Comments on: Guardian Prize Puzzle 25,484 by Araucaria

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:11:07 +0000

Hi Sylvia,

Yes, it makes perfect sense, I often do just the same myself. In some of the more difficult puzzles this may be the only way to start. I didn’t suggest this in the blog since being able to solve all of one set of numerical values with no help from crossing letters is a luxury not available to many beginners.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:44:04 +0000

Hi PeeDee, hope this isn’t too late to catch you.

I normally first read through the clues and solve any immediately apparent, helped of course by their initial letters. Then I create an alphabetical list (including any solutions) and, as you do, a list grouped numerically, which I then check against the squares to be filled. If you find that you have solved all or most of a numerical set you can generally start to fill the grid, noting the length of any spaces with crossing letters and comparing with remaining unsolved clues. So I don’t rely on solving and/or inserting the double letter solutions first. Does this make any kind of sense?

Regards, Sylvia

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:18:52 +0000

Thanks Sylvia. When I get a minute I will go and correct it.

I’d be interested to read your own method too, if you have the heart to re-type it.

The method I describe here is not one I would neccessarily use myself, but one designed for beginners. My normal method would be first to solve as many of the clues as I can ‘blind’ (maybe half of them, including all the 12 and 10 letter words say), and then to start fitting them into the grid using a variety of techniques.

For beginners this may not be very useful advice since without any crossing letters to help they can’t solve enough clues to get started

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:05:11 +0000

Just done a long blog on my way of solving araubeticals, only for it to disappear before posting. Grr! But it’s worth pointing out that PeeDee’s admirable tutorial cites two 9-letter words (there are none) instead of 10, which may have confused new solvers.

By: regalize

regalize — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:25:00 +0000

A bit late for the thread, but as has been said above, a ‘classic’ Araucaria, alphabetical with rhyming clues. This was the stuff that made me perservere with cryptic crosswords hundreds of years ago. I finished this one with a smile.
Thanks Araucaria and Peedee and all setters who make my life worth living with their humour.

By: PeterJohnN

PeterJohnN — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:26:14 +0000

I doubt whether anyone will read this, but these are my FINAL comments on JA WOHL, I promise! My copy of the “Shorter” (though it comprises two hefty volumes) OED, does not include either form of the phrase, nor, ironically, does my Collins concise edition, which was my prize for completing an Araucaria crossword back in 2005!

The Chambers definition is simply “yes indeed.”, with no mention of any military or ironic connotations, so does not really imply “I obey!”.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:49:25 +0000

What great fun! Couldn’t have done it with online tools, of which my current favourite is http://www.onelook.com/

I parsed alf as an ancient variation on elf (hence wight) via http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alf – though Old Saxon might be stretching even Araucaria’s assumptions of the breadth of his solvers’ knowledge.

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:16:56 +0000

Hi Sil, ‘ja wohl’ is used in English in a sarcastic or ironic way, either for comic effect or to be disrespectful to the person one is relpying to.

Since the irony relies on some rather questionable racial stereotyping, I am not surprised that the phrase would not be used in your presence, as you are a foreigner yourself and much too nice a person to risk offending by some remark made in poor taste.

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:45:28 +0000

Sil
“Unfortunately for us, we decided 5d (which it would be in a normal crossword) should be (4,3,8) – wrong!”

The method I gave @3 does not require any other solution.

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:37:42 +0000

Hi PeeDee, no mistake of this being an English crossword.
I just do not understand why “the English language” has adopted JA/WOHL (has it?) in a way that’s wrong. So, no blame on the setter nor the dictionary, but perhaps on the ones that converted JA/WOHL into something that you call “an English language phrase”. BTW, I have never heard a Brit saying JA/WOHL.