Posted by chatmeister on February 17th, 2009
This post is now closed. Please use the ‘General Discussion’ page instead.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 5:00 am and is filed under Archive.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Derek
Your comments are becoming aggressive and inflammatory. Please desist otherwise I will have to delete them.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
So some people say, others seem not worried. But it worries me that those who seem to be upset never report my words, they distort and misreport my words. Have you not seen the growing list of blatant misquotes that I have been obliged to correct? If there is anything been said in private that I am unaware of perhaps you should tell me.
You are unwilling to comment on other people being openly insulting to everybody as per the last post of Friday then? That was acceptable was it?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Derek
To which ‘last post on Friday’ are you referring?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Comment re todays Rufus. In the blog there was uncertainty about what to categorise 17d as. As it happened others pointed out an alternate view which was probably the correct one. However, it did raise the more general point as to what one should call a clue where there are two definitions but one is cryptic.
Normally a cryptic definition clue is a part. Equally normally a double definition is two different straight definitions.
When one definition of two is cryptic, what then is the correct label?
Personally I stick with dd, but that is not because I’m happy with it, more I can’t think of anything better.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Arachne 45.
Presumably all on-line solvers are riff-raff and totally beyond the pale, if these words are to be accepted. I was hurt even if no-one else was.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Chatmeister,
I don’t want to make your job more difficult … but … the “clever-solvers” seem to get forgiveness rather more quickly than the riff-raff.
No one seems to want to debate issues … just put the questioner down …
Does it pain some posters that the “riff-raff” like doing crosswords as well!!!
PS No real complaint intended … just my observation.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Derek
Re comment #55. You have complained that you are regularly misquoted but now you give your own biased interpretation of what was originally said.
There was no action taken on that comment because it came in at 5:22am and I have to sleep sometime.
This debate is not proper to this post. Any continuation should be in Chitchat.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Two def’s with one cryptic: I’d just say “Def and CD” or “two def’s, one cryptic”. That’s not one of the dozen or so recognised clue-type labels, but in real use it seems more common than one or two of them, such as a pure reversal (as opposed to) reversal plus something else.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Yeah, that’s fair enough. Not much else you can do.
I was working on a purely symbolic notation for blogging, taking what we have, but expanding it to try to avoid the use of explanations within a wordplay. It’s easier to hack it symbolically when there are oddities.
This is what I’ve got so far, updated to include the d+cd or cd+d combinations noted above…
# cryptic definition (on a keyboard this is
called a hash sign, in encryption one
uses a hash key)
= double definition (because….
first part = second part)
#= dd where first definition is cryptic
=# dd where second definition is cryptic
? homonym
+ concatenation
* anagram
< reversal
() insertion
[] deletion (deleted letters in lowercase)
{} grouping of simpler components
eg PALIN clued as two word plays
{N(IL)AP}< ! meaning IL inserted in NAP
! all reversed, as opposed to
N(LI)AP< ! meaning NAP reversed
! around LI not reversed
! comments, see many programming languages,
only to occur after the whole wordplay,
as used above
As an example here’s what last weeks Quiptic would look like….
Across
1 ETHICAL {HAT+LICE}*
5 ODDBALL =
10 FUND = ! but “and it’s mine”
! seems a little vague
! for a Quiptic
11 CALAMITIES {I+SMILE+A+CAT}*
12 AFFAIR A+F[ollow]+FAIR
! fair as in fair wind
13 PIGTAILS {I+TIP+GALS}*
14 PENALTIES ANTISLEEP*
16 VIEWS VIE(W)S
17 SWAPS {S+PAWS}<
19 SYLLOGISM {GOLLY+MISS}*
23 DREADFUL D+READ+FUL[l]
24 BESIDE BE(IS<)DE
26 CLODHOPPER C(HOLD*)OPPER
27 LOCK [shy]LOCK
28 CREDITS C+RED+ITS
29 ALGEBRA {A+GARBLE}*
Down
2 TRUFFLE T+RUFFLE
3 INDIA IN+AID<
4 ACCURST AC(CURS)T
6 DAMAGE DAM(AG)E
7 BETRAYING BE(TRAY)ING
8 LIES LOW = ! with a moveable space,
! lie slow
9 SLIPPERY SLOPE #
15 APPLAUDED APPL[e]+AU+D[I]ED
! presuming AU is author,
! but I thought they write
! prose
18 WARBLER W+BARREL*
20 LIBERAL LIBE(RA)L
21 SIDECAR SI[ck]+RACED<
! just as well the
! wordplay + crosschecking
! works, not all drinkers
! are into cocktails,
! teetotallers may also
! have had trouble
22 AFLOAT A+FL(O)AT
25 SALVE #
The example is easier to follow than the explanation I think! It seems to make a clear layout easy to produce.
Any comments? Anyone fancy giving it a whirl?
