[Dixonary] Ruling - Advice please

[JohnnyB]

People

In Rnd 1842: FASH I had a problem. I resolved it as dealah but would like advice as to what I should have done.

Firstly I guess I should have posted with the announcement of the word that I didn't want and was not using a well known meaning
(used to let us Sassenachs know that a Scotsman is speaking and popularised by StarTrek) - but let that pass. All potential DQ's I
received related to that defintion and I mailed a "not that one" and received no more DQ's

Secondly, Towards the very end of gathering definitions I received 2 almost identical defs which were also more or less identical
with the definition I had in mind. I read all the advice from a round or so ago about merging defs. I had no hesitationj in merging
the two I had received and notified one of the players that his sent def had been changed. I noted a reluctance in the advice to
merge the real definition. However, the two I received and merged were so close to the real definition that I felt that I couldn't
publish it as a different definition. I considered abandoning and restarting the round with a totally new word and had they arrived
very early on I might have done so, but they were quite late on in the process.

What I actually did was to change the "real" definition; for the same dictionary listed about half a dozen different meanings for
FASH so I chose another one

My main question is "what should I have done?"

[To save anyone suggesting that I/we shouldn't use words with more than one meaning; that is utterly impractical: several times I
have offered a DQ but the dealer is not using a meaning that I know or have ever heard of. The only way that could work is by
defining that we can only use one or a certain range of dictionaries which again isn't practical.]

As an additional comment; with FASH both the "next dealah" and the "real winnah" actually supplied defs which are also valid
meanings that I can find in the dictionaries.that I use - Is this a record?!? More than a quarter of received defs actually were
real meanings of the word.


JohnB

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi John,

> In Rnd 1842: FASH I had a problem. I resolved it as dealah but would like
> advice as to what I should have done.

According to my interpretation of the rules (both the original and the
"real" rules, which are not actually the real rules but rather an
interpretation of written and unwritten rules and interpretations at the
time of writing by Paul), I would say:

1) There is nothing in the rules to prevent the dealer from choosing another
definition before the defs are posted, as long as
a) the new definition comes from "an accepted dictionary", and
b) the new definition is not equal or very similar to a definition
previously ruled out by the dealer, as you did with the StarTrek meaning of
Sash.
(Actually, the latter is not in the rules - but it's obvious enough, I
hope!)

2) There is also nothing in the rules to prevent the dealer from combining a
fake def with the real def. In fact, the rules say: "If the dealer is
confronted with two definitions very close to one another, the dealer may in
her or his discretion combine them.". The "his or her discretion" is the
only thing that can be used as an excuse to not combine a fake def with a
real def.

I personally think that combining should be treated the same for fake and
real defs. Unfortunately, not all dealers agree, though I don't know why
(maybe fear that they stray to far from the exact wording of the dictionary
definition??).
The effect of this is that many players routinely cast votes at similar
looking defs if they spot them. This strategy will only fail if
A) the dealer _never_ combines defs (there are one or two players who have
stated that this is their way of doing things, and the rules do allow this
as combining has to be done at the discretion of the dealer), or
B) the dealer _always_ combins defs, regardless of whether they are real or
fake (in which case the occurance of two similar defs is an oversight on the
part of the dealer).

I don't see any problems with your decision to use a different definition
for "fash". But I believe that you could just as well have chosen to combine
the original definition and the two similar fake definitions you received.
If you had chosen to combine the two fake defs but leave the original real
def as a seperate def, I would have considered it to be a bad ruling (though
still abiding by the rules - both because of the dealer discretion
incombining and because of the general "dealah is god" rule).

Best, Hugo

[Dodi Schultz]

John, it's always a dilemma when a submitted fake def is virtually the same
as the real def, but it's the dealer's call.

However, I'm sort of stunned by the experience you describe:

>> I received 2 almost identical defs which were also more or less
>> identical with the definition I had in mind.... I had no hesitation
>> in merging the two I had received...

Okay; that was what I'd have done.

>> However, the two I received and merged were so close to the real
>> definition that I felt that I couldn't publish it as a different
>> definition....What I actually did was to change the "real"
>> definition: the same dictionary listed about half a dozen different
>> meanings for FASH so I chose another one.

