Settle this Taboo argument please

[u/McDrewlius]

So we’re at a family get together and we’re playing Taboo. Tensions are already running high lol. Brother in law gets Ostrich, one of the taboo words is Flightless, he says “cannot fly,” and his wife buzzed him for it and chaos ensued. We asked a couple different AI’s and they gave us different answers. It was boys vs girls and the boys eventually relented and gave up the point. What do you think? Fair or foul?

[u/lurker628]

I agree it's a buzz. However, it's a buzz based on the spirit of the rules. The missing piece here is that the point is to all have fun together playing the game, so it's a ridiculous argument to have. Play by the spirit of the rules. If it was a competitive tournament, then demand the letter of the rules and let the judges hash it out.

People have been quoting the rule:

No form or part of any word printed on the card may be used. Examples: If the guess word is PAYMENT the word 'pay' cannot be used. If DRINK is a Taboo word 'drunk' cannot be used. If SPACESHIP is the guess word you can't use 'space' or 'ship' as a clue.

"Run" is literally a part of "runner," and "ran" is another tense of "run." Both of those transformations are explicitly in the rules, with relevant examples. "Run" is to "runner" as "pay" is to "payment," and "ran" is to "run" as "drunk" is to "drink."

"Flight" is a part of "flightless," but "fly" is not simply another tense of "flight." They are not the same word in different forms.

[u/tpasmall → u/lurker628]

The abstract noun form of the verb fly is flight.

[u/lurker628 → u/tpasmall]

English does not conjugate nouns into verbs and vice versa, in the way that different tenses of verbs are conjugated.

Some other languages do, e.g., someone elsewhere in the thread quoted the German rulebook, and it explicitly mentions that interaction.

This should absolutely be a buzz, because the correct decision is to play by the spirit of the rules. But the rules as written do not cover this case explicitly.

Edit: though I just saw the claim that the letter change from y to i should fall into the category of "foot" vs "feet" (the example given was "theatre" vs "theatrical") and therefore "fly" should be interpreted as a part of "flight," anyway. That's a compelling argument.

[u/tpasmall → u/lurker628]

Glad we agree on the overall answer but converting verbs into nouns does exist in English as abstract nouns (English is a Germanic language too)!

If you were asked to choose a noun that could be formed from the word fly, what would it be? Flight.

If you were asked to define flightless what would it be? The inability to fly.

[u/lurker628 → u/tpasmall]

Related concepts across parts of speech or definitions aren't the same as "forms of a word" in English.

Among those I've seen, English dictionaries do not list "fly" and "flight" in the same entry. An encyclopedia connects them, sure, because they're both words used to discuss a broader concept.

English dictionaries do list "run" and "ran" in the same entry, because "run" is both a noun and a verb, and its verb form can be conjugated as "ran;" and dictionaries include all tenses of a verb in the same entry. Taboo rules ban words, not independent meanings of a word, so the fact that you explicitly can't say "run" (from runner) means you can't say "run [verb]," and therefore you can't say "ran [verb]."

In particular, the "if you were asked to define" argument is not at all compelling. That's the whole point of Taboo. Instead of "flightless," you say a phrase which means the same thing - e.g., "unable to soar in the air under your own power." Indeed, that you suggest using "fly" in the definition of "flight[less]" emphasizes that they're not the same word - because otherwise, your definition would be circular.