Crystal Ball deja vu

Posted by: mehaul

Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 12 2013 11:25 PM

How is this allowed to continue? The "word" last hour was lxxxvi, 'being six more than eighty'. Couldn't the algorithm that selects or rejects candidate words be set to reject Roman numerals? Please?
Getting to the 10 minute mark gives lxx which has, though limited, 18 (?) possible finishes: lxxi - lxxix. Go the moment before and lxx was a possible guess. Prior to that the clue lx does have a fixed finite set of responses and does not challenge our word knowledge at all.
I never noticed these number types showing up until recently, begging the question, "Has a new Dictionary finally been found that we can finally make corrections to in the other word games?"
If the Roman numbers are to continue, could the length of digits be limited to five or less so several of us might guess the right one and then get the win by lottery. Now it goes to the one who can type roman numerals the fastest.
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 12 2013 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: mehaul
How is this allowed to continue? The "word" last hour was lxxxvi, 'being six more than eighty'. Couldn't the algorithm that selects or rejects candidate words be set to reject Roman numerals? Please?


Sure, the algorithm could probably reject Roman numerals. But personally, I think the Roman numerals are fun. Just pure chance. I like that.

Originally Posted By: mehaul

Prior to that the clue lx does have a fixed finite set of responses and does not challenge our word knowledge at all.


It challenges your knowledge of Roman numerals, which are technically words. And besides, is OY really any more challenging?

Originally Posted By: mehaul

I never noticed these number types showing up until recently, begging the question, "Has a new Dictionary finally been found that we can finally make corrections to in the other word games?"


Nah. As I've said in the CB thread that was recently locked, certain words were not selectable until it was changed recently.

Originally Posted By: mehaul

Now it goes to the one who can type roman numerals the fastest.


Do you actually play the Crystal Ball? The word always goes to the person who types it the fastest. If I wasn't fast, I never would have won POGONION recently.

_________

Personally, I would rather see time taken to "exterminate" some of the biology entries that virtually no one knows nor cares about (exhibit A: burrawong).
Posted by: Creedy

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 01:46 AM

I don't think the CB goes to the fastest typist at all. Not from what I've been told anyway.

And how can "lxxxvi" be considered a word when it's a set of Roman numerals? One might as well say 12345 is a word as well.

Not that I really care. The subject heading of this thread just caught my eye. I refuse to play that game anymore as it irritates the 198920 out of me.
Posted by: Creedy

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 05:46 PM

Hmmm, pent2go, regarding your comment "Personally, I would rather see time taken to "exterminate" some of the biology entries that virtually no one knows nor cares about (exhibit A: burrawong)"

That in fact is an Australian plant, quite a lovely one. With some 23,000,000 people living in this country, I can assure you we know it and care about it very much.
Posted by: agony

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 07:03 PM

A suggestion has been made in another thread to clarify the rules to make it clear that any dictionary entry is fair game. I think that's a very good way to deal with this issue.
Posted by: weissmarc

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 08:40 PM

I am the player that made the "suggestion" to clarify or amend the rules. My post was not clear, my apologies.
My suggestion should have been phrased that anything at all between the 2 covers of a dictionary should be allowed, be it a number, a hyphen, a word- as long as it's in the dictionary it's fair game. While we're at it, we should also include all the abbreviations that people use while texting, and all the various "words" that pop-up when people use the auto-correct function. Spelling differences such as recognise/recognize should be ignored since everyone knows what you meant. "Gangstuh" should be perfectly acceptable, and how about "nite" instead of "night"?
These are just a few "suggestions" to get the game back on track- I'm happy to help.
Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: weissmarc
My suggestion should have been phrased that anything at all between the 2 covers of a dictionary should be allowed, be it a number, a hyphen, a word- as long as it's in the dictionary it's fair game. While we're at it, we should also include all the abbreviations that people use while texting, and all the various "words" that pop-up when people use the auto-correct function.


My autocorrect only pops up with "real" words. Granted, they aren't always the words I want to type, but they aren't a string of letters that don't make sense.

