Tuesday, November 11, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Robert K S]

Thanks, opus. I loved you in Dear Mr. Watterson, available now on Netflix.

To be clear, I only think most uses of "run" in sports aren't distinct from the regular meaning of "run" as the physical activity. "Run" definitely has a distinct meaning in baseball, however. One can do plenty of running in baseball without actually scoring a run (n.). Ditto cricket, and probably a few other sports I've never watched ever.

If you have access to the Online OED, check to see if they have a separate entry for "ran", and if so, what's there.

[Golf]

I'm not great with word play or grammer

Agreed.

[Caboom]

Thanks, opus. I loved you in Dear Mr. Watterson, available now on Netflix.

To be clear, I only think most uses of "run" in sports aren't distinct from the regular meaning of "run" as the physical activity. "Run" definitely has a distinct meaning in baseball, however. One can do plenty of running in baseball without actually scoring a run (n.). Ditto cricket, and probably a few other sports I've never watched ever.

If you have access to the Online OED, check to see if they have a separate entry for "ran", and if so, what's there.

They weren't referring to the meaning of run in baseball, however, as they wanted a verb, not a noun. So therefore I think they might have accepted ran, unless it has its own, separate entry.

[Robert K S]

they wanted a verb

Well that's another good point.

[zakharov]

Keep this debate up for another page and we'll have achieve peak Jboard.

Never forget the peptic peptide peptic ulcer wars

[UiscePreston]

I remember reading in Guinness that "set" was the English word with the most meanings.

The verb set, by itself, has 126 main senses in the OED. This doesn't count transitivity distinctions. Nor does it include phrases and phrasal verbs, or other junk that might appear under the set verb entry. Using the same stipulations, run - just run - has 82 semantic distinctions. Unfortunately, "most meanings" is not what the clue wanted. This "largest entry" quantifier is apparently based on something far less interesting: the word count of the full entry in this one publication. That means etymologies, phrasal verbs, verb complements, idiomatic phrases and the copious clutter of the patented OED citations that can multiply under each of the aforementioned. So "largest entry" here is a purely editorial construct. My response to that is big whoop. Here is an example: they put six citations for the needlework-related adjectival phrase run-and-fell under the verb run. The only cogent thing about that is the OED loves its showy excess. Entries like that should be cross-referenced to a separate full entry of its own with a link, or a cf. in print. Run-and-fell is not a verb, it took 200 words to illustrate in the wrong place, and it took several minutes to find. But with a hundred or so of its lumped-together compatriots, run-and-fell is essentially padding that makes the online entry of the verb run a giant resource hog that taxes the cache on most computers and makes a single page incredibly slow or irritating to scroll through. Yay, but it's part of a world record.

I read the journal paper on which the Wikipedia factoid about run's supposed supremacy is based. Trust me, it was hard to find so I doubt the Jeopardy writers did anything more than skim the idea from a cursory web search and whammo - trivia gospel. But according to the author of the paper, an associate editor on the OED, one of the main reasons that run has so many fluffy citations, a huge etymology and extra lexical nonsense is because it is the conflation of two related verbs from Old English with similar but distinct usages. Yeah, that's fine - in fact, it is the most interesting thing to surface around this topic. But while I do love me a good lexicographical resource, information like that can be illuminated with far fewer than 60,000 words...for a single word entry. I am all for recording first usages and tracking ever-changing ones. But it has to be organized, manageable and useful. Not run amok.

[Vanya]

So why is Eugene called Track Town?

The whole Nike/Phil Knight/Prefontaine thing started in Eugene.

Some residents of Oregon call it the People's Republic of Eugene.

[bengland]

Never forget the peptic peptide peptic ulcer wars

Good times!

[gnash]

If you have access to the Online OED, check to see if they have a separate entry for "ran", and if so, what's there.

Isn't it obvious? What else could it say than "past tense of run"? Pretty short entry.

[gnash]

Even though I'm a Wagering Roadkill (as opposed to Wagering Police or Wagering Viking), I don't know why Andrew and Rani did the "hold off a dollar" ploy with their bet - it makes some sense in regular games (you can't win with $0), but the chances are even more remote that you'd go to the semi finals on either a win or a wildcard slot on a $1 total, so why not bet it all? (Yeah, I know, this is like TPH asking "How does everyone know Van Gogh was the artist of "Starry Night"?" in terms of a stupidly obvious observation, but the thought did cross my mind.)

