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 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 again Doctor Clue,
I gather you tend to avoid “links” between wordplay and definition in your own clues, but I wondered if I could ask your thoughts about their use in double definitions.
I’m in a slightly difficult situation in that both definitions (and the solution) are plural nouns, but using “are”, would be cryptically incorrect (as I understand it). “Becoming” is the most obvious solution, but I’m wondering about “can be”, as a smoother alternative in this particular case. My thinking is that cryptically this would indicate “word meaning X can be [the same as] word meaning Y”. What do you think?
Hi Anon
Your question happens to have arrived just as I am putting together a new list for the site…of link words and phrases! You’re right that I try (hard) to avoid them in clues for my barred puzzles, but I’ve got nothing against them when used fairly, and they can be particularly useful in blocked puzzles to help solvers work out where the definition is.
Two points that I try to address in the introductory text for the new list are relevant here. The first is the cryptic grammar: ‘Pointed stick is hazard’ works for STAKE but ‘Pointed sticks are hazards’ (as you understand correctly) does not, since the cryptic reading still requires ‘is’. The second is that in a double definition clue either definition is treated as the wordplay (the setter can decide which one) – this might seem a bit strange, but it made more sense in the days when the wordplay was called the ‘subsidiary indication of the answer’, and although the two words are spelt the same, only one of them can be the answer (in effect a double definition clue is a ‘definition of answer plus definition of homograph’).
So pretty much any link word or phrase that doesn’t require a plural subject would be ok – ‘can be’, ‘could be’, ‘also’, ‘and’, ‘yielding’, ‘making’, ‘for’, ‘from’ etc. The only sort I would rule out would be those which explicitly indicate that multiple elements are involved, eg ‘combining in’.
I hope that makes some sense!
That’s really helpful – thank you. It’s excellent news that you’re compiling a page dedicated to this topic for the site!
It’s now published. Any suggestions for corrections, additions or improvements will be welcomed!
It’s brilliant – extremely useful. I wonder if “in” should go the other way – having read this recently on Alberich’s site?
“…as a link word, “in” implies “found in” so clues of this type should read [DEFINITION] in [WORDPLAY].”
https://www.alberich-crosswords.com/more-articles/link-words
Thanks, Anon – I’m glad that you feel it’s a useful addition to the site.
That’s an interesting point about ‘in’. I’m not sure why ‘in’ should imply specifically ‘found in’, but in any event if we say “Milk and salt are [found] in cheese”, the components are on the left and the result on the right. I accept that one meaning of ‘in’ given by Chambers is ‘consisting of’, but it is only seen with this sense in phrases like ‘a play in four acts’ or ‘a story in words and pictures’, when no further details of individual components are given; by contrast, there are, for instance, “one capital E, one small E and one L in ‘Eel'”.
I know one very fine clue writer who is quite relaxed about the ‘directions’ of certain link words/phrases, and I suspect that he would accept ‘in’ as being bidirectional, but I still need a bit more convincing!
I find this completely fascinating!
Intuitively, I’m closer to Alberich on this one, in that I think what he means is along the lines of
‘defined word is found within correct parsing of wordplay’. Looking at Chambers I suppose that might be something like definition ‘by way of’ wordplay.
However, reading your view (‘components found in results’) persuades me (for one) that both ways are in fact valid.
Interestingly, on that same webpage Alberich advocates ‘to’ as a occasional possibility, which I don’t especially like, but I now see that Chambers has ‘with the object or result of’ among its definitions. I suppose that a phrase such as ‘rags to riches’ could be understood to indicate X becoming Y.
This is one of those situations, as with many things cruciverbal, which comes down to shades of opinion. The decision typically hinges on what is likely to be understood/accepted by the solver, and I am softening to the idea of ‘in’ being bidirectional. My particular objection was to the expectation that the solver should infer ‘found in’ from ‘in’ – why not the more obvious ‘are/is in’, or the equally reasonable ‘resulting in’? But one could say that “There is joy in eating éclairs’, and TS Eliot wrote “I will show you fear in a handful of dust’, so it’s going to get a thumbs-up.
Several prepositions (eg ‘by’) have ‘headline’ senses which suggest that they might be valid as links, but although the cryptic reading of a clue does not have to make sense as a piece of English prose, it must accurately tell the solver how to reach the answer. It’s possible, I think, to construct a clue where ‘by’ is involved in a link from definition to wordplay, but it requires additional words which do not directly contribute to the wordplay or definition, eg “Get Z by putting X around Y’. I would say that ‘to’ falls into the same category, but ‘X holding Y to Z’ doesn’t strike me as fair.