I would NOT have handled it that way; I'd have combined all three.

Here's the part that amazes me:

>> To save anyone suggesting that I/we shouldn't use words with more
>> than one meaning; that is utterly impractical...The only way that
>> could work is by defining that we can only use one or a certain
>> range of dictionaries which again isn't practical.

I have encountered very few words that have multiple DIFFERENT meanings,
and I'm assuming here that you do mean different. A word defined, say, as
"the tops of turnips; collards; any edible greens" doesn't have three
different meanings (I assume you'd agree).

>> ...with FASH both the "next dealah" and the "real winnah" actually
>> supplied defs which are also valid meanings that I can find in the
>> dictionaries.

You're saying that your dictionary says that "fash" means turnip tops AND a
street fight AND twigs AND excess metal that leaks through a mold during
casting? (In addition to that first meaning you warned that it wasn't.)
That, in my view, is truly weird, and if I encountered a word like that,
I'd never use it in the first place.

--Dodi

[JohnnyB]

Dodi

Thanks for your advice

>You're saying that your dictionary says that "fash" means turnip tops AND a street fight AND twigs AND excess metal that leaks
through a mold during casting? (In addition to that first meaning you warned that it wasn't.) That, in my view, is truly weird, and
if I encountered a word like that, I'd never use it in the first place.

In fact there are a few more as well!! "to displease, offend or vex, dislike disgust","to be annoyed or troubled", "to take
trouble, take pains - hence to be tired, weary", all the adjectives and nouns associated with those verbs (offence, vexatious,
displeasure, unhappness, vexed, have a sore thumb, including "a fight" "a street fight") , then "a bundle of twigs [Lat fasces]"
"a band", "rough metal", "the mark left by a mold on metal (originally of bullets)", "Naut. An irregular seam", "Turnip tops", "a
fringe or a row of anything worn like a fringe"

My chosen original def was "the mark left by a mold on metal (originally of bullets)"

You are right, maybe I shouldn't have used it

The number of times I have offered a DQ only to be told I am not leads me to suspect that there are very many words with more than
one meaning. I have just looked at a couple of pages randomly chosen from a dictionary and roughly a third of the words had at least
two meanings - [yes, in the true sense of two meanings, I agree that , turnip tops, neeps and collards are the same]


JohnnyB

[Daniel B. Widdis]

> there are very many words with more than one meaning.

I would avoid dealing words with more than one or two meanings, and even
then, I would include all meanings.

The single exception would be a "common" word with a second, obscure
meaning, in which case I would post with the announcement that it was not
the well-known meaning.

I think in the spirit of "fairness" the dealer should have the definition in
mind when the word is dealt, rather than selecting from a list of meanings
after definitions roll in.

As far as combining defs, I have no problems combining definitions with the
real one, but when doing so, I try to preserve the real one as the
dictionary stated it.
--
Dan

[Dave Cunningham]

My reply seems to be lost :(

I combine without fear or favor <g>. I stick to the first def or defs
I find -- many times words do have multiple meanings, and fake defs
with multiple parts get lots of votes for sure!

And I had no idea I gave a "real def" for FASH for sure!

Dave

On Sep 17, 6:00 am, JohnnyB <johnnyba... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> People
>
> In Rnd 1842: FASH I had a problem. I resolved it as dealah but would like advice as to what I should have done.
>
> Firstly I guess I should have posted with the announcement of the word that I didn't want and was not using a well known meaning
> (used to let us Sassenachs know that a Scotsman is speaking and popularised by StarTrek) - but let that pass. All potential DQ's I
> received related to that defintion and I mailed a "not that one" and received no more DQ's
>
> Secondly, Towards the very end of gathering definitions I received 2 almost identical defs which were also more or less identical
> with the definition I had in mind. I read all the advice from a round or so ago about merging defs. I had no hesitationj in merging
> the two I had received and notified one of the players that his sent def had been changed. I noted a reluctance in the advice to
> merge the real definition. However, the two I received and merged were so close to the real definition that I felt that I couldn't
> publish it as a different definition. I considered abandoning and restarting the round with a totally new word and had they arrived
> very early on I might have done so, but they were quite late on in the process.
>
> What I actually did was to change the "real" definition; for the same dictionary listed about half a dozen different meanings for
> FASH so I chose another one
>
> My main question is "what should I have done?"
>
> [To save anyone suggesting that I/we shouldn't use words with more than one meaning; that is utterly impractical: several times I
> have offered a DQ but the dealer is not using a meaning that I know or have ever heard of. The only way that could work is by
> defining that we can only use one or a certain range of dictionaries which again isn't practical.]
>
> As an additional comment; with FASH both the "next dealah" and the "real winnah" actually supplied defs which are also valid
> meanings that I can find in the dictionaries.that I use - Is this a record?!? More than a quarter of received defs actually were
> real meanings of the word.
>
> JohnB

