been used by Shakespeare, but it was used in a poem inspired by him
Great response!

Quote
This quote is courtesy of Wiktionary .... also has an Australian usage ... (Australian National Dictionary)
Seriously: have you considered using either of these instead of the Free Dictionary for linking to words in the puzzle?

I will definitely bookmark the Australian National Dictionary. 'Tis odd, tho', that it has no registered domain!

It seems easy enough to find dictionaries for American and English, but this is the first I have seen for Australian. Are you aware of dictionaries for 'New Zealandan'/'New Zealander'  (or is it too much like Australian), South African, Canadian, and other dialects of English? They would make good references.

Quote
So I will reclassify oncer to rare, TRex.
Many thanks, kind Sir Wordmeister. You'll help leave a wee bit of cilia to cushion my cranium from concussions and clouts.  :P

You're right, Alan, I've never heard it here.  We'd probably used "oner" instead, and I'm not sure even that is that common.
The only place I see 'oner' is in American crossword puzzles. But in that realm, it seems rather common.
TRex

birdy

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3371
  • Brooklyn, NY
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2009, 02:00:55 PM »
'New Zealandan'/'New Zealander' - I think the word for someone from NZ is  (CLOSE YOUR EYES, LINDA) "kiwi".

Alan W

  • Administrator
  • Eulexic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2009, 02:23:30 PM »
TRex, dis-tress was intended to refer to you tearing your hair out.

I think that whatever dictionary I link to, people will be dissatisfied whenever that dictionary has no definition for a word in the puzzle - "common" or "rare". And there doesn't appear to be an online dictionary that comes anywhere near covering all the rare words in our list.

I have thought of linking to Wiktionary, and I may yet do that. Or better still, link to Ninjawords, which supplements the definitions from Wiktionary with definitions from WordNet, a resource from Princeton University.

The Australian National Dictionary has been accessible online for only a couple of months. It's so recent that I haven't gotten around to linking to it even from my Ozlip site - a game using an Australian vocabulary. The invaluable print edition of this dictionary was published in 1988, and the long-awaited second edition is expected imminently. No doubt this is part of the explanation for the publisher deciding to put the contents of the old edition online, but it is still a commendable initiative.

I know the Oxford University Press, publisher of the Australian National Dictionary, has also produced dictionaries of New Zealand and South African English, but I don't think there is any online access to the material in these dictionaries. There is an online Dictionary of the Scots Language which I have used several times.

Forumites from various countries may know of some online information on the various forms of English.
Alan Walker
Creator of Lexigame websites

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2041
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2009, 02:33:46 PM »
TRex, dis-tress was intended to refer to you tearing your hair out.
Ah, now I get it. :-[  I will (attempt) to excuse my ignorance by pleading that I think of tress as having a connotation of a significant amount of hair -- which certainly leaves me out.

Quote
I think that whatever dictionary I link to, people will be dissatisfied whenever that dictionary has no definition for a word in the puzzle - "common" or "rare". And there doesn't appear to be an online dictionary that comes anywhere near covering all the rare words in our list.
I think you just did it again with today's puzzle. I resorted to random letter combinations trying to get the last 'common' (I suspect it will be something I've never encountered) word.

Quote
There is an online Dictionary of the Scots Language which I have used several times.
I'll add that to my bookmarks. Thanks. Though I have to admit to some disappointment that my favourite Scots word (I think both my mother's parents used it*), clype in the sense I learnt (a telltale).

*An odd couple: he was from Glasgow, she was from Edinburgh. Those familiar will understand.

TRex
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 07:44:52 AM by TRex »

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2041
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2009, 12:39:08 PM »
Quote
Quote
I think that whatever dictionary I link to, people will be dissatisfied whenever that dictionary has no definition for a word in the puzzle - "common" or "rare". And there doesn't appear to be an online dictionary that comes anywhere near covering all the rare words in our list.
I think you just did it again with today's puzzle. I resorted to random letter combinations trying to get the last 'common' (I suspect it will be something I've never encountered) word.
Well, I've seen it, but I've never thought of it as an actual world. If gonna is a 'common' word, does that mean kinda and sorta and helluva, etc. are also acceptable? Why isn't aint acceptable?
TRex
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 12:50:33 PM by TRex »

rogue_mother

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • I CAN'T BREATHE!
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2009, 01:19:14 PM »
TRex, you ask:
Quote
Why isn't aint acceptable?

Only last January Tom asked that very question. You can find the answer here:
https://theforum.lexigame.com/index.php/topic,1380.0.html
Inside the Beltway, Washington, DC metropolitan area

Alan W

  • Administrator
  • Eulexic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2009, 01:57:40 PM »
So you were wrong, TRex?

When you said, "I think you just did it again with today's puzzle", you seemed to be predicting that the common word you hadn't played would turn out to be absent from the dictionary linked to the puzzle. In fact, it's there, with a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

If a word is present in more than one standard dictionary, and passes all our rules, I would have to have a very strong reason to exclude it. Gonna is in a great many modern dictionaries - have a look at OneLook Dictionary Search. I'd have to expend some effort finding an online dictionary to link to that doesn't include gonna.

Kinda, sorta and helluva are all acceptable in Chihuahua, for the same reason, although some of them are not in as many dictionaries as gonna.

If you feel this is a disgraceful state of affairs, you may wish to write to the editors of those dictionaries about it.
Alan Walker
Creator of Lexigame websites

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2041
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2009, 02:54:28 PM »
So you were wrong, TRex?
Yep.

Quote
When you said, "I think you just did it again with today's puzzle", you seemed to be predicting that the common word you hadn't played would turn out to be absent from the dictionary linked to the puzzle. In fact, it's there, with a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Yep.

Quote
Kinda, sorta and helluva are all acceptable in Chihuahua, for the same reason, although some of them are not in as many dictionaries as gonna.
I will admit most of my hard cover dictionaries are rather old. My newest (and most-used) is a Concise Oxford (1990) edition. The Concise Oxford doesn't list gonna.

Quote
If you feel this is a disgraceful state of affairs, you may wish to write to the editors of those dictionaries about it.
If I thought it might do any good, I might. I still consider humankind an ugly neologism. But, then, a T. Rex is a dinosaur!
TRex

pat

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3382
  • Rugby, England.
    • View Profile
Re: FOUL!!!!
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2009, 05:47:02 PM »
Personally I think the word humankind to be, in many ways, an ironic oxymoron!