Hello Dr Clue. Wonderful site – thank you. Re: matching parts of speech – what’s your view (/the accepted view) on using a present participle to define an infinitive, and vice versa? To give a simple example, “die” as a definition for “expiring” seems plausable to me, as would the reverse.
(I realise a present participle can of course act as a noun (i.e. gerund), adjective, etc depending on context, too.)
Hi Matt, and thank you for your kind words.
I would generally apply the ‘substitution test’ as an initial sense check in this sort of situation. If we take the infinitive ‘to eat’ in the sentence “I like to eat éclairs”, it could be replaced by ‘eating’ without changing the meaning. ‘Eating’ in this example is a gerund, which suggests that it might be reasonable to use an infinitive to define a gerund, in your example ‘to die’ for ‘expiring’ (‘To see is to believe’ / ‘Seeing is believing’). The infinitive in English includes the word ‘to’, so in the reverse direction ‘expiring’ would only be valid as a definition of ‘to die’ (not ‘die’ on its own), and ‘to die’ would not be a valid answer in a crossword.
However, crossword solvers generally do not like definitions where the parts of speech appear not to match, and they are likely to write such definitions off as being in error, resulting in dissatisfaction. For this reason, I would suggest that regardless of the justification it would be unwise to use an infinitive in a clue to indicate a gerund answer, and I would expect an editor to reject such a thing.
The present participle is at the other end of a one-way arrow when combined with an inflection of the auxiliary verb ‘be’, so ‘are expiring’ is a valid definition of ‘die’ (and ‘is expiring’ of ‘dies’), with this equivalence being sufficiently familiar to solvers to be acceptable; the reverse is no good, since ‘are expiring’ would not be a valid grid entry.
I hope that makes sense.
Very insightful – thanks!
Assume a clue contains an insertion and an anagram. Would it be ok to have insertion indicator in past participle (say, squeezed by) and anagram Ind in imperative or intransitive verb form (doctor/struggles, for example)
My response below is based on the established principles of sound clueing – a regular correspondent (and clue writing expert) observed recently that he is seeing a lot of ‘plonkers’, these being wordplays where two or more elements have been ‘plonked’ together with no regard to the overall grammatical soundness.
1. Imperatives. If the result of an imperative construction is followed by a separate wordplay element, there normally needs to be a preposition in between. So ‘Doctor has humanity’ (a ‘plonker’) is not valid for SHAMAN but ‘Doctor seen by socialist’ is ok for SNEERED. When there is a second cryptic manipulation (the situation you describe), things are rather different. ‘Doctor tried catching cold’ is fine for DIRECT because the C can be ‘caught’ prior to the rearrangement. Similarly ‘Doctor seen squeezed by doctor’ is valid for DENSER, the rationale being the same – there is nothing in the clue that says in which order the manipulations are to be carried out, so SEEN can already be in the grip of DR when it is rearranged.
2. Indicatives of intransitive verbs. The situation is very similar when there are separate wordplay elements, so ‘Ace struggles hard’ is not valid for EACH while ‘Ace struggles near Hungary’ is fine. When it comes to multiple manipulations, though, it’s rather different – ‘More fragments squeezed by French’ is not valid, since the order of the words means that there is only one way to evaluate the wordplay, which leaves the main verb ‘fragments’ out on a limb. There needs to be a conjunction between ‘fragments’ and ‘squeezed’, so ‘More fragments when squeezed by French’ is ok. ‘More fragments, squeezed by French’ comes to much the same thing. If the intransitive verb comes at the end of the wordplay, though, all is well. ‘Boil squeezed by yours truly bursts’ is ok for MOBILE, because the BOIL can already be ‘squeezed by’ ME when it ‘bursts’.
In situations like these, the setter has to ask themselves whether the wordplay can be read in such a way that it either (i) consists of elements which can stand alone, or (ii) forms a coherent whole which can legitimately be interpreted in the intended way. I hope that makes sense.
The invisicomma, again? While utterly unsound, “[d]octor has, humanity” conveys the separation of elements where the absence of punctuation fails? I continue to rack up offences and risk becoming defensive.