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
DAMN! I carefully formatted that in columns and the software reformatted it!!!
So much for WSIWYG.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Derek,
I like your notation. I think it would be great for compilers to use some sort of standard notation. The only problem is that using it in the blogs might put off newbies who don’t understand what it all means. Posting the key at the beginning of the blog might help but it would be lengthy and some people might still be put off.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Indeed.
We already have a post in the how to section, which people may not see, because not everyone looks at how to sections.
Some people do put a key in their headers. They are not always as per the how to section.
I guess if my key were put in headers some of the verbiage could be dropped from the key and leave it to the actual solution examples to clarify the meanings. Most of it was there to simplify any discussion here.
Thanks for the feedback.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I don’t think there’s enough benefit in a fixed notation, nor that you can invent one to deal with all possible clues – how do you do triple (or more) defs, some possibly cryptic, for example? For the differences between the proposed (), [] and {}, there’s nothing about these symbols that relates to the meaning, unless the reader checks his “clue explanation reference card”. With the use of lower-case letters for deleted stuff and upper-case for the answer, I think the poissible meanings are usually clear without using different symbols. If ? for “homonym” means a “sounds like”, then putting the “sounded like” word in quotes, as already done quite often, seems to get the point across clearly – e.g. TAUT=”taught”.
Both here and at the Times for the Times blog, bloggers are free to use any notation they like, and to decide for themselves when to rely on a “terse” explanation based entirely on notation and when to explain things in more detail. Although readers of both blogs sometimes ask for more information than the blogger supplied, I can’t recall them saying that they were confused by the different levels of detail between clues, or the notation differences between bloggers.
My own preference at present is to use words rather than symbols (so “rev.” rather than “<”, and “2 def’s” rather than “DD”). But I rely on some symbols which seem clear, e.g. double quotes for homophones, or brackets in R(A)ISE (container) or R(a)ISE (deletion), where the answer and its order of letters help. I do rely on “CD” and * for anagrams, but these seem pretty well-established.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
no genius blog this month? Im dying to find out the ones i missed
Stiofain
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Thanks for the feedback Peter. This is just knocking ideas around, not trying to produce a straight-jacket.
Testy suggested consistency between setters and bloggers might be useful, I have to say it is not often that consistency fails to help. But it’s not that important here, I’m just trying to help those who prefer a more symbolic notation and find the current symbols lacking.
I’m not surprised you say you prefer words to symbols, some of us do, some of us don’t. The main advantage of symbols is conciseness. Some of the longer charade explanations in words can get difficult to follow.
I didn’t invent the use of () and []. Plenty of people here use () for insertion, so that seems established already, I’m not sure I would have chosen that if left to my own devices. [] is less used, maybe because there are fewer deletion clues. But once others have set the insertion precedent, it becomes logical to use another style of bracket for deletions as that is then consistent with how insertions are handled.
Basic schooling includes the rules of arithmetic. So we should all be familiar with the concept of using brackets for grouping, so I have no idea how you can say that doesn’t relate to the meaning when it is a meaning we have all learnt. It would have been nice to use (), but others have already pre-empted that and it is always best to avoid ambiguity by re-use. So, my hands were pretty tied, {} it had to be!
The suggested use of ? is as you say totally wrong. I overlooked the fact that some use “” already. Take it as read that that change is made.
I think that covers everything, do say if it doesn’t. But remember what I said at the start, I don’t want to tie you to anything, I’m just trying to help those who are already using symbols rather than words and sometimes find them lacking.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 am
I’ll buy “round brackets for grouping” as a widely-understood meaning. But my real point was about the allocation of three different meanings to three different kinds of bracket – that’s what I think is both unfamiliar and unnecessary. Take this clue from last week’s Times: Catch a female in nude, discarding outer clothing without embarrassment (9)
This combines a charade (NAB,A,SHE), container (UD), and deletions (n and E from NUDE). I’d show it as
(n)U(NAB,A,SHE)D(e)
and I assume you’d have:
[n]U{NAB+A+SHE}D[e] or [n]U(NAB+A+SHE)D[e]
I just can’t see that the different brackets add enough benefit for the bloggers and readers to learn and remember what [] and {} mean.
To those “using symbols rather than words and sometimes find them lacking”, I’d just say “use symbols when you’re confident that they will be understood”. And where bloggers are worrying about how to notate answers, it’s the reader’s understanding they should be worrying about, not their own preference for symbols or words.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Peter: Ahuh, I think I agree with the general sentiments there. As I said, others have already started using both () and [] and looking at the history of those shrines to symbolic working that we know as programming languages, that history shows that trying to get people to change can be a brick wall head banging exercise, which is why I went along with those ideas.
The only point of using several styles of bracket is to avoid ambiguity. If it is felt that the possibilites of ambiguity are not great or even non-existant then sure, sticking to one style of brackets is fine.
