Comments on: Guardian 23,964/Araucaria – Monkeys and ponies?

By:

Peter Owen — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:25:23 +0000

The Guardian has published a correction to 1 down (the pony/monkey clue), and published a new clue.

Female model left with £25 for a horse (8,4)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1983145,00.html

By:

petebiddlecombe — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:57:32 +0000

Victoria: If stuck on one last clue, it can be worth trying it with each checking letter ignored in turn – in this case, ??H?T?A, M???T?A, M?H???A and M?H?T??. If one checking letter is wrong this may get you to the right answer, in this case from M?H???A. If in a “mahatma situation” (the only thing that seems to fit makes no sense), you have to choose between trying to find something else that fits or identifying a mistake somewhere else in the puzzle. There are of course times when the reason for “mahatma” being the right answer is some bit of knowledge that you don’t have (e.g. a literary ref.), but you can usually recognise that kind of clue.

If you see “plant” as a possible def., the -IA ending is worth considering, like -ITE for rocks.

By:

ilancaron — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:16:57 +0000

MA(HO)NIA (so you should take a look at 24D again). It’s a shrub — which I didn’t know but the wordplay was pretty straighforward.

By:

Victoria — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 02:02:10 +0000

Can anyone explain 23 across (Obsession about house plant, (7))? I’ve got m_h_t_a from the crossing clues. The only thing that looks like it will fit is Mahatma. But that makes no sense to me… Am I missing something, or have I just gone wrong somewhere? It’s driving me to distraction…

By:

BenIngton — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:31:50 +0000

Yes, I’m afraid the great Araucaria got his animals mixed up for 1d unless there’s something I’ve missed. Wonder if he watches ‘Only Fools And Horses’ – I never knew what a ‘pony’ was until I heard the title song…

By:

neildubya — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:37:23 +0000

COED has a pony as £25 and a monkey as £500. As do the online Collins and Chambers.

By:

ilanc — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:01:57 +0000

I think the Shakespearean ref in 25A refers to the fact that his plays always had 5 acts (probably so did the other Elizabetheans) otherwise ACT or for that matter ACT I might have been indicated… so ACT IV is v. much a Shak. thing.

By:

Chris — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:00:05 +0000

I see what you mean about 25a, but I think Shakespearean was supposed to indicate the use of roman numerals for the act numbers (and who else still has four act plays regularly performed?!?).