I’m afraid the comma, visible or invisible, doesn’t help here. If the wordplay starts with an imperative verb, the remainder must continue the instruction. ‘Rearrange X Y’ or ‘Rearrange X, Y’ tell the solver to rearrange X and Y; it is expecting too much to ask them to infer ‘Rearrange X [and add] Y’. Examples of valid wordplays for SHAMAN would be ‘Doctor has, add humanity’ or ‘Doctor has ahead of humanity’ – and ‘Has doctored humanity’, which is a charade of two elements, ‘doctored has’ and ‘humanity’, each of which delivers a result.
I concede the point–not that you needed my approval. I do not routinely employ the imperative form and have one fewer sin to confess than originally believed.
When there is a second cryptic manipulation (the situation you describe), things are rather different. ‘Doctor tried catching cold’ is fine for DIRECT because the C can be ‘caught’ prior to the rearrangement
An additional question. With the above reasoning, would “Harry Kane has supporters in US state (8)”work for Nebraska or should it be “Harry Kane having supporters in US state (8)”?
The first version doesn’t work as it contains two main verbs. The second is slightly unconventional, since it requires that the BRAS should be inserted into KANE before the latter is rearranged and then left untouched when the rearrangement occurs, but it isn’t clearly unsound. I would, though, prefer something like “Harry Kane to keep supporters in US state”, which allows for a more natural sequence of manipulations.
“Harry Kane around supporters…” would be completely sound, as would “Harried Kane having/has supporters in…”
Thank you. This helps.
Hi Dr Clue. Seeking another bit of your sage advice… So, the latest OED (and I think Collins) list “starkers” as meaning “2. completely irrational or out of touch with reality” However, Chambers only lists the more common usage: i.e. stark naked. I feel the second OED definition makes the word fair game as an anagram indicator… What do you think? (It would offer some lovely surface misdirection…!) Or is this just inviting accusations of foul/unfair play…?
Hi Anon
Where a primary reference is explicitly given for a particular puzzle, eg Chambers for most barred crosswords, I would say that the ‘bonkers’ sense of ‘starkers’ is a non-starter. For most blocked puzzles, no primary reference is shown, but the Collins English Dictionary (14th ed, 2023) is often used by editors as the basis of their guidance to setters, largely because it contains a good selection of better-known proper nouns such as place names as well as a selection of biographical entries. If a required meaning such as ‘starkers’ = ‘bonkers’ is in there, then it would potentially be fair game – the question that you would need to ask yourself is “Is my target audience likely to know the sense required by the cryptic reading or have ready access to the relevant dictionary?” Many solvers of blocked puzzles see Chambers as the ultimate arbiter, so I would personally view as high risk the use of any unlisted sense of an existing headword in Chambers as an indicator.
Thanks for that. It’s for a private blocked puzzle that will be a gift. However, I took the step of buying the Collins in paperback today (rather than the online version) and it’s not in there except in the sense of naked, so I’m going to give it a miss. Ah well! Perhaps in 10 years time, when Chambers and Collins have caught up with Oxford, I’ll be able to make the most of it!
Yes, I think with words like that you have to wait for the dictionaries to catch up – and although it’s reached the OED, it hasn’t made it into the Oxford Dictionary of English yet.
Two small/short points, Doc:
1. ‘Small’ is widely used by setters to indicate ‘s’. S=Small is in your list of abbreviations but it isn’t in Chambers. I think Azed has accepted it in clues submitted, but because of the omission from Chambers I was dubious about using it and I’m fairly sure I never did. Was I over-cautious?
2. Chambers has SW=short wave (as do you). Could that justify using ‘short’ to indicate ‘s’? I wouldn’t be happy.
😀
1. How interesting! I don’t know how it got in there, and it will have to go. The intention was that the list would accurately reflect the abbreviations in the latest edition of Chambers, since that’s the closest to ‘definitive’ that I can get. I can’t immediately see that Azed has ever allowed S for ‘small’ in a competition clue (he might have used it himself, but he’s also used C for ‘cadet’ at least once). The abbreviations in Chambers are, to put it generously, idiosyncratic, and there are other obvious omissions such as ‘Live/Neutral’ (L/N), ‘Large’ (L), and ‘Won/Lost/Drawn’ (W/L/D), along with some mysterious inclusions such as D = ‘deserted’. The ‘back pagers’ have their own lists of single-letter abbreviations, often including S = ‘small’ and L = ‘large’ but excluding many of the ones found in Chambers. I think there could be merit in adding a ‘blocked puzzle single-letter abbreviations’ list, albeit it could never be precisely applicable to all blocked puzzles.
