On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Dondrummm@aol.com wrote:
Here's hoping that there's no OSPD IV for a good long time, but when the time comes, the dictionary committee should be empowered to examine ALL new 2- and 3-letter candidates with a view to whether the additions would seriously disrupt the game.The former may well be so, but the latter is optimistic at best; disillusioned at worst. If, or really when, QI becomes eligible for inclusion in the OSPD, there is no legitimate reason not to include it. To conflate this with the exclusion of DS or TV is misleading. QI is not an abbreviation or a concatenated string, but the acceptable spelling for a well-known concept. Though its spelling may have derived outside the borders of the United States, its use therein is undisputed. While explaining away the lack of inclusion of a word because the process is slow may be regrettable, to try and justify the intentional exclusion of a word to a newcomer because it would have screwed up the frozen portrait of strategy back in 19xx is completely unthinkable. To start excluding random words because they "disrupt" one's historical sense of the game would make a mockery of the underlying principle of the game one is trying to preserve.
JG
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998
From: Jim Geary
Cc: cgp
Subject: Re: QI, ZA, Butts and Merriam Webster
Larry Sherman followed up with:
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Jim Geary wrote: > If, or really when, QI becomes eligible< > for inclusion in the OSPD, there is no legitimate reason not to > include it. I agree that QI satisfies our standards for acceptability; I'm not sure about ZA, a slang that seems limited to college kids in certain parts of the country. But address the second part of Don Drumm's argument: If a 10-pointer suddenly becomes much easier to use, should it still be worth 10 points? Now calculate the chances of Hasbro ever revaluing the tiles to reflect changes in the language. (The Late Rev.) Larry S. __________________________________________________________________ The preceding message was sponsored by The Friends of Gov. Pataki.
tile values:
? = 24.5 S = 7.5 E = 4.0 X = 3.5 Z = 3.0 R = 1.0 A = .5 H = .5 N = 0 C = - .5 D = - .5 M = - .5 T = -1.0 I = -1.5 K = -1.5 L = -1.5 P = -1.5 O = -2.5 Y = -2.5 J = -2.5 F = -3.0 B = -3.5 G = -3.5 W = -4.0 U = -4.5 V = -6.5 Q = -13.If all letters were "properly valued," these numbers would be zero. The introduction of QI will only serve to prod Q a little higher than negative thirteen. The U might drop to 5.0 . If anything the introduction of QI would make the game more fair from a points/usefulness standpoint. Of course the introduction of ZO would push the Z farther from the mean. And so what? If everybody got exactly average tiles every move, the game would definitely have less spice.
Last Modified 9/25/00
Back to Scrabble Correspondence Page
Back to Scrabble Main Page
Back to Jim's Main Page