Comments on: Independent 7825/Quixote

By: Pelham Barton

Pelham Barton — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:13:56 +0000

redddevil @16: I can agree that “to be eaten” would be more correct, and I think it also gives a good surface reading. The more relevant question to me is whether “for eating” is correct enough, and it is good enough for me, but I understand your qualms.

By: redddevil

redddevil — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:04:48 +0000

I guess so PB but wouldn’t “to be eaten” be more correct than “for eating” or am I being too picky?

By: Pelham Barton

Pelham Barton — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:39:37 +0000

reddevil@14 re 8dn: I think you can take all of “that has … for eating” as the insertion indicator.

By: redddevil

redddevil — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:51:38 +0000

Am I the only one with qualms about 8 down? If “that’s” is meant to be “that has” as per blog then where does the eating come in? If “eating” is the insertion indicator (as I read it) then the “that’s” and “for” sit very uneasily.
Either way I’m not especially comfortable with it.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:57:22 +0000

Academic now, PB, though I’d agree wholeheartedly with you about your qualms with ‘use less e = us’ under other circumstances. That sounds like the sort of thing they allow in The Grauniad puzzle.

I have always understood u/s as shorthand for ‘unserviceable’, perhaps because a good few members of my family were servicemen. They knew all that stuff, plus how to avoid the Military Police when on the bezzie run in Malta.

By: flashling

flashling — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:42:00 +0000

@Allan_C #10 yes the site was down for a while this afternoon, database connection error, it happens once a month or so for an hour. Anyway thanks Pierre for the blog for a fairly easy one and Don much appreciated, suspect Tuesday and Thursday will be a bit trickier.

By: Pelham Barton

Pelham Barton — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:57:56 +0000

Further to earlier comments on 17dn:

It never occurred to me that US was anything other than a standard abbreviation for “useless”: one that I have known for years. I was surprised that Chambers 1998 (which I have in my office) and 2008 (which I have now checked at home) both give only “unserviceable”.

The alternative “useless” = “use less” = “use shortened” seems to require two steps both of which I would regard as unsatisfactory. The first (an unsignalled requirement to split a clue word) is widely used, but that does not make it right.

By: Allan_C

Allan_C — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:38:33 +0000

Thanks, Quixote, for a gentle introduction to the week, though not without some thought required. 20d took a little while for the penny to drop until I had the crossing letters, and the long anagram at 6d took some working out. I also thought of 23a as ‘tuppenny’ but using the check button soon put me right.
And thanks, Pierre, for the comprehensive blog.

Btw, has anyone had trouble getting on to the 15squared site this afternoon?

By: Stella Heath

Stella Heath — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:03:42 +0000

Thanks Pierre and Quixote.

This was an enjoyable puzzle, with a couple of moments at 9ac and 19d.

I didn’t know the Collins abbreviation provided by Mr. Barton, and don’t see the logic of it linguistically. I took “useless” to be US less “e”.

Solving online on a small screen, I find it more expedient with the Indy to go from one solved clue to another crossing one, and this saved me from the “tuppenny” trap

I like the alternative clue suggestions offered here.

By: Pelham Barton

Pelham Barton — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:34:58 +0000

Pierre @7: I entirely agree that the most important thing about 14ac and 3dn is that they are good clues.