2. No, I couldn’t accept ‘short’ for S, and I think there are a number of single-letter abbreviations in Chambers which are distinctly questionable since they are only ever seen as part of longer terms – ‘Academy’ and ‘Athletic’ spring to mind, although there are others. Leaving aside the fact that Chambers is right even when it’s hopelessly wrong, I can’t see that any single letter abbreviation which cannot stand alone in real life can stand alone in a clue.
Perhaps only on this side of the Atlantic is ‘S’ used to indicate a “small” size for clothing (along with M, L, XL, and such)? As such, ‘S’ should a perfectly serviceable abbreviation for “small”.
In the UK, S/M/L are ubiquitous (and universally understood) for small/medium/large as clothing sizes, likewise L/E/N for live/earth/neutral on electrical equipment and W/D/L for won/drawn/lost on sporting league tables. The problem is that when it comes to barred puzzles Chambers is the definitive reference for abbreviations, and of the foregoing it lists only ‘m’ = medium, ‘E’ = earth and W = won; the last of these relates to the Korean currency, while the context of the other two is unspecified. So S (small) and L (large) were inconsistent entries in the existing abbreviation lists on the site, and have been removed. However, I am applying the finishing touches to a new table, which will bring together all the single letter indicators (not just abbreviations) likely to be found in blocked puzzles – this will include S/M/L but (sadly) not L = ‘live’ and N = ‘neutral’ as I don’t believe that these are allowed in any UK ‘back pagers’.
Hi Dr Clue,
Quick question relating to a point below about deletion indications using formulations like “X when Y is removed” i.e. passive or “X when Y departs” (intransitive)… Can one also fairly use a participle-based formulation “X, when losing Y,”?
Cheers!
Hi Anon
Quick answer: yes!
There are many possible constructions, but as long as (i) they are grammatically sound, and (ii) they suggest that the (X-Y) state exists in the present (or will do in the immediate future), they are likely to be ok. The examples that you give are all valid, as would be (say) ‘X with Y departing’ and ‘X once Y has been removed’.
Examples of invalid constructions would be ‘X Y departs’ (‘depart’ is intransitive) and ‘X had Y removed’ / ‘X that Y left’ (these describe a past state with no indication that it persists).
I hope that’s helpful.
Wonderfully helpful – thank you!
Is ‘s (apostrophe s) a valid telescopic ind especially when there are multiple words in the fodder (considering ‘s attached only to the last word)? I understand some setters are ok with it but felt it’s a bit weak.
When you refer to a ‘telescopic’ indicator, I believe this is what I would think of as a ‘hidden indicator – but correct me if I’m wrong!
I don’t think that the ‘attachment’ of the apostrophe-s is an issue per se, with “red hat is destroyed” and “red hat’s destroyed” being equally valid wordplays for THREAD – conventionally, a series of words can be treated as a single string for the purposes of cryptic manipulation. However, if apostrophe-s is being used in a ‘hidden’ clue, it must either be (i) a shortened form of ‘has’ in the sense of ‘bears’, or (ii) a possessive.
Considering (i), in normal usage it is always the auxiliary verb ‘has’ which is shortened, as in “He’s just written a clue”; this avoids any potential ambiguity where an object is involved – “He’s a wonderful friend” would invariably mean that the person we are talking about is a wonderful friend, while if we were referring to two people we would say “He has a wonderful friend”. While one might conceivably say something like “He’s no time for fools”, this is surely non-standard.
Considering (ii), could “Chancellor’s instrument” be valid for CELLO? The possessive can on occasion mean ‘belonging to’ in the sense of being a component part, so I think there’s an argument for it being ok, even if it doesn’t ‘feel’ quite right. I would suggest that “Donald Rumsfeld’s instrument” for DRUM is no better and no worse. I wouldn’t use the construction myself, but I would be hard pushed to say that it was unsound.
Thanks. Very helpful examples
While “He’s no time for fools” is perhaps a non-standard construction, one would not be troubled by “I’ve no time for fools.” Is the extension to the third person too much of a stretch?
With “I’ve” there is no ambiguity, since it can only be a contraction of ‘I have’; that said, my Irish granny would have been quite likely to say “He’s a way about him” or the like. The deciding factor for me is that at least one UK ‘back-pager’ explicitly outlaws this usage in clues, which for me puts it into the ‘discretion advised’ category – I doubt that many solvers would be put out by the device, but some editors will undoubtedly reject it.