Originally Posted By: weissmarc
Spelling differences such as recognise/recognize should be ignored since everyone knows what you meant. "Gangstuh" should be perfectly acceptable, and how about "nite" instead of "night"?


But which spelling of recognize/recognise or color/colour be used?

I'm not sure about using slang such as "Gangstuh".
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Creedy
Hmmm, pent2go, regarding your comment "Personally, I would rather see time taken to "exterminate" some of the biology entries that virtually no one knows nor cares about (exhibit A: burrawong)"

That in fact is an Australian plant, quite a lovely one. With some 23,000,000 people living in this country, I can assure you we know it and care about it very much.


A slight misunderstanding here. While burrawong is in indeed quite the obscure plant, it's not the primary reason I think it should be removed. The primary reason is that 99% of the other plants don't exist: ultimately it's inconsistent. This also happens with zinnwaldite, a type of mineral.

I agree with weissmarc to an extent here. But, we already have a perfectly good dictionary: it's just been mangled to the point where thousands of common words can't be chosen. For example, I don't even think the word "moisture" can possibly ever show up. Why? I have no idea.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 10:57 PM

Originally Posted By: pent2go
For example, I don't even think the word "moisture" can possibly ever show up. Why? I have no idea.



Obviously you can work out absent endings through a long enough period, but I am still at a loss how to prove a negative existence of a single word, and many single words. Surely using the rules of logic and statistics, if there are many thousand words, how can a handful of specific ones be certain not to be in the database even if you noted every single result down for ten years?

I certainly know a few real swines like dacoit or pesthole seem to appear more often than most, although we do tend to remember when they do, but cannot work out a single method in any area of science where anyone could categorically know any individual words are not in the database without actually having direct access to it. I'm not saying you do, I am saying I can't see how you can actually be certain you are correct.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 13 2013 11:52 PM

We will have to wait until we never see moisture then, won't we Guru? wink
Posted by: Creedy

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Dec 14 2013 02:56 AM

Lol!

Oh but look at the time. My garden, which includes two lovely burrawongs, needs watering smile
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 02:14 PM

Here's a first (we haven't got the answer yet but that's not required), a pair not just initials but including a capital letter fM (and not even at the start). I think the database is plumbing new depths.
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 02:21 PM

Maybe. From what I can tell, the word in question has always been selectable. There are simply so many words to choose from that it could have easily just slipped by for 3+ years. There aren't that many words that fit this pattern, I'm sure...

The alternative possibility is that the CB game was not changed a while ago, but reverted to a point before words like this were removed. Which might also explain etc.

In any case, I think it's likely that the word this hour probably has shown up in Mind Melt before. So someone should know it, methinks.
Posted by: ozzz2002

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 02:46 PM

functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ....

And some very interesting guesses. smile
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 02:54 PM

I am assuming this guess had a space at the end as normally words too long or short are not accepted (or with the wrong starting pair): fml I haven't seen that happen before either.

Reverting to an earlier set could make sense but the fuss made when all the dots and dashes appeared in the past wouldn't make that a very popular decision if deliberate?
Posted by: weissmarc

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 04:19 PM

"The fuss made when all the dots and dashes appeared"? Not too condescending, eh?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 06:41 PM

Not at all, I was one of the people making it from what I remember!
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Dec 19 2013 10:04 PM

Abbreviations and the like were removed a long while ago, so unless it was recently added back to the word pile, there is no way "fMRI" could have 'always been a possibility' until now.

But I do like having all these weird combinations in the game. Exciting. smile
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 01:09 PM

This hour's secret word begins with the letters e. .

OK then. I'm now officially ready for e-.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 01:39 PM

Can we get a badge for guessing that the reveal at '10 to' will be a space?
Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 01:46 PM

And the winner is ....

Player pent2go of team Ultimate Opportunists guessed the word of this hour!
The word was e.g.
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 01:58 PM

Interesting...