[Tim Lodge]

Johnny

The online OED offers 7 separate headword entries for FASH, two of
which have 3 other numbered meanings! The turnip tops are there, as
are the verb meaning to cut the heads off turnips and the
abbreviations for fashion and fashionable. However, I didn't find a
fight or street fight, which I thought had come straight out of my
head.

BTW, I've had no hesitation in the past in combining a fake def with
the real def.

-- Tim L

[Dodi Schultz]

>> You are right, maybe I shouldn't have used it

Especially since I personally voted for #9, Dave's "twigs," which turns out
to be a perfectly correct definition of the word!

Kinda distorts the whole gestalt of the game, John.

I also agree with Dan's comments.

--Dodi

[Toni Savage]

I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the
first rule, which says to "pick a word and post its
definition..." as "pick a word and post PART of its
definition..."

If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you *MUST*
post *ALL SEVEN* meanings. There are some lovely
words out there, and some lovely oddball defs of
common words, but they are out of bounds....

Does the Rules Mother come around this forum any
more?? Mother Theresa???? We need you!!!!



--- JohnnyB <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> People
>
> In Rnd 1842: FASH I had a problem. I resolved it as
> dealah but would like advice as to what I should
> have done.
>
> Firstly I guess I should have posted with the
> announcement of the word that I didn't want and was
> not using a well known meaning
> (used to let us Sassenachs know that a Scotsman is
> speaking and popularised by StarTrek) - but let that
> pass. All potential DQ's I
> received related to that defintion and I mailed a
> "not that one" and received no more DQ's
>
> Secondly, Towards the very end of gathering
> definitions I received 2 almost identical defs which
> were also more or less identical
> with the definition I had in mind. I read all the
> advice from a round or so ago about merging defs. I
> had no hesitationj in merging
> the two I had received and notified one of the
> players that his sent def had been changed. I noted
> a reluctance in the advice to
> merge the real definition. However, the two I
> received and merged were so close to the real
> definition that I felt that I couldn't
> publish it as a different definition. I considered
> abandoning and restarting the round with a totally
> new word and had they arrived
> very early on I might have done so, but they were
> quite late on in the process.
>
> What I actually did was to change the "real"
> definition; for the same dictionary listed about
> half a dozen different meanings for
> FASH so I chose another one
>
> My main question is "what should I have done?"
>
> [To save anyone suggesting that I/we shouldn't use
> words with more than one meaning; that is utterly
> impractical: several times I
> have offered a DQ but the dealer is not using a
> meaning that I know or have ever heard of. The only
> way that could work is by
> defining that we can only use one or a certain range
> of dictionaries which again isn't practical.]
>
> As an additional comment; with FASH both the "next
> dealah" and the "real winnah" actually supplied defs
> which are also valid
> meanings that I can find in the dictionaries.that I
> use - Is this a record?!? More than a quarter of
> received defs actually were
> real meanings of the word.
>
>
> JohnB
>
>
>
>


-- Toni Savage

[Toni Savage]

I agree... It's kind of interesting when a word has
TWO totally different meanings, and I've seen fake as
well as real defs that were that way... but more than
two and it gets complicated, at least partly because
of the precise problems that Johnny found!

--- Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> You're saying that your dictionary says that "fash"
> means turnip tops AND a
> street fight AND twigs AND excess metal that leaks
> through a mold during
> casting? (In addition to that first meaning you
> warned that it wasn't.)
> That, in my view, is truly weird, and if I
> encountered a word like that,
> I'd never use it in the first place.
>
> --Dodi
>


-- Toni Savage

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the first rule, which
>> says to "pick a word and post its definition..." as "pick a word and
>> post PART of its definition..."
>>
>> If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you *MUST* post *ALL SEVEN*
>> meanings.

Toni, as you know from my earlier post, I wouldn't PICK a word with seven
distinct meanings. We've just seen what complications THAT can lead to. A
word like "mill," for example (I just flipped open a dictionary at random)
can mean (leaving out most of the book's actual verbiage) a factory, a
grinding machine, any of various devices for shaping things, a business
that does things in a mechanical manner, a boxing match, to grind or shape,
to make a raised edge on a coin, to make grooves on the raised edge of the
coin, to beat or stir, to fight, to move around aimlessly. No way I'd use
such a word.

But I've got to disagree slightly with your insistence on quoting
everything the dictionary has to say. I don't always see fit, for example,
to include etymological data. Okay, that's not part of the definition
proper. But I might also leave out, say, the species name of an animal or
plant (which dictionaries sometimes give and sometimes don't). Do you think
such things must be included? How about (and here I'm of mixed minds) such
labels as "Slang" or "Dial."? What do you think?

--Dodi

[JohnnyB]

Toni

Firstly, it is obvious - after the fact - that I was unwise to play that word. But...

Secondly, the very first word ever played in round 1 "KECKLE" has 3 different meanings in the dictionary I mostly use

It may be necessary to interpret the rule as posting ALL definitions, but I would then suggest that the game is unplayable. We live
in a multivariate world and all possible solutions are nearly always beyond us. No one dictionary has all the definitions of a word.
Most often when I offer a DQ the person comes back and says my "offered DQ def'n" is not the one they are using. This happened to me
almost as soon as I began playing, a word very common in my profession (or one of the areas I am trained in) for which I have a two
and a half page definition was not that definition - and in fact the played definition is not found in most other dictionaries that
I know of, not even the OED. The fault is with the dictionaries or rather their compilers for the word occurs in nearly every
gardening book that I own and regularly occurs in gardening magazines. I do not think the game is playable if we restrict ourselves
to only words with one meaning for no-one can be sure that they are obeying that rule.

Each of those meanings of FASH that I quoted are a definition of the meaning of the word. But even there, the full definitions (from
the dictionary I was using) for some of those meanings included a 3 line etymological chain from Latin thru Old Norse to Saxon to
Middle-English and a few lines of quotes to demonstrate useage - and of course a pronunciation guide. Some definitions referred
back to other definitions and so-on. I suspect that we rarely see anyone post a completely full definition of any word.

Another point is that using a big comprehensive dictionary a random check suggests that about one third of all words have more than
one meaning and I do not see why we cannot play all the words which are part of our language.

I submit therefore that we cannot interpret the rule that way and further I suggest that even from the very first it was not
intended to be interpreted that way



JohnnyB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> [mailto:Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Toni Savage
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:12 AM
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Ruling - Advice please
>
>
> I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the first
> rule, which says to "pick a word and post its definition..."
> as "pick a word and post PART of its definition..."
>
> If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you *MUST* post *ALL
> SEVEN* meanings. There are some lovely words out there, and
> some lovely oddball defs of common words, but they are out of
> bounds....
>
> Does the Rules Mother come around this forum any more??
> Mother Theresa???? We need you!!!!
>
>
>

[Christopher Carson]

My personal feeling, as one who has more than a little experience in the
game, would be to avoid choosing an obscure meaning for a relatively common
word as in Dodi's 'mill' example. To me, this just makes common sense. If
I were to receive a rash of DQs based on an alternative defininition I would
probably post a new word to avoid confusion. This requires a modicum of
judgement, of course and I might go ahead and use a very uncommon word that
had two dissimilar definitions for which there were only 1 or maybe 2 DQs.
That said, I try to avoid knowingly using a word with multiple meanings.
It's not always possible, particularly with slang words or obscure OED
entries but it makes the round easier to play in the long run.