Thank you for providing (and constantly improving) this very useful resource. I would like to suggest an extra feature – some items (e.g. container and contents indicators) have “standard” and “advanced” versions, and it would be useful to be able to filter or sort using these. Ideally I’d like to be able to sort by that, and then by something else (e.g. by “Type” then “Variety” in “containers and contents”).
PS I see that’s already a thing in the anagram indicators, although not the extra feature of being able to sort by “Type” then “Function”, say – the second sort cancels the first one, so to speak.
Thanks, Liz. It’s something that I was thinking about recently, and there are two relatively easy ways to achieve it – one is less elegant and requires upkeep, while the other is elegant and maintenance-free. The only problem is that option 2 involves a fairly significant outlay. I want to keep the site as easy to use as possible, so I think I’m going to bite the bullet and open the wallet, not least because it will enable me to do more good stuff with the data tables (eg highlighting particular rows)…watch this space…
Out of interest, what software do you use? (I used to be a programmer, so this is just nosiness).
The site is based on WordPress, using the Hueman theme. I have made a few minor tweaks, but not too many because (i) I don’t really know what I’m doing (my programming days are long past), and (ii) I want to keep the maintenance of the site as simple as possible. For the lists I use the free version of the TablePress plugin, which is amazingly functional but lacks some of the sophistications (eg user-selectable filters) of the paid versions.
Ah, already way past my capabilities. Whatever happened to C++? Come to think of it, whatever happened to 6502 assembly language (rhetorical question!)
When I first used C it didn’t have any plusses 😀. Best not to get me started or I’ll be reminiscing endlessly about writing assembler language (‘usercode’) for an English Electric KDF9, not to mention acoustic couplers, removable disks, the Amstrad ‘portable’ PC…
Likewise, I started with the Softek C compiler on the Sinclair Spectrum and then wrote an optimiser for the code it produced. It seemed quite a step up from Z80 assembler.
Before that it was punched tape on some sort of mainframe, and punch cards before that – and programming the 8080 with switches on a circuit board… none of which endeared me to programming! It wasn’t until I discovered the “Superbrain” (!) desktop computer and BASIC, and later the Sinclair ZX80 that I started to think this was something I might actually enjoy doing.
(However we might be risking getting into a “Four Yorkshire-men” situation here! 🙂 )
Aye, you were lucky… 😀
But so was I – I got to spend quite a while programming in BASIC, still my favourite computer language.
Could I express a dissenting view on your (mild – I realise –) vendetta against “has” “gets” etc. as neutral juxtaposition indicators?
Firstly, “X has Y”, is surely a very straightforward indication that X+Y is implied. If a man “has” a book, what obtains is a man with a book. “Woman has child” = a woman with a child. etc.
Likewise, reading between the lines, you seem to imply that “gets” “receives” “takes” etc. should properly only be used to indicate containment. However, to repeat the illustration above – if “a man receives a book”, the result is also simply a man with a book. (Indeed, in that instance, insertion seems quite a far-fetched idea!) I believe words indicating “attainment” can validly be used either way – receives, gets, takes etc. are simply not semantically specific enough to rule out one over the other. (“Man eats book” would be an entirely different matter.)
I may have missed what you’re saying here, but it seems to me that you may be confusing the surface and cryptic readings. If a man has a book, cryptically that’s just [X] “has” [Y} with no implication about the nature of X and Y. So insertion isn’t far fetched in the cryptic reading, and as long as it doesn’t spoil the surface reading, “man holding book” could be part of a clue for H(OT)E[L], say.
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
Ah sorry – I’m not disputing that insertion is valid with those verbs. I’m just querying the idea that simple juxtaposition with “has”/”takes” etc isn’t truly valid, which is what the author of the site suggets on the juxtaposition indicators page. I think both are perfectable defensible.
Just to illustrate:
“Girl gets duck” / “Girl has duck” (or with the verb as a contraction: “Girl’s duck”) etc.
Seem to me to be perfectly sensible as wordplay for LASS+O -> LASSO, and no less so than “Girl with duck”.
….And forgetting my manners, I failed to thank Dr Clue for a brilliant and incredibly helpful site! Just posting a query for debate above.
That’s very kind.
Debate is always encouraged. To quote from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:
Discussion, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
Ha!