. is in the second half of the alphabet.
Posted by: alexis722

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 03:20 PM

Can we at least get a definition of the word 'word' for the purposes of this game alone. People seldom say "e.g.", as it sounds unnecessarily obtuse, but they do say "for example". I have never heard anyone (expect a Latin teacher) say "LXXXVI" although eighty-six is a common enough term. I think we need boundaries or are we moving on to Klingon expressions next? I used to enjoy the game, now it appears to be nonsense. crazy
Posted by: pent2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 04:29 PM

It's always been nonsense. It's just a little bit more noticeable now.
Posted by: CmdrK

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 04:31 PM

Alexis, Hab SoSlIí Quch!
Posted by: alexis722

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 05:45 PM

CmdrK, Nu skal jeg sige dig en ting, or det er ikke to ting: hvis du skriver til mig paa Klingon, saa skriver jeg tilbage paa dansk, eller maaske igpay atinlay.
Ixnay on the oreignfay ordsway. shocked
Posted by: alexis722

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 05:49 PM

If plumbing's involved, I suggest the old plumbing be updated, not sent back to the Roman Empire. smirk
Posted by: CmdrK

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Dec 20 2013 06:16 PM

Yes, we definitely need to get the lead out. No doubt Queen Margrethe II would agree.
Posted by: Creedy

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Dec 21 2013 05:17 PM

I know what's wrong. The Crystal Ball has been to too many Christmas office parties...hic
Posted by: postcards2go

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Dec 21 2013 06:40 PM

... or spending too much time under the mistletoe grin
Posted by: weissmarc

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Dec 21 2013 07:23 PM

missiletow
Posted by: HairyBear

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 12:09 AM

I rarely play Crystal Ball anyway since I'm not lucky and have never gotten it, but I have to agree with mehaul, Scrabble rules should apply. If it isn't a word, it shouldn't be an option in Crystal Ball, and I would certainly apply that "not a word" standard to roman numerals, abbreviations, and hyphenated words. Foreign words if they're in the English dictionary pass muster: sayonara, ciao, and aloha should all be acceptable.

I think what that one person was saying/guessing about the word "moisture" is that it might be a sub-word of the word "moist" and sub-words don't come up. You might see "borrow", but you won't see "borrows", "borrowed", "borrowing", "borrowers", etc. I'm not sure that's true of "moisture", but it's possible.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 12:58 AM

I guess if I win with the 'worst' word, I shouldn't make waves. Just get the gloat over with and be done with it.
Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 01:44 AM

Originally Posted By: HairyBear

I think what that one person was saying/guessing about the word "moisture" is that it might be a sub-word of the word "moist" and sub-words don't come up.


Except in the last day laureled, adulterine, growing, induration, intoxicating, naturalistic, and buttery have been winning words.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 09:02 AM

It's not about sub words. Some didn't come up and now do (ly endings), while others always came up and still do, although one barely does at present. But most mentioned like annoy, tumbril, tumbrel and mujahedin are apparently whole and random words. It's apparently a genuine formula but far more complex than I can figure out.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 09:57 AM

Might the 'words' used be from a source other than a lexicographic compilation? Might they all be words found in, say, "Ulysses"? Then a dictionary is used to do the definition of that word.
Posted by: JanIQ

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Dec 22 2013 12:26 PM

I thought the words were taken out of various dictionaries, so people who frequently use an American dictionary have the same chances of winning as those consulting habitually a British dictionary.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 11:12 AM

I think this is the first time I've had to report a crystal ball word issue:

barbeque

Please can you remove this from the database, it's spelt barbecue and there are no alternative spellings, thanks!
Posted by: Mugaboo

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: satguru
I think this is the first time I've had to report a crystal ball word issue:

barbeque

Please can you remove this from the database, it's spelt barbecue and there are no alternative spellings, thanks!

