Please use the comments form attached to this page for any questions, thoughts, ideas etc about cryptic crosswords to which you would like a doctor to respond. Biographical information about the doctors on call can be found on the Meet the Team page.
The Site Feedback page should now be used only for comments about the site itself.
The most recent comment threads are shown below; to view previous threads, select the ‘Older Comments’ link at the bottom of each page. Individual threads will not be split across pages.
Hi Doc, what are your thoughts on ‘drastic’ as an anagram indicator?… Here’s the clue for context: ‘Reducing drastic cut in grant’ for TRUNCATING. Thanks 🙂
Hi Biffa
I think that ‘drastic’ is one of those potential anagram indicators that is on the borderline of acceptability. A ‘drastic treatment’ could certainly produce disturbance, but to the recipient of the treatment rather than to the treatment itself (I would certainly have no problem with the fodder being ‘given drastic treatment’). The range of meanings for ‘drastic’ is rather limited when compared to a word like ‘violent’, which could certainly be applied to something that is itself showing evidence of disturbance.
A check on George Ho’s database shows five instances of ‘drastic’ being used as an anagrind, all in the Telegraph. I doubt that solvers would be discomfited by your clue, but personally I would favour something more mainstream like ‘misguided’ over ‘drastic’.
I hope that makes sense.
Can “some” be used as a hidden word indicator AFTER the fodder?
To me it sounds more natural to use it before the fodder as
Some answer
Is some acceptable?
Hi RK
You’re thinking, I presume, about the US adverbial use of ‘some’, as in “I enjoy doing crosswords some”. This would be equivalent to ‘somewhat’ in British English, and I don’t think that ‘fodder somewhat’ can reasonably be interpreted as meaning ‘part of fodder’, even in crosswordese; there is no verb which can be inferred that would make things clear – ‘fodder chosen somewhat’ doesn’t make any sense. So no, I don’t think it is valid.
But what about ‘in some degree’? There are two similar indicators currently in the list, ‘in some measure’ and ‘to some extent’. While I think that ‘measure’ and ‘extent’ perhaps carry more of a sense of physical spread, it’s marginal, and in the interests of consistency I will add ‘in some degree’ to the list at the next update. Also acceptable would be a construction like ‘fodder, but only some’, with ‘of it’ being implied (“I ate the cake, but only some”).
Hello Doctor,
“Adjacent to” is listed as a juxtaposition indicator with a qualifier that it can be before or after (‘either’). I understand it as “A adjacent to B” can result in AB or BA.
If the wordplay has “A B adjacent to”, can that translate to BA?
Hello RK
The question a setter must always consider is, “Can I reasonably expect the solver to interpret what I’ve written in the way that I need them to?”, although of course while this reading must be grammatically sound it may not be the obvious interpretation.
‘A adjacent to B’ is fine for AB or BA, and ‘A with B adjacent’ or ‘A, B adjacent’ would work similarly; ‘house adjacent to garage’, ‘house with garage adjacent’ and ‘house, garage adjacent’ all suggest the same thing. The phrase ‘house garage adjacent to’, however, would require the solver to infer two words. Firstly, a ‘that’ between ‘house’ and ‘garage’ – this is ok, because in real life we frequently make that inference, eg “A book [that] I read recently”. Secondly, an ‘is’ between ‘house’ and ‘adjacent’ – this is unreasonable to expect, as we don’t entirely omit the word ‘is’ in normal speech, so the construction is unfair to the solver. With the preposition on the end, it would need to be ‘house garage is adjacent to’.
What about ‘A B adjacent’? The omission of ‘to’ means that no object is required, so what needs to be inferred in ‘house garage adjacent’ is a ‘with’, or a comma, between ‘house’ and ‘garage’, producing the valid constructions shown above. From time to time on this site we make reference to the ‘invisicomma’ (sometimes encountered in published crosswords), and that is what would be necessary here. But punctuation is key to the meaning of sentences, and while ‘one, chap outside” is ok for MAIN, ‘one chap outside’ is not; the title of Lynne Truss’ book “Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation” illustrates the importance of commas being used appropriately, and to deliberately add or omit them to the benefit of the surface reading but the detriment of the cryptic reading is not allowed.
In summary: ‘A adjacent to B’, ‘A with B adjacent’, ‘A, B adjacent’, ‘A having B adjacent’ etc are all ok for AB or BA, because they all indicate the required outcome; ‘A B adjacent’ and ‘A B adjacent to’ are not. I hope that makes sense, but if you need further clarification just say.
Rugby move nicked by idol’s an unavoidable accident (9, 3 words)
😀 I’m not sure Peter Shilton saw it that way…
Your mind’s bound to wander a bit this week when writing about lions and heroes!
Of course…3 lions, 11+ heroes ⚽🤞
Furious about Argentina ‘goal’, at heart retaining name – this one (8)
Hi Doc. In your reply to Anon Cues (13th July) should your first example of type II have said ‘Lion embraced by brother openly’ ?
Thanks, Alex – my brain was clearly struggling to cope with all those brothers (who, incidentally, started out as teachers) and lions! Now sorted.