Speaking of the Devil’s Dictionary, one of my old crosswords 🙂
lawtalkcrossword.wordpress.com/2021/05/19/no-41-winter-2021
Nice puzzle! I set a DD-themed crossword for a magazine several years ago, but it definitely wasn’t one of my finest moments 🙁.
Thanks 😀
Yes, that seems reasonable.
First of all, let me say that I am always happy for readers to express dissenting views – there are very few ‘absolutes’ in the cruciverbal world (as evidenced by differences of opinion over just what constitutes a ‘crossword’), and discussion is always encouraged!
When assessing words as potential indicators, we tend to look for dictionary meanings which support a specific cryptic sense. So the ubiquitous ‘about’ has senses given by Chambers of ’round on the outside of’ (containment), ‘in the opposite direction’ (reversal), and ‘in motion or activity’ (anagram). Taking a word like ‘have’, the first meaning given by Chambers is ‘to hold’, which justifies its use as a containment indicator. Chambers doesn’t give any sense which directly suggests that the subject is alongside the object. I think that if a house is said to ‘have a garage’, we might infer that the garage was next to it, but it could also be part of the house, or could indeed be in a block some distance away. If a man has a hat, he may be in contact with it or he may not, depending on context (“One of the robbers had a hat” / “He has a hat for special occasions”). In contrast, the word ‘accompany’ can mean ‘to be in company with’, which very clearly indicates proximity. I don’t use ‘has’, ‘gets’ etc myself to indicate juxtaposition because there is no meaningful context in a cryptic wordplay by which to assess their meaning, but there are plenty of other indicators that I like much less!
Many thanks for this thorough, and thought-provoking response, which certainly clarifies your stance to me!
FWIW I’m not entirely persuaded that ‘holding’ in the sense implied by ‘have’ denotes containment very much more than any other sense of the verb. Substituting “holds” with “has” in the phrase “this box holds money” is a stretch…. (Perhaps the sixth definition in Chambers, “to bear” comes closer.)
Nevertheless, my overriding sense remains that our wonderfully ambiguous language’s main verbs of attainment are gloriously slippery, and I feel one should reserve the right to exploit that slipperiness, so long as the wordplay remains intelligible.
At any rate, I reiterate my thanks for this incredibly valuable resource and all the work you put it into it!
This thread of discussion highlights the problem with dictionaries such as Chambers where stark, single-word definitions are – frankly – of very limited use. We certainly cannot infer complete transitivity, such that ‘have’ inherits all the potential meanings of ‘hold’, including (say) ‘keep the attention of’. But which of the meanings does it share? For a long while I resisted including inflections of ‘have’ as containment indicators, because I couldn’t think of a usage where they meant, rather than implied, that something was holding something else (yes, ‘Cumbria has many lakes’ but ‘Cumbria has a border with Lancashire’). I agree about the slipperiness, and would reiterate that in these murky areas the ultimate test is surely the reaction of the solver.
Agreed. Speaking of Chambers, today’s Guardian puzzle, had “polish” to clue “sand” in “sandal”, which outraged me as a sometime woodworker. Then I discovered that the Chambers Thesaurus perpetuates this conflation of two (often connected but) distinct activities…
I noticed “drunk” is listed as a Standard insertion Ind. I can’t think of a logic where A drunk B suggests A in B. Also, Extra is shown as a container Ind (though Advanced). Extra can be outside the scope when used as a prefix but does that suggest containment ?
Similar question on “chaps” too. To chap means to cause to crack rather than to crack. Is that enough to suggest insertion?
It’s one that has been in the list for as long as I can remember, though I’ve never used it myself. The Chambers def of ‘to cause to crack or divide’ suggests that it might be allowable, but based on the examples in OED I think it’s decidedly marginal – the one that offers most support is “The extremely cold winds…chap the timber, and kill the cattle”, which perhaps does suggest the winds actually getting into the timber. That list will be getting a thorough review soon, and ‘chaps’ will certainly be subject to further scrutiny!
Thank you. This is helpful
Thanks for that. The appearance of the past participle ‘drunk’ without a preposition is inconsistent. For the sake of both consistency and clarity it should (and now does!) read ‘drunk by’. So ‘A drunk by B’ would be the typical construction; while “B A’s drunk” (or ‘B A has drunk’) would also be valid (just as would ‘B A drinks’), that is equally true of all the past participle indicators, since they form their perfect tense with ‘has’. I will add a note to that effect in the introductory text.
Incidentally, the Deletion list contains a number of indicators (mainly for ‘departure’) which similarly lack prepositions. I am already in the process of improving that list.