Two years ago the Oxford dictionary had "barbeque" down as a misspelling, it now recognizes it as a varient, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue#Etymology
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 02:09 PM

As I said in the related thread elsewhere a moment ago, I am not impressed, dictionaries should insist on official spellings where a word has never before had an alternative rather than following errors. I'm not aware of any words in my lifetime having been altered to include common mistakes, only words with multiple original spellings either becoming narrowed down to one or accepted as general alternatives. But going from a single spelling to more doesn't look familiar to me, historically before printing became commonplace people spelt English randomly and it gradually settled down to single or sometimes double versions, but not the other way. I don't like one example as it means every other could follow now and there will end up being no official ways to spell just like in the middle ages again.
Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 04:00 PM

Since the word traveled from Arawakan to Spanish to English .... There have been thourhout time different ways to spell the word commonly abbreviated with BBQ. Crystal Ball often uses alternative spellings int he way Word Wizard and Mind Melt uses the third or fourth most common definition of a word.
Posted by: veronicavee

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 05:43 PM

I have always invited people to a Bar-B-Q or to a BBQ. Invites were never turned down!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 07:35 PM

Official alternative spellings have always been allowed and welcomed, and BBQs etc being abbreviations would not count as words except maybe in crystal ball as it has wide goalposts. But if you refer to my comments on grammar Nazis then once they accept a single word as a common error then the floodgates will open.
Posted by: veronicavee

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 07:50 PM

I was merely stating terms I have used, not trying to start an argument.
Posted by: trident

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Wed Oct 08 2014 08:27 PM

This is an area in which I have some interest. The English language evolves and there is no reason to be afraid of that. Some other examples of words that changed in the future not to do multiple spellings from origin: "doughnut" and "donut", "gaol" and "jail", "catalogue" and "catalog", "skeptic" and "sceptic".

Some of these are certainly the old British vs. American spelling ideas, but there are modern examples too. "Email", which is perfectly acceptable grammatically today used to only be acceptable as "e-mail", with the hyphen which stands for "electronic mail".

Sure, proper spelling is important, but we have to remember that proper spelling is a bit of an illusion. Something is only proper when everyone decides it is so. The English language isn't under attack; it is simply changing the way that it always has.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Oct 09 2014 02:26 AM

According to thefreedictionary, which provides definitions from multiple sources, both spellings are accepted by Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. The language evolves, and what is considered absolutely incorrect at one time becomes the standard usage at a later time. English dictionaries do not attempt to decree what is correct, they try to reflect the changing language as it currently exists.
Posted by: HairyBear

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Oct 09 2014 11:30 AM

Satguru's point is a bit tendentiously made, but I do agree with it to an extent. The question isn't whether dictionaries reflect or mold English usage because they do both, the question is their proper role. The Webster's Third International (worst dictionary EVER) includes "imply" as one of the definitions of "infer". That certainly reflects usage since 50%+ of people manage to get imply and infer wrong, but that doesn't make it right. Dictionaries should strive to reflect not just common usage but CORRECT usage.

That said, I don't really have a problem with "barbeque". My only question is how will "unique" be pronounced in future?
Posted by: CmdrK

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Oct 09 2014 12:43 PM

"My only question is how will "unique" be pronounced in future?"

If you leave it up to the rappers, who seem to lately be the arbiters of language usage and spelling, it will probably be 'unik'.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Thu Oct 09 2014 03:26 PM

I wasn't aiming it an anyone besides the dictionary makers, because the word barbecue has a dominant Q sound people have been spelling it with a q, not because it had one but because they didn't know how it was actually spelt. I've since seen a couple of officially made signs using it in parks etc, which was bad enough, but when the blind lead the seeing the world becomes a lesser place. I tend to see any decline in standards as a precedent, whatever the area. Maybe I'm pessimistic and cynical, but I'm also trying to raise the standards for everyone as a result, you have to start the campaign somewhere and the standards here are higher than elsewhere so a good place to do it.
Posted by: HairyBear

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Oct 10 2014 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: satguru
... I tend to see any decline in standards as a precedent, whatever the area. Maybe I'm pessimistic and cynical ...