I believe this is demonstrably incorrect. The times when $1 would have given you advancement when $0 would not, assuming you are not leading going into FJ, are more frequent in tournament play than in regular play.

The chance that $7600 would advance you, while $7599 does not advance, is orders of magnitude more remote.

Right. Tournaments are the only occasions when betting all but a dollar may be justified. But I would probably prefer all but $99.

[This Is Kirk!]

If you have access to the Online OED, check to see if they have a separate entry for "ran", and if so, what's there.

Isn't it obvious? What else could it say than "past tense of run"? Pretty short entry.

That's what I would suspect, and you'd think that would make "ran" an incorrect response, but OTOH, they'll take a logo when the question asks for a team name, so you never know!

[El Jefe]

Maybe this is geek stereotyping, but I was surprised that no one did well in the Superman category. I was cursing at myself because I said "Who is George Reeve?" even though I know that it is Reeves and just misspoke (probably because it came up first before Christopher Reeve).

Like many here, I thought the triple-TS Superman cat. was odd, but 'Noel Neill' and '1950s TV' are not the prompts most may think. There's not much of a chance to watch that show anymore (was there much of one even by the 60s? Was/is it even syndicated? I've never seen it on TVLAND...

As someone else mentioned, many Sup. productions are of dubious quality. Even the Reeve one, which is probably known by the most boardies, by today's standards 'doesn't hold up well.'

[Vanya]

Favorite Superman-George Reeves moment: a criminal shoots at him, the bullets bounce off his chest, the criminal throws the gun at him and he ducks.

0:58.

[trainman]

Favorite Superman-George Reeves moment: a criminal shoots at him, the bullets bounce off his chest, the criminal throws the gun at him and he ducks.

Just because you're invulnerable to bullets, it doesn't mean you want to get hit with a larger metal object.

[Bamaman]

I was born on in 1967 and saw the Reeves version on TV a lot growing up. Old reruns were standard afternoon programming in the 1970s and 80s.

[opusthepenguin]

Never forget the peptic peptide peptic ulcer wars

Good times!

Shut up and pass the Pepto.

[earendel]

Favorite Superman-George Reeves moment: a criminal shoots at him, the bullets bounce off his chest, the criminal throws the gun at him and he ducks.

Just because you're invulnerable to bullets, it doesn't mean you want to get hit with a larger metal object.

I always thought it was reflex. Superman doesn't see the bullets so he doesn't dodge them. But he can see the gun and instinctively dodges it.

[sarah0114]

Maybe this is geek stereotyping, but I was surprised that no one did well in the Superman category. I was cursing at myself because I said "Who is George Reeve?" even though I know that it is Reeves and just misspoke (probably because it came up first before Christopher Reeve).

Like many here, I thought the triple-TS Superman cat. was odd, but 'Noel Neill' and '1950s TV' are not the prompts most may think. There's not much of a chance to watch that show anymore (was there much of one even by the 60s? Was/is it even syndicated? I've never seen it on TVLAND...

As someone else mentioned, many Sup. productions are of dubious quality. Even the Reeve one, which is probably known by the most boardies, by today's standards 'doesn't hold up well.'

I knew GR but I think I would have clammed because I wasn't sure if he was the ONLY Superman in the 50s, and the corresponding Lois didn't help me figure it out. The contestants playing may have been similarly conservative.

[rmfromfla]

Well, the Reeves version of Superman (in glorious black & white) is currently airing on most MEtv affiliates Saturdays at 6/5 PM Central.
Also was syndicated in the '80s (was on weekday afternoons here) with the included plug for "Kellogg's -- The Greatest Name in Cereals!"

[TheyCallMeMrKid]

Favorite Superman-George Reeves moment: a criminal shoots at him, the bullets bounce off his chest, the criminal throws the gun at him and he ducks.

Just because you're invulnerable to bullets, it doesn't mean you want to get hit with a larger metal object.

I always thought it was reflex. Superman doesn't see the bullets so he doesn't dodge them. But he can see the gun and instinctively dodges it.

Why would a man who can't be hurt instinctively dodge anything?