I see you use ‘,’ for concatenation where others use ‘+’. Again that is fine, there is nothing in the rules of defining symbols that says you can’t define alternatives. Someone recently indicated a high number of technical people seem to be doing cryptics. Most of these will have some passing familiarity with programming languages. Whilst those languages vary in many details using ‘+’ for concatenation has become a de facto standard. So I would guess that is the reason people have started using that in blogs. I have no problem with either style.
Again, thanks for the feedback, discovering how others view this stuff is an invaluable insight.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
NB:
homonym = double definition
homophone = sounds like
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
If I may explain what Smutchin Said (#68):
homonym: each of two or more words having the same spelling and pronunciation but different meanings and origin (COD) E.g., Pole – rod; Pole – Polish national. (This gives rise to double or multiple definition clues)
homophone: each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but different meanings, origins or spelling (COD) E.g., new, knew (This gives rise to ‘sound alike’ clues)
March 5th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Could someone explain to me (with illustrations, if possible) the difference between an &Lit clue and a semi-&Lit clue? Is there a demi-&Lit clue?
March 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Cribbing from Don Manley’s book for the samples:
&lit: The whole clue is the wordplay and the whole clue is the def. Example: “No fellow for mixing (4,4)” = LONE WOLF = (no fellow)*.
Semi-&lit: Whole clue is def and wordplay in the usual way, but can also be read as an alternative def.
Sample: Denomination spreading abroad “Christ doeth much” (9,6) = METHODIST CHURCH = (Christ doeth much)*. “Denomination” is the def., but you can read the whole clue as a def too. Crucially for the difference from an &lit, the wordplay is ‘spreading abroad “Christ doeth much”‘ – NOT the whole clue.
demi-&lit: never heard of one. As demi- = “half” = semi-, it would be a very confusing term to choose if intended to mean anything different.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Thanks, Peter.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
To repeat Rishi … thanks Peter.
I often wonder at some of the techo terms as I’ve never read a book on solving (unfortunately not enough time … and the pre-bed sleeping material I prefer a novel).
So I learn on the go hear. I’ve never been brave enough to ask some of the questions for fear of looking sillier than I am…;-)
March 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Peter:
Semi-&lit: Whole clue is def and wordplay in the usual way, but can also be read as an alternative def.
In the above should it be “… but part of the cluecan also be read as an alternative def.”?
March 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Rishi,
No it shouldn’t, but your confusion is partly my fault. Ironically in this discussion of clues that can be read two ways, I did much the same with “Whole clue is def and wordplay in the usual way”. It was supposed to mean that the clue consists of definition plus wordplay in the usual way (i.e. not like an &lit)”, but could have been read as “whole clue is both def and wordplay in the usual way for an &lit”. After clearing that up, the rest should make sense, touch wood.
Monica: “&lit.” is probably the worst technical term in cryptic crossword jargon – unlike “two definitions” or “container and contents”, almost no-one can guess correctly what it’s supposed to mean. (So someone sees clue A called an &lit, doesn’t fully understand why, sees that clue B has some similarity and calls that an &lit, only to be corrected.)
What to do? &lit is in the literature and the jargon so it’s hard to change, but the jargon does change over time – “unclued lights” have become “unchecked letters”, and most of us seem happy to talk of wordplay rather than the “subsidiary indication” – if only because it suggests fun rather than the schoolroom. The best contender as a replacement for “&lit.” is probably “All-in-one”, used by Tim Moorey in his recent book about solving the Times puzzle. On the Times for the Times blog I tried “double whammy”, and one or two people there seem to like it, but I think I’d also have suggested “All-in-one” if I’d thought of it.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Sorry to muddy the waters but I had always thought of semi-&lits as being slightly failed attempts at &lits. Perhaps where some extra bits have been added to the clue just to get the whole surface to work as the literal definition too but without serving any other function; or where the surface merely alludes to the definition.
The two examples given in 71 above seem to me to both qualify as &lits of two slightly different sorts as both have surfaces which also act as literal definitions (hence &lit).
The LONE WOLF clue acts as wordplay and also taken as a whole acts as a literal definition. This is perhaps the purest form of &lit.
The METHODIST CHURCH clue acts as a definition & wordplay and also taken as a whole acts as a literal definition.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Rishi #9 – thanks, and yes, that’s exactly what I meant. To expand further, the point of my comment was that a couple of times recently I’ve seen people write “homonym” when I think they mean “homophone”. At least, according to what I was taught was the definition of these words, which is as Rishi describes…
However, there appears to be some debate on the matter. Chambers, apparently, defines a homonym as “a word with the same sound and spelling as another, but with a different meaning”.