Regarding ‘extra’, it is as you say shown as an Advanced indicator, and that is based on the Chambers entry for extra[2], meaning ‘outside’. This would not be allowed, say, in UK ‘back page’ crosswords, but would be acceptable in barred puzzles such as The Listener (where I have used it myself).
A question on adjectival anagrinds – Is it generally ok to use adjectival anagrinds after the fodder? I have seen setters using them after the fodder but we normally use adjectives before the noun in English so thought there could be some grammatical explanation.
Hi
That’s a very fair question. By convention, adjectival anagrinds can be placed either before or after the fodder on which they act. As you say, this is contrary to typical English usage, but it is not unknown, as in (for instance) ‘attorney general’ or ‘amphibians proper’, or instances of anastrophe (‘in the forest dark and deep’). It’s important to make the distinction between what is commonly encountered in ‘real world’ English and what could legitimately arise, so I think the foregoing is sufficient justification, but since adverbial anagrinds are generally accepted although they cannot legitimately act on a noun expression, there is in any event a requirement for solvers on occasion to make certain inferences. Thus in ‘lean badly’ for LANE the solver must infer something like ‘arranged badly’, and therefore with ‘spoilt rotten’ for PISTOL they could similarly be expected to interpret this as ‘in rotten state‘.
The same applies to letter selection indicators, eg ‘sunny hollow’ for SY.
Hello Dr Clue
First, the usual thanks for constantly updating this excellent resource. Second, and on which very note, I wonder if “confront” might be added as a ‘before/across’ juxtaposition indicator, not least as Collins 14th edition has it as, inter alia, “to be in front of”. Thank you.
Hello Monk
Thanks for that. I’ve added it to my spreadsheet of indicators to be ‘processed’ at the next update (which will happen soon – there are 39 on the list!) One could take the view that it should be valid in down clues, on the basis that the answer is assembled in a horizontal plane before being entered in the grid, but for consistency with eg ‘facing’ I will limit it to before/across.
New homonym (to me anyway) in today’s Times Quick Cryptic No 3126.
9a: Podcaster’s way of running portal (4)
GATE, a homonym of gait.
Hope this helps and thanks for a great site.
Hi Matthew
Thanks for this, and for your kind words.
Seems pretty sound to me, and I like people to think that I’m moving with the times (no pun intended). It will be added at the next update.
Each Azed/Gemelo crossword is accompanied by the tagline “The Chambers Dictionary (yyyy) is recommended”.
In the last century I won a copy of Chambers from The Independent and have been using it ever since for all my dictionary needs, as they say. I often wonder how much I’m missing by not using the latest printed edition.
So I just downloaded the Chambers app and think it’s not something I’ll be using too often, unless it’s got stuff I really need. You see I like the serendipity of opening the wrong page and finding something new, or opening at the word I think I need but finding I’m wrong and the word i actually need is several entries away from it.
All that is a long-winded (I’m Irish, we use English like it’s going out of style) way of asking if you prefer the printed edition or the app?
I actually won twice and for the second chose the thumbnail-index version, which I’m saving as a gift for me new grandchild.
I would suggest that you are missing very little – there are a few new words (and meanings) in each edition, but not many. The 12th edition included a number of ‘enriching’ words, which were highlighted as being of special interest; when the editors said that they wanted to omit these asterisked words from the 13th edition (2014), somebody obviously took them at their word and left them out altogether (whoops!) – they were reinstated in the 2016 printing, which might yet end up being the last new edition of the dictionary. I would say that all barred puzzle setters should have access to the latest (2016) version in either paper or electronic form.
I must admit that while in years gone by my well-thumbed copy of the big red book was one of the first things to be packed when we went on holiday, I now use almost exclusively the electronic versions, for three main reasons. One is that certain words can be hard to find in the paper version due to cross-referencing failures – an example would be BLADDER SENNA in the recent Azed, which appears only under the entry for SENNA. The second is that, as a setter, I am able to take advantage of the search facilities that exist in the electronic versions. And the third is that I can travel a little lighter when going on my hols 😉.
As someone fairly new to Azed clue writing competitions, I’d very much like some feedback on my submission for the last competition. The clue word was ECBLASTESIS and here is the clue…
Budding A-list celebs distraught when left abandoned by society (11)
(A list celebs -L)* + S (society)
On reflection I think the definition “budding” is a little weak, though I note that there are two clues in the VHC section of the slip which use this definition.
