Hi all,<BR><BR>I wonder if we might be interested in a new word game, a variation on the Bluffing Game? The way I see it, a member (the "host") posts a word with an interesting or unusual etymology, with a set of possible etymologies. It is then up to the other members to guess the true etymologies. I leave it up to members to decide if an etymology is "interesting or unusual". <img src="https://wordcraft.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:;)--><BR><BR>How we arrive at the alternative etymologies can be a matter for discussion here (see second poll below). First, though, a poll to see if there is any interest in the game:Would you be interested in playing a game along the lines given above?YesNoMaybe sometimesShould the host make up a full set of etymologies for the word, or should members make up one each and send them to the host by PM for collation and posting later, as with the Bluffing Game?Host makes them all upMembers send a PM with their own etymologyI don't care whichI have another suggestion (posted below)

Won't we need first to know the definition of the word?

I wouldn't think so as a rule, although that's really up to the host. The words used won't necessarily be esoteric.

As an example, feisty comes from PIE *pezd-, "fart", apparently, via lapdogs. See Online Etymology Dictionary. I think most people know the current meaning of the word so won't need a definition.

Only two people have voted so far on this. Even if you aren't interested in taking part in such a game, please take the poll!

I can't remember whether or not I've voted - is there some way in which I can tell?

Try voting. The forum should remember and prevent you from voting a second time if you've already voted.

Still only two votes, people!

I must have voted. I voted again and the results didn't alter.

Well, we've got another vote, making a grand total of three members who have voted. It doesn't look like there's enough interest but let's give it a little while longer.

Too bad - it looks fun to me.

Just thought I'd nudge this back to the top.

Surely we can find enough people to at least try out the game.

As you know, Bob, finding sufficient people to play the Bluffing Game is often impossible. I've searched for sites that are specifically designed for a dictionary game such as our Bluffing Game, but the only one I found had such arcane rules that it spoiled the fun. A decade ago I started a version of our Bluffing Game on the A Word A Day board, but the "in crowd" co-opted me and twisted it into a rules-heavy drudge, ruining it for me. I bet they don't even remember that I started it.

Anyway, I like the idea of your game, but such games seem ill-suited for language discussion sites.

Wasn't my idea, it was arnie's.

Of course we don't HAVE to run this as game as such. It could be like the "dis" game with people just inventing fanciful etymologies and posting them.

Sorry, I missed this.

I do think, though, that be it the bluffing game or the limerick game, we get far too worried about how many people are playing. So what if a game has only 4? If people are busy, out of town, living in China, or whatever, let's play with 4 and go on to the next. Some limerick or bluffing games have lasted for weeks because people want a certain number of responses. To me, that's balderdash. Let's play and be on with it!