CC

[Paul Keating]

A new incumbent for the post of Rules Mother was elected by acclamation in
December 2005. In case you've forgotten, Toni, it's you. I know that there
is nothing in the rules authorizing that, and I also know that the preamble
to the rules specifically excludes democratic interference, but there it is.

The rules are inexcusably vague about where the definition should come from.
They don't even say that it should come from the same source where the
dealer found The Word. I know we've always played as if they do, but the
wording of the rules does not in fact on inspection yield the required
sense. All they say is that the dealer "should stick as closely as
reasonably possible to the official wording". The precedent invites us to
read more into the word _official_ than I think it can reasonably bear.

The rules also talk about a _definition_, not a _dictionary article_. A
dictionary article may contain several definitions. In W3, each bold colon
introduces a definition. (Read the explanatory notes if you don't believe
me.) An article may also contain etymologies, cross-references, citations,
various kinds of label, and so forth. None of these is, strictly speaking,
part of the definition.

Since the rules talk about "the definition" it seems to me one can argue two
ways:
(1) A word with more than one definition cannot be The Word, because by rule
The Word has only one definition.
(2) The dealer is at liberty to choose one if there are several.

But because a dealer can choose a word with more than one sense quite by
accident, and nobody has ever suggested that that made the word invalid, I
reckon precedent favours the second line of argument. Though doing it does
make for messy DQs, as we have seen.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

----- Original Message -----
From: "Toni Savage" <tonicsavage (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:11 AM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Ruling - Advice please


>
> I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the
> first rule, which says to "pick a word and post its
> definition..." as "pick a word and post PART of its
> definition..."
>
> If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you *MUST*
> post *ALL SEVEN* meanings. There are some lovely
> words out there, and some lovely oddball defs of
> common words, but they are out of bounds....
>
> Does the Rules Mother come around this forum any
> more?? Mother Theresa???? We need you!!!!
>

[Toni Savage]

Yeah... I don't really consider the etymology to be
part of the def either... and I also include it only
occasionally (just to help the folks who do SUCH a
good job of fake etymologies...if I never included it,
some people might notice and not vote for them.(

I think you and I feel exactly the same about
parentheticals...


--- Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

> >
> But I've got to disagree slightly with your
> insistence on quoting
> everything the dictionary has to say. I don't always
> see fit, for example,
> to include etymological data. Okay, that's not part
> of the definition
> proper. But I might also leave out, say, the species
> name of an animal or
> plant (which dictionaries sometimes give and
> sometimes don't). Do you think
> such things must be included? How about (and here
> I'm of mixed minds) such
> labels as "Slang" or "Dial."? What do you think?
>
> --Dodi
>


-- Toni Savage

[Toni Savage]

Yeah... T. didn't have a huge dictionary as I recall,
and others often pointed out that their dictionaries
had other defs... she said that whatever dictionary
the dealer had was the one that counted.

This was before online dictionaries, pretty much, so
the only "source argument" came about when someone
used Black's Law Dictionary. It was sorta frowned on
generally, but it was one of the early "The Dealer is
God" rulings.

And you can certainly play words with more than one
meaning... it has often been done. You just have to
include ALL the meanings when you post, IMO. Not a
huge problem to me if it's not done, but it does lead
to problems.

as has been pointed out, even with only one def in MY
dictionary, I have gotten in trouble with folks asking

about defs that are not in my dictionary.