Appreciate any thoughts.
It was a very difficult word to define, and Azed clearly gave competitors a degree of latitude – ‘budding’ seems pretty sound to me, given that the Greek word ἐκβλάστησις means ‘shooting or budding forth’.
Your clue seems to me to flow nicely from beginning to end (in the surface reading, nothing is obviously ‘tacked on’). The problem that I see is the word ‘when’ connecting the initial anagram fodder with the element to be removed. The ‘abandoned’ in the cryptic reading is an adjective (a participial one), and therefore the clue requires something like ‘with’ between ‘distraught’ and ‘left abandoned’; a comma would also be valid, and would preserve the intended surface reading, albeit the flow would be broken somewhat.
With ‘when’ followed by the thing to be lost, a passive construction is needed, ie ‘when left is abandoned’ (or “when left’s abandoned”). If the verb has an intransitive form, that could also be used, eg ‘when left goes’.
I hope that is helpful.
That’s very helpful, thank you.
Hello Dr Clue
Is “import” explicitly excluded from the container-indicator list because it requires specification of a source location? For example, we’d accept without batting an eyelid “Now import the data and save it” as meaning “Now import the data [from an external source] and save it”.
Hello Monk
I don’t remember rejecting ‘import’, so I wonder if I’ve ever considered it. Having looked at the definitions in Chambers and Collins, it seems to me that the ‘importer’ is an agent, and the receiver of the thing imported (if stated) would be preceded by ‘into’; I think this also applies to the importing of data, where it would be imported into (say) Excel or a SQL database. Collins gives the relevant sense of the verb as below:
2. (transitive)
to bring in from an outside source
to import foreign words into the language
to import a spreadsheet to a computer system
My first thought based on the above was that ‘X importing Y’ would not work for containment of Y by X, although ‘Y imported into X’ is surely fine. There is, though, a kind of implied reflexivity when the subject of the verb is a body, in particular a nation, so ‘UK importing vast quantities of broccoli’ really means ‘Vast quantities of broccoli are being imported into the UK [at the instigation of various people within the UK]. It certainly doesn’t mean that these people from the UK are importing the broccoli into other countries. In other words, if the subject cannot possibly be an agent of importing, it must be the recipient. So is ‘America importing prime nuts’ a valid wordplay for UMPIRES? I suspect it is. And since in the cryptic reading ‘US’ isn’t a country but just a pair of letters, by extension I think the construction in general is valid, with ‘chap importing ecstasy’ being allowable for MEAN. I can’t imagine that solvers would be put out by such a construction, so I am minded to include it in the container list.
Does the foregoing make any sense?
Good evening Dr Clue
Yes, thank you, it does indeed make sense. I agree too about the implied reflexivity, and you make an excellent point about the US not being a country in the CR. On that basis alone I’d probably make the effort to reword such a clue to employ the ‘Y imported into X’ phrasing, as the MEAN example may, for the reasons you mention, blur the boundaries between CR and SR.
PS How do you italicise/embolden text — I tried TEXT to no avail (the angle brackets don’t even show up as non-html!) — and add emojis (without copying and pasting from another site) here?
I feel much the same way, although it wouldn’t be the only indicator which is made more palatable by the context established in the SR.
Based on some brief testing, HTML ’em’, ‘strong’ and ‘u’ tag pairs seem to work correctly in user comments for italicisation, emboldening and underlining; ‘b’ and ‘i’ tags no longer work reliably (so I need to update this page).
The text representations of emoticons listed here all seem to work, and in Windows using the [Windows key/.] combination to bring up the emoji picker allows me to enter the full range of emojis etc (I believe the equivalent on a Mac is [Command/Control/space]).
I hope the above will work for you.
Thank you
ReverendDr Clue 😀 😉 , though the u tag doesn’t seem to have worked on the word “Thank” 🙁 .When I edit your comment I can see all the other html tags and emoticons, but I can’t see a <u> / </u> pair around the ‘Thank’.
I’ve entered this comment using the form and put ‘u’ tags around the word underline in this sentence.
In the US (where I began setting cryptic crosswords), barred grids are exotic, often reserved for especially-challenging puzzles: much as you describe in your second paragraph. The same appears to be true in Canada, where I now reside. In my view, blocked grids are visually attractive before and after filling; barred puzzles less so. Even so, I would prefer to set barred puzzles, but my insistence that every puzzle have a theme constrains my options (as mentioned already).