I think this will upset the traditional players.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ry-isnt-just-ridic-its-a-political-statement/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ry-isnt-just-ridic-its-a-political-statement/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scrabble allows the use of slang
- Thread starter JamesMike
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have never played Scrabble. But I find it ridiculous that they would allow words used mainly by a small fringe group of the population. Hail, may as well let people make up their own words like "Jozxyqk" (it's a word; a Cat word
).
).
This (seemingly recent) dumbing down/catering to colloquialisms in the English language really irks me. For instance, the meaning of the word 'literally' has now been changed also mean 'figuratively', simply because enough people are using 'literally' incorrectly.
What next? 'Could of' rather than could have or could've? Just because enough people use it incorrectly? Surely the very purpose of words is to allow specificity; they're there so that people can easily articulate what they mean without being wordy (for lack of a better term).
There's nothing good that can come of this. The English language is absolutely fascinating. The etymology of words, how so many different languages and cultures influenced spellings, and pronunciations ... it's incredible. Misspelt words and stupid phrases like this being allowed in Scrabble, of all things. What an absolute crock.
I'm still waiting for the letters to spell kwyjibo one day, which, as we all know, is a big, dumb, balding North American ape, with no chin and a short temper.
I'm still waiting for the letters to spell kwyjibo one day, which, as we all know, is a big, dumb, balding North American ape, with no chin and a short temper.
Sent an email to Homer, you'll hear from him in due course.
KGB
This (seemingly recent) dumbing down/catering to colloquialisms in the English language really irks me. For instance, the meaning of the word 'literally' has now been changed also mean 'figuratively', simply because enough people are using 'literally' incorrectly.
What next? 'Could of' rather than could have or could've? Just because enough people use it incorrectly? Surely the very purpose of words is to allow specificity; they're there so that people can easily articulate what they mean without being wordy (for lack of a better term).
There's nothing good that can come of this. The English language is absolutely fascinating. The etymology of words, how so many different languages and cultures influenced spellings, and pronunciations ... it's incredible. Misspelt words and stupid phrases like this being allowed in Scrabble, of all things. What an absolute crock.
Interesting thread - on a topic perennially close to my heart.
Actually, I think the expression 'could of' (which, yes, irks me - I twitch when I hear it used in speech) has developed 'naturally' over time as a result of mishearing the compressed pair of words pronounced as 'could've'.
However, while I deplore much slang and raged (futilely) against it into the dying night, I have to accept that part of the whole point of a spoken language is the process of ongoing change.
Indeed, I waged a long and losing war in my teaching days against the use of the verb 'morph' in student essays. The use of this verb was something which I regarded as a travesty when there are so many splendidly descriptive and beautifully calibrated verbs which can do the job of describing this action perfectly well instead. These days, alas, I have seen it in the scripted remarks of those who should know an awful lot better (mind you, it still would not appear were I to be given the task of scripting those same remarks .)
I'm still waiting for the letters to spell kwyjibo one day, which, as we all know, is a big, dumb, balding North American ape, with no chin and a short temper.
Ah, yes, an example of the - fortunately quite rare - fauna of the sort occasionally found in the less cultivated wilds of the remoter corners of the USA. Some of us try to persuade ourselves that this represents an example of an evolutionary cul-de-sac. However, I am not entirely sure that we are right .
Sent an email to Homer, you'll hear from him in due course.
KGB
Perhaps. But I doubt that Homer was the specimen that mobilehaathi had in mind .
And absolutely dead right, too.
My internal grammar fascist reigns unchallenged in authentic autocratic fashion ..(in fact, I disdain democracy at the Scrabble board, and concepts such as accountability and transparency are not even name-checked .)
we always use home rules anyway, which vary depending on who is playing.
it goes from very lax -anything you can reasonably justify, spelling and all-, including names of people, places, companies and bizarre acronyms (googling only allowed as post-explanatory validation or to settle challenges), to very strict, to multi-language, kid-friendly and so on.
in most cases, simply plop a dictionary down on the table and if it is in there is good.
in any case, as long as it is cleared at the beginning, it's fine.
----------
I'm still waiting for the letters to spell kwyjibo one day, which, as we all know, is a big, dumb, balding North American ape, with no chin and a short temper.
that would totally be valid in our games, in fact i think it should carry an automatic double points
Just wait, the Scrabble "Text Edition with Emoji" is probably in the works. I totally understand playing with "house rules", but officially changing the game is an interesting move. Generally speaking, I thing language and vocabulary are a direct result of education and environment.
I say it all depends on who you're playing with. I've played the f-word, c-word, and all sorts of other 4 letter words in the past and the people I play with don't have a problem
if anything, they should increase the number of letters available in 'the bag' and increase the default number of letters 'in the hand' from 7 to 8, with better bonus for longer words.
also, the game would benefit from a broader range of values for the different letters
I used to play using "funetik rulz" when my nieces and nephews were younger. Iph yew kan spel it yewzing funetix, itts legle. Thay had gud fun.
Hm.
You seem to have a fascination with an informed, and intelligent tweaking and re-writing of rules; in any case, I could get behind this sort of thoughtful adaptation to the modern needs of the game as expressed by experienced players.
Last edited:
i suppose i do
in the case of scrabble i was always peeved by the fact that the frequency of available letters supposedly reflects their frequency in language (which is fine), but their value does not
why are there 12 E and 4 U, but they are both worth 1 point? it is contradictory
and at the same time H is worth 4 points while being as frequent as S and twice as frequent as U (both worth 1 point)
and 8 tiles in the hand would give more options and the chance of forming longer words
frequency of letter in language (english)
value and frequency of tiles in scrabble2 blank tiles (scoring 0 points)
1 point: E ×12, A ×9, I ×9, O ×8, N ×6, R ×6, T ×6, L ×4, S ×4, U ×4
2 points: D ×4, G ×3
3 points: B ×2, C ×2, M ×2, P ×2
4 points: F ×2, H ×2, V ×2, W ×2, Y ×2
5 points: K ×1
8 points: J ×1, X ×1
10 points: Q ×1, Z ×1