Round 3053 new word BROLGA

[Tim B]

The word for this round is

************
* *
* BROLGA *
* *
************

As usual, no indication of capitalisation or otherwise is implied.

New players are welcome. Don't look in a dictionary. If you know the word, let me know soon, by
email (if too many people know it, we'll pick another word).

Think up a creative, intriguing, funny or genuine looking definition that will
entice your fellow players to vote for it.
Send it BY EMAIL (not as a public forum message) to me, before the deadline,
which is 2100 UTC on Tuesday 25th February.
That is probably 4 pm In New York and 1 pm on the West Coast.
My computer tells me it's 10 am on Wednesday 26th in New Zealand - but who believes computers?

Full rules, if you're curious, are at www.dixonary.net.

Best wishes,
Tim Bourne.

[Efrem G Mallach]

As I just wrote to one of my brothers, whom I'm trying to get interested in joining us: "If proper nouns were allowed, I'd say it's the name of a minor Italian opera composer (1814-1879). But they're not."

Efrem

========================

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/a25e34b9-0b13-bc5f-8180-f3a4678eb334%40siam.co.uk.

[Efrem G Mallach]

And I just got this in reply:

It is. Giuseppe Brolga is unjustly neglected. His opera I tre sposi di Moskowitz (1866) is well worth revival.

Now we know! Thanks, Tim!

Efrem

(Obviously, or at least I hope so: this is all NAD.)

======================

Begin forwarded message:

[Johnb - co.uk]

So where does it say that proper nouns are not allowed?

JohnnyB

[Efrem G Mallach]

I wouldn't consider a name (a proper noun) to be a "word" in the sense of this game, though I agree that the rules don't explicitly prohibit them.

Would "Eisenhower" be allowed as a jacket style, even though it might not be as the name of a U.S. general and president? Maybe it would. Discussion?

Efrem

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/9b98dcf6-616e-8100-d711-c19f0f22bf01%40john-barrs.co.uk.

[Johnb - co.uk]

guyot is among other things the name of a vine pruning system invented by guess who - the issue with playing that word is the source which is almost bound to be limited to a gardening book... when I first joined the game we discussed this and decided that the dictionary of fruit culture was |NOT| a valid dictionary - now if I had played it and said 'a kind sea mount' (as OED) also derived from the name of another Guyot then that of course is OK

- I sort of agree with you in the sense that the word should be an x named after 'X' rather than a plain 'X' but I don't see any sensible way of talking about it cardigan, raglan, mackintosh, hoover, bic, biro etc must be playable words

JohnnyB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/488402EA-641E-4131-83FA-6D8088FE25A4%40gmail.com.

[Stephen Dixon]

We seem to be caught in something of a imbroglio over Brolga.

Are we playing this one, or not?

For my part, I recall a couple of deals that included a name as part of a phrase.

Most notably, Mother-Carey’s-chickens’ in honor of Theresa Carey, one of the game’s originators.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/39365608-1a1e-de13-d7bf-e51f03ff5f0c%40john-barrs.co.uk.

--

Stephen Dixon
email: steved...@gmail.com

“Wherever you are is the entry point”  - Kabir Das 

[Johnb - co.uk]

Stephen

Any imbroglio is I think in your own universe... nothing I have seen suggests that we aren't playing this word.  My response to Efrem  was discursive about playing words that include a person's name

I think 'da dealer as God' would have to announce the abandonment of this word

JohnnyB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAFkjdZPWYTAab0sCSQYHCGeeBEbBmNyotSFCAJeu%2BkvS%3DexJCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen Dixon]

Well, I was seeking to make a little joke (imbroglio/Brolga) but it seems I did a poor job.

I understand it is the dealer’s call.

I think discussion is always allowed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/7cb70878-65df-3673-9023-b33b044c18d8%40john-barrs.co.uk.

[Johnb - co.uk]

Sorry, I took the joke but I also had the arrogance to try and correct a legend -- very many apologies

JohnnyB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAFkjdZO-1VazNikUDz7Gd0Nzk%3D3w3eQc%2B_U%3DfdHTp%2Bnod1XjWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Efrem G Mallach]

My suggestion that BROLGA was the name of a minor Italian opera composer was a NAD, not intended to disparage the validity of the word or to lead to its being withdrawn. Nothing I've seen so far suggests that it has been.

The general discussion of whether proper nouns, such as the name of a minor Italian opera composer (which BROLGA almost certainly is not, since my brother knows them pretty well and would have said so), are allowable as words is separate from the current deal even though posts in that discussion are under its heading. I trust Tim to sort them out.

Efrem

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAFkjdZPWYTAab0sCSQYHCGeeBEbBmNyotSFCAJeu%2BkvS%3DexJCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel B Widdis]

RE: “I trust Tim to sort them out.”

 

We can always make his job harder by continuing this discussion without a subject rename!

 

For the record, my thoughts:

• Nothing in the rules prevents using proper names, although just about any non-famous name is automatically obscure and not very fun to play a round guessing, whilst a famous name would generate a lot of DQs
• For eponymous words, we see them quite a bit and it’s nearly universally understood that the woid is the thing named after the person, and not the person him/her-self.  Allowing proper names would mean these words would have multiple meanings, which brings us to:
• The “rules” don’t address it but the “real rules” advise against dealing words with multiple meanings. I have seen some woids dealt with the more well known definition explicitly disavowed.
• So in light of the above, it’d probably be fair to deal “Eisenhower” with the caveat (not the President by that name).  But it would not be sporting (jacket pun) to simply deal “Eisenhower” and if someone guessed the jacket def, say “WRONG! It’s the president!”

 

Also of note… almost always, dealers note that “capitalization does not matter”.  For proper names, capitalization likely would matter…

 

 

From: <dixo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Efrem G Mallach <efrem....@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dixo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 24, 2020 at 9:39 AM
To: <dixo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 3053 new word BROLGA

 

My suggestion that BROLGA was the name of a minor Italian opera composer was a NAD, not intended to disparage the validity of the word or to lead to its being withdrawn. Nothing I've seen so far suggests that it has been.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/D6EF6579-0136-4EDD-BAA3-2A811BB03A78%40gmail.com.