Now I’m confused.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
#69 not #9
March 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Testy/76: I’m not honestly bothered myself whether “&lit” is taken as including both types, except insofar as consistency reduces confusion. I’m just saying how the terms are normally understood at present, which is: “&lit” = the strict kind, and doesn’t include “semi &lit”. Looking back to Ximenes in his 1966 book, he confirms that he chose the name &lit (though he doesn’t claim credit for inventing the technique), and discusses the two types, calling them both “&lit” and describing one as “perfect” and the other (our semi &lit) as an “offshoot type”. He also admits that the name has “from time to time caused misunderstanding”.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Smutchin 77/78: homonym is indeed defined confusingly in some dictionaries. “homograph” more clearly means exactly one of the two contrasting ideas, but I’d suggest not using two “homo-something” words, as they’re likely to be confused by folk who don’t see the difference in meaning from their knowledge of word roots from dead languages.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
By the way, why have broadsheets stopped signalling &lit. clues with an exclamation mark?
March 7th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
For anyone who’s interested, I have a new puzzle online – XWD006.
Number 7, which some of you will have seen already, is also now online. And there are annotated solutions to puzzles 1-5 on my blog. All accessible by clicking my name at the top of this post.
Comments welcome! (On my blog rather than here, though.)
March 7th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Well, Smutchin, that is Good News.
We (that is Beth and me) will surely dive into it, in one of our favourite pubs in or around Cambridge.
We liked your previous efforts very much, so we are looking forward to tackle your recent brainchild.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Beermagnet
I’ve only just been bothered to wade through all this stilted stuff, but pleased to see your comment about grids. I’ll send you copies of the lot if you like – if so advise me of a suitable e-destination.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Sorry – forgot to say that where applicable the Indy setters can make their own grids.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:42 am
I typed out a genuine posting (a request to Paul B) and tried to send it.
But it was not accepted and there came a message that I was posting messages too soon and that I must “slow down” (at age 66).
Really?
I have lost my draft.
Now, if there is any limit to the postings that a member may make in a given time-frame, shouldn’t we have been informed?
March 8th, 2009 at 4:00 am
For my crosswords, I use a stock of six originally created grids (the first of them with lights of 10 letters and fewer, the second with 11 and fewer and so on till the sixth with 15 and fewer).
Having seen the complete set of the Times grids, I would like to see the set of Guardian grids as well.
So if Paul B’s offer to Beermagnet is open to others as well, my email ID is cgrishi{at}hotmail{dot}com[.] TIA.
Of course, I do remember some of the grids such as four +s, four Hs, two pairs of merged +s and so on as I have come to identify them.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:01 am
As for that rejected posting, I must have pressed the “Submit Comment” button with more pressure than necessary!
March 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Paul B
As it happens someone here saw my request and has already sent me the surprisingly small zip of 44 G grids that you originally sent him ! So job done.
I turn, in true chain letter style, I have passed them on to Rishi.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Beermagnet,
Received.
Unzipped – on the fly.
Thanks.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
81/Mike: As far as I know, British broadsheet cryptics have never consistently used an exclamation mark to indicate an &lit. The rule that they always should is enforced by most editors/setters of cryptic crosswords in the US – like a few other rules which don’t apply in the UK. Where their local set of rules is described as simply applying to “cryptic crosswords”, the mistaken implication is that it applies to cryptic crosswords in all countries.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I’m glad you’ve sourced your grids, guys. I’ve been a bit tardy getting back to this thread I’m afraid.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Would someone be able to send me a copy of the Guardian Grids too?
bramblebidder at hotmail dot co dot uk
Thanks in advance.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Forwarded the G Grids again Testy
March 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Well, all this talk of grids, clueing and so-on has tempted me to attempt compilation of a crossword. I don’t expect editors to be falling over themselves in a rush to sign me up but constructive criticism would be welcome. For a copy in PDF format send an e-mail with subject line “Exit CC1″ to enwsaith at aol dot com
March 11th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
OK, boys and girls, pay attention. I am NOT talking here about the well known Crossword Compiler from Wordweb. That cost’s money. But…..
Having received my copy of the Guardian Grids, I spent a merry time transposing the grids into the free Spoonbill Crossword Compiler skeletons format. So if any of you out there use the SB kit and want a zip of these grids in that format drop me line.
Also, whilst I was doing that, it occured to me that I would make significantly faster progress if I generated, for the SB compiler, a set of 4 basic grids where the alternating pattern starts at 1,1 1,2 2,1 2,2. So I made those as well. They are equally available to any who may find them useful.
d dot lazenby at ntlworld dot com
March 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Beermagnet – if you’re not yet exhausted from too much e-mailing, could you bung me a copy at kurwamac[at]gmail.com? Ta.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
And if it’s not too cheeky, could I have a copy please? lankinpark at googlemail dot com. Cheers.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Look at all you wannabees … fantastic !!!!!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Grids off to K & H
Anymore requests to save cluttering this more ask me direct at: ajr at cix dot co dot uk