Tweet
Originally posted by lalatan
View Post
That's cool that it accepted it. Congrats!
-
I didn't realize TopsyTurvy was a real word, I thought it was just a slang to represent things messed up.
That's cool that it accepted it. Congrats!
-
So back before I played games on the internet, I'd play Boggle with my mum, with a 3-volume edition of Webster's dictionary for reference whenever we played a word that looked like it might mean something, but we didn't know what.
I still remember some of the words I learned that way. It's especially gratifying when a word I've never been able to use in a conversation pops up here on Wordtwist.
I just found MULCT and MULCTING.Comment
-
The Oxford English Dictionary (unabridged, three very heavy volumes) was the dictionary my family used to play Scrabble. The rule was that any word in the dictionary you used, no matter how obscure, was allowed -- but you had to define it correctly or you took the word back and lost your turn. And no, you weren't told the definition until the word couldn't be played anywhere. I hate SOWPODS, because it's an amendment to the original rules; and the one I quoted was actually in the game rules at the time. It was NEVER intended that the words in the non-existent standard dictionary were the only words you could use, and it was also stated that all standard derivations of dictionary words were also allowed even if they weren't in the dictionary. And our dictionary was so large that it was basically impossible to memorize. GOOD!Comment
-
I just played the word MATHOM and it was accepted! I wasn't expecting that. Clicked on the definition, and it's exactly what I thought - a word that Tolkien invented for the Lord of the Rings, that somehow made it into the dictionary. I love it.Comment
-
I read about 15 pages from LOTR when I was in college. Someone handed me a copy and told me I liked SF and Fantasy, so I'd like it. I gave it back the next day. I don't often hate books that much and I can't even tell you why it was so distasteful ( 50 years gone, besides) but it was unreadable. I've read some pretty bad books cover to cover, but there was something about this particular book that got to me. It wasn't that it was badly written, it was something else undefinable. I think we all have books like that -- some inner censor says "nope!" and you can't read it. Narnia was another such. A Wrinkle In Time. I've read reviews of them all and they're pretty innocent stuff, all of them. And yet --
So I think I will miss all the Tolkien references.Comment
-
Oooh I don't think I've ever met someone who's passionate about words but passionately hates Tolkien. I've met people with aphantasia who hate Tolkien, which is understandable, considering all the lengthy descriptions, but usually word nerds are drawn in by Tolkien's use of language. Interesting.Originally posted by bwt1213 View Post
I don't think "mathom" or other fantasy words pop up often enough for it to hamper your gameplay, so I think you're good.
I have stumbled across some of Lewis Carroll's word creations before, though.Comment
-
I found COPROPHILIAC last month, which is just hilarious, and tonight found my first 16-letter word – HYPERSENSITIVITY – on a 4x4 board.Comment
-
I found GOATSE tonight. It doesn't show up in the site dictionary, so you'll just have to google it
Comment
-
Just found CHUNDEROUSNESSES (as well as CHUNDEROUS and CHUNDEROUSNESS).
I'm reminded of some lyrics:
"I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover, yeah"Comment
-
Not a particularly high-scoring words, but it was satisfying to play THEORBO. In my opinion, one of the best musical instruments ever invented, if a tad impractical. (If you've never seen it heard one, try searching for it on YouTube.)Comment
-
It's not my favorite word I've found playing 4X4, but due to it being October and the month of Halloween, this is my favorite word I found for the month. Muah ha ha (vampire laugh).
Best word: BLOODSUCKERS (15 pts.)
New record!
Longest word: BLOODSUCKERS (12 letters)New record!
Comment
-
bwt1213 I just finished "The Science of Middle Earth" by Henry Gee. Chapters on string theory, human evolution, eyesight, the possibility of there being 6-limbed reptiles (dragons with 4 legs and wings, mithril, and several others. A lot of insights into Tolkien: his childhood and adolescence, war-time service, fascination with languages, etc. His first job out of the Army was working on the Oxford English Dictionary, so perhaps there was something buried deep in your psyche that caused you to reject the fantasy world created by one of its authors!Comment
-
I took a while to think about what you'd written. I never got far enough into The Hobbit to encounter any of the subjects you mentioned, and my experience was from 1969 -- so, well over 50 years ago. About all I can remember now is the flavor of the work, at least the first twenty pages or so of it. I think my primary objection then was the pure fantasy nature of it; I wanted something that extrapolated from reality or could be justified in some way scientifically. So, pure fantasy just wasn't what I was looking for. The second part of my objection was my knowledge of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis and similar authors. I was wary of anything that smelled like religion or faith or a "quest" based on faith. Actually, I don't think I found that in those few pages I read. But I was sure that's where it was going to go, and I wasn't going there. Perhaps that was unfair of me and a prejudgment I shouldn't have made. I will note that I have read some works for which I had no idea where the author was going and found myself headed right down that "faith" path. Once I saw that happening, I quit. Dead stop. There is something in me that utterly rejects the idea that there are things we just have to accept on faith, and just believe to be true. I can't do that, and more than that I don't WANT to do that. I am willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy all manner of fanciful stories I know can't possibly be true, and I've even written some myself. But to have a story based on the idea that there is something you cannot know but just have to believe in -- that's a bridge too far for me. But as far as the dictionary is concerned, I regularly read dictionaries and took pleasure in doing so. I once read the whole Oxford Unabridged dictionary, in the library. You couldn't check the dictionary out, just use it. But some days I could read as many as twenty pages, and I would remember where I was so I could go back the next day and continue. I read that dictionary for more than ten years and I felt actual regret when I came to the last page. I just wish I could remember more of it.Originally posted by JedMedGrey View PostComment
-
Reading OED cover to cover? !!!Originally posted by bwt1213 View Post
Wow!
Just wow!
Recently got rid of mine, along with the multi-volume Century Dictionary and Cylopedia. They were taking up a lot of space--and I hadn't touched either for a very long time. Not that I wanted to part with them, but the wife has been watching Swedish Death Cleaning, so...
Really did love the leather-bound spines of the Century. The sacrifises of marriage.
Immediately after reading your post, ran across orgone on a board and couldn't help thinking of your comments. Would I be correct in assuming you weren't buying Reich's premise?
Screen Shot 2023-10-06 at 8.32.52 AM.png
Comment
-
macheaveliansComment
Comment