I'm guessing I'm even more pessimistic and cynical because I think it's a lost cause. Yesterday in the library I saw the 's used for a plural in a BOOK TITLE. I officially give up, there's no hope for American English to maintain any standards whatsoever.
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Fri Oct 10 2014 05:33 PM

I feel that way about the word "SHERBET" as there is no "BERT" in sherbet!
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 05:11 PM

If we deny barbeque as a word because it isn't the original spelling, should we not also deny any other variation of any word that appeared later? That would make aluminium incorrect, as it was originally decided as aluminum in 1828, but the ium was used later because it matched other newly discovered element names, and aluminum didn't sound right.

I think the word barbeque is fine. I don't see why the complaint is for that word, because it HAS been adopted as correct. If I can spell worshiping with one or two ps, I think it's safe to say I can spell barbeque with a q (which I, personally, grew up to know - I won with barbecue a while back and found the spelling odd).
Posted by: Chavs

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 05:35 PM

I think the main problem with accepting mistakes as being equally valid as the correct traditional spelling is that the language gets more difficult to understand instead of easier -- "email" is more difficult to pronounce than"e-mail" if you are seeing it for the first time, for example.

Barbeque looks to me as if it should be pronounced Bar-beck, whereas Barbecue is straightforward. Likewise certain phrases and idioms. "Could care less" does not mean the same thing as "couldn't care less" yet...we are to accept that it does?.. rather than educate each other?!

Posted by: satguru

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 05:54 PM

Aluminium isn't a comparison as that was altered officially. Many words have extremely common spelling error variations, and if you make one official in a dictionary then in the end they will all follow, and quite possibly take over as people seem to find them easier than the real way. And I think the American changes were also made as a national version. I know many English words have changed their spelling over the years but not in my lifetime as a concession to poor spelling. Technically if that's OK then so are apostrophed plural's. If people don't like the alternative they'll get used to it eventually. Or not. In the end each country has to decide on basic standards, the French are incredibly hot on it and actually have special rules not allowing certain words they don't like in anything official. They won't even allow any version of the word email for example, as it's English. I don't mind if they go too far, it's better than not at all for me.

Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: satguru
Aluminium isn't a comparison as that was altered officially. Many words have extremely common spelling error variations, and if you make one official in a dictionary then in the end they will all follow, and quite possibly take over as people seem to find them easier than the real way.


If a language doesn't change, it dies. That's the reality. Barbeque is not a misspelling anymore than catsup is a misspelling for ketchup. Simply because you are not used to barbeque and it is commonly used by millions for years does not make it wrong.



Quote:
I know many English words have changed their spelling over the years but not in my lifetime as a concession to poor spelling.


Then under what concession were the spellings changed? The newer spellings must have been considered "wrong" at one point.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 09:57 PM


Barbeque is of course a misspelling! It is just one that has been left uncorrected so often that people think it is not a misspelling. This is not the same as changing e-mail to email, people organically choose that because they prefer it for practical reasons.

Conversely, I don't think "nite" has been taken to people's hearts very much - it is used a lot, but there seems to be an even bigger desire to keep "night" as the preferred spelling. It is unfair to allow each other to think "nite" is as valid as "night" when we all know which one might be found on a neon sign and which one looks better on a CV . Unless it is a CV applying for a job at a niteclub, natch.

It is up to us to decide whether we like barbeque or not. If we like it, it can be right. If we don't really, then it can disappear or be allowed to be slang - use at own risk, etc.

The question in hand is really whether the dictionaries should be recording it as a misspelling, as slang, as non-standard; or should they be giving it equal footing with barbecue? I think the former - we cannot deny its existence, but please help us all, dear dictionaries, by making a distinction so we can then make a fair choice.


I like this Op-Ed from About.com:

http://bbq.about.com/od/opinion-pieces/a/How-To-Spell-Barbecue.htm

See the last paragraph where a Google search does not find barbeque nearly as much as it finds barbecue, but there is something it finds even more than both. Chilling...
Posted by: trident

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sat Oct 11 2014 10:50 PM

I would use "barbecue" in my own personal writing, and indeed I even have a quiz that has the word "barbecue" in it! But I would probably not correct someone who has written "barbeque", except maybe in a "did you know?" sort of way. Of course there should be grammar rules, or language would fall apart and not be understandable. But I would say that I am of the camp that believes that language itself is not something that is bound by the laws of science. It is an evolving thing that changes constantly.