--- JohnnyB <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> Toni
>
> Firstly, it is obvious - after the fact - that I was
> unwise to play that word. But...
>
> Secondly, the very first word ever played in round 1
> "KECKLE" has 3 different meanings in the dictionary
> I mostly use
>
> It may be necessary to interpret the rule as posting
> ALL definitions, but I would then suggest that the
> game is unplayable. We live
> in a multivariate world and all possible solutions
> are nearly always beyond us. No one dictionary has
> all the definitions of a word.
> Most often when I offer a DQ the person comes back
> and says my "offered DQ def'n" is not the one they
> are using. This happened to me
> almost as soon as I began playing, a word very
> common in my profession (or one of the areas I am
> trained in) for which I have a two
> and a half page definition was not that definition -
> and in fact the played definition is not found in
> most other dictionaries that
> I know of, not even the OED. The fault is with the
> dictionaries or rather their compilers for the word
> occurs in nearly every
> gardening book that I own and regularly occurs in
> gardening magazines. I do not think the game is
> playable if we restrict ourselves
> to only words with one meaning for no-one can be
> sure that they are obeying that rule.
>
> Each of those meanings of FASH that I quoted are a
> definition of the meaning of the word. But even
> there, the full definitions (from
> the dictionary I was using) for some of those
> meanings included a 3 line etymological chain from
> Latin thru Old Norse to Saxon to
> Middle-English and a few lines of quotes to
> demonstrate useage - and of course a pronunciation
> guide. Some definitions referred
> back to other definitions and so-on. I suspect that
> we rarely see anyone post a completely full
> definition of any word.
>
> Another point is that using a big comprehensive
> dictionary a random check suggests that about one
> third of all words have more than
> one meaning and I do not see why we cannot play all
> the words which are part of our language.
>
> I submit therefore that we cannot interpret the rule
> that way and further I suggest that even from the
> very first it was not
> intended to be interpreted that way
>
>
>
> JohnnyB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> > [mailto:Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of
> Toni Savage
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:12 AM
> > To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> > Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Ruling - Advice please
> >
> >
> > I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the
> first
> > rule, which says to "pick a word and post its
> definition..."
> > as "pick a word and post PART of its
> definition..."
> >
> > If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you
> *MUST* post *ALL
> > SEVEN* meanings. There are some lovely words out
> there, and
> > some lovely oddball defs of common words, but they
> are out of
> > bounds....
> >
> > Does the Rules Mother come around this forum any
> more??
> > Mother Theresa???? We need you!!!!
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- Toni Savage

[Toni Savage]

Oh, dear. Yes, I HAD forgotten... shouldn't have
pontificated quite so hard if I knew the Power I
had...<g>.

Good points, all. Another problem besides DQs is that
people will create defs with similarities to the
non-real defs, and then voters for those defs will
complain that they DID pick *a* correct def...

Good note about "article" vs. "Definitio". I use
Chambers (which doesn't seem to go into quite such
detail) and Webster's Second (my grandfather's copy,
which is missing most of its front and back pages...
even a couple of pages of "A", but I love it!)


Toni

--- Paul Keating <pjakeating (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> A new incumbent for the post of Rules Mother was
> elected by acclamation in
> December 2005. In case you've forgotten, Toni, it's
> you. I know that there
> is nothing in the rules authorizing that, and I also
> know that the preamble
> to the rules specifically excludes democratic
> interference, but there it is.
>
> The rules are inexcusably vague about where the
> definition should come from.
> They don't even say that it should come from the
> same source where the
> dealer found The Word. I know we've always played as
> if they do, but the
> wording of the rules does not in fact on inspection
> yield the required
> sense. All they say is that the dealer "should stick
> as closely as
> reasonably possible to the official wording". The
> precedent invites us to
> read more into the word _official_ than I think it
> can reasonably bear.
>
> The rules also talk about a _definition_, not a
> _dictionary article_. A
> dictionary article may contain several definitions.
> In W3, each bold colon
> introduces a definition. (Read the explanatory notes
> if you don't believe
> me.) An article may also contain etymologies,
> cross-references, citations,
> various kinds of label, and so forth. None of these
> is, strictly speaking,
> part of the definition.
>
> Since the rules talk about "the definition" it seems
> to me one can argue two
> ways:
> (1) A word with more than one definition cannot be
> The Word, because by rule
> The Word has only one definition.
> (2) The dealer is at liberty to choose one if there
> are several.
>
> But because a dealer can choose a word with more
> than one sense quite by
> accident, and nobody has ever suggested that that
> made the word invalid, I
> reckon precedent favours the second line of
> argument. Though doing it does
> make for messy DQs, as we have seen.
>
> --
> Paul Keating
> The Hague
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Toni Savage" <tonicsavage (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
> To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:11 AM
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Ruling - Advice please
>
>
> >
> > I've never understood how ANYONE can interpret the
> > first rule, which says to "pick a word and post
> its
> > definition..." as "pick a word and post PART of
> its
> > definition..."
> >
> > If you've picked a word with 7 meanings, you
> *MUST*
> > post *ALL SEVEN* meanings. There are some lovely
> > words out there, and some lovely oddball defs of
> > common words, but they are out of bounds....
> >
> > Does the Rules Mother come around this forum any
> > more?? Mother Theresa???? We need you!!!!
> >
>
>


