[Dixonary] Round 3602a word TITTYNOPE

[Efrem Mallach]

Trying again:

The new word for Round 3602 is, as you already know if you looked at the subject line:

TITTYNOPE

The adjusted deadline is nine hours after the original one:

Boston, U.S.            Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 9:00 pm EST

Chicago, U.S.          Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:00 pm CST

Los Angeles, U.S.   Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 6:00 pm PST

Wellington, N. Z. Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:00 pm NZDT

Paris, France       Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:00 am CET

London, U. K.  Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:00 am GMT

The only definition of "drey" so far is from Dan Widdis. I'll keep it for TITTYNOPE if he doesn't replace it. 

Let the fake defs (and DQs, if any) come in, and let the NADs begin. (The real meaning of this word isn't at all risqué.) 

Efrem

[Daniel B Widdis]

What I said on Thanksgiving when reaching for the dark meat turkey leg. 

Sent from my nadPhone

On Nov 30, 2025, at 10:29 AM, 'Efrem Mallach' via Dixonary <dixo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Trying again:

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/4745F75E-5AF1-435B-9E0B-AD18D4C34F09%40verizon.net.

[Hugo Kornelis]

What my wife said when she was mad at me.

(nad)

Op 30-11-2025 om 19:29 schreef 'Efrem Mallach' via Dixonary:

[John Barrs]

I know this word too

JohnnyB

Virus-free.www.avg.com

--

[Chowie]

Johnny, could you just send us a short list of the words you don't know? 😁😁

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CALLSrcCHCR5bs4t0P1_efVQZkxQ1D0gqQZQns8nhUkNsgwHzbg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

~Bending under the weight of His mercies~

​"For we cannot do anything against the truth, 

but only for the truth​." 

II Corinthians 13:8

[Judy Madnick]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Judy

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CANeWAQdmw_mj%3DYosKVq8ERpfSQ-Ux0xsY-Bb7Gh-8Gg7jCL8HQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Barrs]

I read very fast and up until very recently have had a retentive memory but you guys keep finding things I don't know which is one of the joys of the game. Funnily enough my retentive memory has hardly ever held on to the meaning of the words played in the game - self defence I suspect (note the English spelling)

JohnnyB

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CANeWAQdmw_mj%3DYosKVq8ERpfSQ-Ux0xsY-Bb7Gh-8Gg7jCL8HQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Keating]

I don’t think that is strange at all. Some of us have trouble even remembering the words played, let alone remembering what they mean. By my count, there have been a dozen rounds where the dealer has nominated a word on the used-word list, and got away with it, because nobody else remembered either. 

On one of those occasions (1867), the dealer (whose blushes I will spare) even announced the same word as they themselves did in an earlier round, and got away with it. You were the one to point this out, after the round was over.

Do you think the internet has room for a Dixonary Dictionary? I’m thinking of a glossary that lists all of the words ever played, with the definitions ascribed to them.

[Daniel B. Widdis]

Do you think the internet has room for a Dixonary Dictionary? I’m thinking of a glossary that lists all of the words ever played, with the definitions ascribed to them.

While I love the idea in concept, I'm concerned about copyright.  For any given round of the game, a single definition easily qualifies as "fair use".  And you can't copyright "facts" so a compilation of the words and a short summary of their meaning (as many sites have done) is likely ok.  However, compiling a list of thousands of words, using the exact wording of a dictionary (which we somewhat require by the rules), introduces more questions unless we limit our sources to public domain.

Now, what we likely *could* do is publish a list of the words and the most-voted fake, an amusing compilation of what (some strange) people think these words should mean...

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/Mailbird-c74b2b67-96d6-4ef8-b8dc-03e0c7e48d2c%40boargules.com.

[Paul Keating]

> While I love the idea in concept, I'm concerned about copyright.

It would be a long and laborious task to mount a plausible copyright challenge, so much so that I doubt if any of the three surviving publishers of English dictionaries (Collins, OUP, Merriam-Webster) would have any appetite for it. 

If assemblies of odd words were considered unfair use, we would not have Mrs Byrne's or phrontistery.info or countless others. And if a dictionary’s definition is clearly no more than a lightly edited version of one borrowed from Jamieson or Wright or Johnson or Bailey, it can claim little protection on grounds of originality.  

> However, compiling a list of thousands of words, using the exact wording of a dictionary...

If it were thousands of words from the same dictionary, you would have a point. That would be copying selection and arrangement, which is a prime copyrightable virtue of a dictionary. But our list is an eclectic selection from dozens of sources, some of them not even dictionaries, and the its principle of selection and arrangement (if you can even call it that) is quite different.

> unless we limit our sources to public domain.

... which is to say, we couldn’t use the definitions as published. The sources were chosen by the dealers: some of them are in public domain, some are not, and for a large proportion, we don’t even know, because dealers simply credited “The dictionary”. It was not my intention that we would take the list of used words and attach new definitions, except for the couple of dozen rounds where we don’t have the originals.

> Now, what we likely *could* do is publish a list of the words and the most-voted fake, an amusing compilation of what (some strange) people think these words should mean...

That is a different and much more ambitious project. I won’t comment on its merits. My idea was simply to have a historical record, that might even be useful for a face-to-face version of the game, in a world where printed dictionaries have virtually ceased to exist, and most online ones are difficult to browse. Something wider-ranging than Mrs. Byrne’s, and less scholarly than phrontistery.info.

[Daniel B. Widdis]

And if a dictionary’s definition is clearly no more than a lightly edited version of one borrowed from Jamieson or Wright or Johnson or Bailey, it can claim little protection on grounds of originality.  

Sure, but that's not true of the word dealt in round 554, which was definitely original and creative.

It would be a long and laborious task to mount a plausible copyright challenge,

Whether someone chooses to sue doesn't change whether it's a right or wrong thing to do.  Personally I wouldn't have any problem with words whose sources are publicly available for free, which are the vast majority of the words.

However, a very few online dictionaries (OED in particular) are presently hidden behind a paywall.  

Relevant Stack Exchange answer on essentially this proposal:  https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5173/398640.  Short answer from the copyright holders:  OED: "No."  Collins: "Sure but please link to us." 

OED's website tells me:

All materials on this Website are the copyright of Oxford University Press or are reproduced with permission from other copyright owners. All rights are reserved. The materials on this website may be retrieved and downloaded solely for personal use.

Use in this private "parlor game" is certainly personal use.  Publishing a public dictionary without permission from the OED (at least) is not.

All that said, I won't stop you if you want to do the work. 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/v4akrorb6ghqmudb2r82ssih.1764658340524%40email.android.com.