The "aluminum" story is an interesting one, and just goes to show that words are not even in the control of their creators! I would urge others to look up the story of "donut" as well, as this accepted variant is due to none other than the company Dunkin' Donuts.

I will say that I have a certain respect for grammar purists, in that they try to keep things as simple as possible and actually know much more about grammar than the general public. I often find myself correcting things like "further/farther" when I am editing. However, I am of the opinion that language changing/evolving is not to its decline, but to its benefit. I don't think we would be having this discussion (which I think has been rather civil!) if English were not such a dynamic language.
Posted by: MiraJane

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Oct 12 2014 03:00 AM

Since there is such admiration for grammarians, perhaps this passage from http://grammarist.com/spelling/barbecue-barbeque/
will be of interest:

"Barbecue vs. barbeque
In todayís English, barbecue is the usual spelling of the word with several senses related to the cooking of food over open fire. Itís the spelling that tends to appear in edited writing, and itís the one that dictionaries note first, for what thatís worth (and some donít note any other spellings). Barbeque is a secondary spelling that appears especially often in the names of restaurants and products. It has steadily gained ground over the last few decades, but it is still far less common than barbecue overall."


Crystal Ball loves alternate spellings. Barbeque is an alternate spelling of barbecue.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Oct 12 2014 05:12 AM

Somehow, I have a difficult time picturing the Queen standing next to a grill waiting for her hamburger to get done. This problem I further suppose arises from a lack of imagery in my memory of any barbequing going on in Old Blighty. Tell us, what's your special sauce?

My spell checker recognizes both barbequing and barbecuing.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Oct 12 2014 11:12 AM

Ah, mehaul, what little you know... as it happens, the homelife of our own dear queen is thought to be rather, well, plain. She doesn't like fancy food, or wear fancy clothes - she probably gets enough of all that when she's on duty. Nope, the queen eats cereal for breakfast of the same sort as the rest of us, and one of the favourite meals at Balmoral is a barbecue with the grilling done by Prince Philip. The Queen does the washing up. I kid you not. Read any memoir by any prime minister who reports on his/her trips to Balmoral and and there's almost always a reference to a barbecue.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Sun Oct 12 2014 12:02 PM

Altered officially or not, aluminium is technically not correct, according to the original creator of the word.

I think alternate spellings if a word should always be allowed, because the language is forever evolving. If w00t can be the word of the year, as well as twerk and selfie, I think it's safe to include barbeque.


PS-if ever "nucular" becomes a word, I will punch a hole in whatever I see it.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Mon Oct 13 2014 04:16 AM

Thank you flopsymopsy. Consider my imagery broadened. So, what's the Prince's special sauce?

Nucular so far is just an erroneous pronunciation. Even then it is still spelled nuclear. - oh oh there goes Salami's monitor.
Posted by: gracious1

Re: Crystal Ball deja vu - Mon Oct 13 2014 01:54 PM

Regarding certain spelling changes from British English to American English..

Noah Webster and other Americans were part of a movement to simplify spelling, in part to create an identity distinct from Britain and to feel less a former colony and more a new Republic, and were successful in getting "official" changes made to spelling.

So certain changes were made in Mr. Webster's dictionary and also as importantly his SPELLING BOOKS, e.g.:

from draught to draft
from programme to program
from gaol to jail
from neighbour to neighbor (basically anything from -our to -or)
etc.


But then other of Mr. Webster's changes didn't catch on like

from machine to masheen
from island to iland
from porpoise to porpess

Why some and not others? Not entirely sure, but a great deal had to do with Anglophilic anti-reformers like Lyman Cobb and Joseph E. Worcester. And actually, it seems Webster made LOTS more changes than didn't stick than did!


Yet American English since then has tended to simplify... like changing manoeuver to maneuver or haemorrhage to hemorrhage, without Webster's hand.