-- Toni Savage

[Dodi Schultz]

Toni, one thing you mentioned in passing: the specific dictionary used. The
Rules say "any accepted dictionary." I don't know what that meant a decade
and a half ago; certainly the basic general dictionaries would have been
deemed acceptable--but it doesn't say "general," or even "current," does
it? I've got AHD, Random, the concise OED, M-W, Chambers, Bierce, and
dictionaries of law, medicine, computers, biotech, Americanisms, foreign
phrases used in English, et al.; I've also got M-W unabridged volumes from
1934 and 1864. A number of obsolete words have been dealt from historical
volumes.

And now available are a host of listings on the Web ranging from the
classic to the avant garde, including selected collections of far-out words
like Phrontistery and several compilations of neologisms. Not to mention a
bunch of specialized glossaries devoted to particular professions,
industries, etc.

The way we've been playing, I think we've tacitly agreed that ALL of these
are "accepted." (I have no problem with that, personally.) Perhaps the
dealer ought to specify the source (some already do) when reporting
results, in case anybody does decide to question acceptability? (I'm not
advocating, just asking.)

--Dodi

[Toni Savage]

Yep. I agree completely.

Toni

--- Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

>
>
> Toni, one thing you mentioned in passing: the
> specific dictionary used. The
> Rules say "any accepted dictionary." I don't know
> what that meant a decade
> and a half ago; certainly the basic general
> dictionaries would have been
> deemed acceptable--but it doesn't say "general," or
> even "current," does
> it? I've got AHD, Random, the concise OED, M-W,
> Chambers, Bierce, and
> dictionaries of law, medicine, computers, biotech,
> Americanisms, foreign
> phrases used in English, et al.; I've also got M-W
> unabridged volumes from
> 1934 and 1864. A number of obsolete words have been
> dealt from historical
> volumes.
>
> And now available are a host of listings on the Web
> ranging from the
> classic to the avant garde, including selected
> collections of far-out words
> like Phrontistery and several compilations of
> neologisms. Not to mention a
> bunch of specialized glossaries devoted to
> particular professions,
> industries, etc.
>
> The way we've been playing, I think we've tacitly
> agreed that ALL of these
> are "accepted." (I have no problem with that,
> personally.) Perhaps the
> dealer ought to specify the source (some already do)
> when reporting
> results, in case anybody does decide to question
> acceptability? (I'm not
> advocating, just asking.)
>
> --Dodi
>


-- Toni Savage

[Paul Keating]

I agree too.

Even a decade and a half ago, "any accepted dictionary" didn't mean
anything. It's void for vagueness. The rules don't define _accepted_ or
suggest who does the accepting (T. and Anders? The players? The dealer?).
In practice, of course, it is the dealer, who is hardly likely to use a
dictionary he or she regards as unacceptable.

There was at least one dictionary that was (as I recall it) declared to be
not _accepted_ after the fact. That was in Round 554, when Mike Shefler
played _zzxjoanw_, from _Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and
Preposterous Words_. I'm not the only one who thinks it was a copyright
trap, and one can't reasonably ban a dictionary for that, because
respectable dictionaries have them.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dodi Schultz" <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:12 AM

Toni, one thing you mentioned in passing: the specific dictionary used. The
Rules say "any accepted dictionary." I don't know what that meant a decade
and a half ago...

The way we've been playing, I think we've tacitly agreed that ALL of these
are "accepted."

[Marijke van Gans]

On 9/19/07, Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> And now available are a host of listings on the Web ranging from the
> classic to the avant garde, including selected collections of far-out words
> like Phrontistery and several compilations of neologisms. Not to mention a
> bunch of specialized glossaries devoted to particular professions,
> industries, etc.
>
> The way we've been playing, I think we've tacitly agreed that ALL of these
> are "accepted." (I have no problem with that, personally.)

That's also how i recall it, and no problem here either. (thinks:
Phrontistery???)

As for the substantive question, what to pick if there are several
words, all spelled the same, with different meanings: i distinctly
recall *several* rounds where the dealer played such a word, without
problems. At one of them i tried to DQ and the dealer told me the word
may well mean that too, but it wasn't the definition he had in mind.
At another round a dealer picked a word with a very common def saying
the obvious meaning wasn't intended. OTOH there have been defs (often
fake, sometimes real) that took the form of (a) this... (b) that... I
recall posting one myself where the juxtaposition of "(a) soul,
spirit, (b) seaweed" was calculated to bring a smile to players'
faces. And the idea wasn't new, i had seen another player else do an
incongruous juxtaposition earlier.

So i guess that (like many aspects of Dix) it's everything goes. Want
to pick one of many defs? Go for it. Want to post a multipart def with
subbulltetpoints? Be bold. Or italic even. Season with etymologies to
taste.

> Perhaps the
> dealer ought to specify the source (some already do) when reporting
> results, in case anybody does decide to question acceptability? (I'm not
> advocating, just asking.)

Always a good idea. Inquiring minds and all that.

BTW i haven't been playing because i still don't have access to the
net at home. I'm now once a week at a place where i can go online so
i've been casting a glance at the Dix rounds that keep spilling into
my vast cavernous gmail inbox, but it's not regular enough to play.
Somebody gave me a 2nd hand computer which i am now trying to get to
talk to my new broadband connexion, so things may yet change...

More in general, i got my PhD a few weeks ago, so who knows things
might be looking up for me in the job market now. Anybody know anybody
who is willing to employ a 50something female mathematician/programmer
(speaks C, C++, x86 and other asm, perl, HTML, TeX/LaTeX, Frisian,
Dutch, English, French, German...
and interested in most things)? Preferably in not-too-commercial setting.

--Later, marijke

[Tim Lodge]

Hi Marijke

Welcome back and conrgratulations on the PhD.

-- Tim L

[JohnnyB]

marijke

Good to hear from you, congrats on the PhD and I wish you all success in the job market

JohnnyB (still using DIXOMAT)

[Marijke van Gans]

Tim, Johnny,

damn, you guys are quick <g>.

> back

not really back (see msg)

> still using DIXOMAT

I *love* hearing that :)

--Regards, marijke

[Guerri Stevens]

Congratulations on the PhD!

I too am still using Dixomat on the rare occasions when I deal.

Guerri

Marijke van Gans wrote:
>
> More in general, i got my PhD a few weeks ago, so who knows things
> might be looking up for me in the job market now. Anybody know anybody
> who is willing to employ a 50something female mathematician/programmer
> (speaks C, C++, x86 and other asm, perl, HTML, TeX/LaTeX, Frisian,
> Dutch, English, French, German...
> and interested in most things)? Preferably in not-too-commercial setting.

[Judy Madnick]

<< Marijke van Gans wrote:
<< >
<< > More in general, i got my PhD a few weeks ago

Congratulations! Best of luck with the job search . . . and hope this means we'll see you here more often.

Judy Madnick

[Dodi Schultz]

Marijke, great to hear from you! Have wondered all this time where on earth
you'd got to. And congratulations on earning your doctorate!

>> i haven't been playing because i still don't have access to the net
>> at home. I'm now once a week at a place where i can go online so
>> i've been casting a glance at the Dix rounds...Somebody gave me a
>> 2nd hand computer which i am now trying to get to talk to my new
>> broadband connexion, so things may yet change...

Hope so! It would be nice to have you rejoin the game.

>> Anybody know anybody who is willing to employ a 50something female
>> mathematician/programmer (speaks C, C++, x86 and other asm, perl,
>> HTML, TeX/LaTeX, Frisian, Dutch, English, French, German... and
>> interested in most things)? Preferably in not-too-commercial setting..

Wish I could help...I gather location is irrelevant. There must be SOMEBODY
in the UK or US with such needs. For those who don't know Marijke: When
last heard from, she was at the university in Birmingham. That's NOT the
one in Alabama. ;-)

--Dodi

[Bill Hirst]

Congratulations on the degree. I never had any doubt you'd succeed.

-Bill